Month: July 2020

After Dems Exaggerate Impact, Panicked Kids Are Suing Over Betsy DeVos Title IX Changes

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 13, 2020

Distorted partisan descriptions of the Department of Education changes could be doing real damage.

ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN | 7.10.2020 5:05 PM

Seven students are joining a National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) lawsuit challenging new guidelines related to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits education discrimination on the basis of sex. Some of their stories suggest that Democrats’ distorted descriptions of the changes could be doing real damage.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos formally issued the new rules—set to take place August 14—in May 2020, following a massive influx of public comments since she first proposed them back in 2018. But her proposal also ushered in a wave of hyperbolic, misleading, and dishonest claims about what these proposed changes would mean.

Reality-challenged rhetoric about the rule changes has come from folks claiming to represent students’ best interests, like the NWLC. But it’s hard to see how letting young people think the federal government wants schools to stop punishing rapists benefits students—or anyone but Democrats looking to portray the Trump administration as soft on campus rape.

In the NWLC lawsuit, “plaintiffs include a fifth grader in Michigan who fears that her elementary school will not be required to formally investigate and punish her classmate for assaulting her four times over two months” and “a recent graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who decided not to formally report her rape at an off-campus apartment because she believed that the final rule rendered her complaint futile,” according to The New York Times.

That’s incredibly sad, since of course there’s nothing in the new rules saying schools shouldn’t investigate and punish students for sexual assault. (Read more details about what the changes will do here.) Students are being misled by what’s turning out to be a damaging disinformation campaign.

Shiwali Patel, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, told the Times “the fear these students are living with show how real the consequences are of DeVos’s rule.”

But much of this student fear isn’t rooted in what the DeVos rules actually say, it’s driven by Democratic politicians and groups like the NWLC fearmongering about them.

When the new rules were first released, Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.) said they would “undoubtedly make students less safe,” while Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) called theman attack on “student survivors’ rights.” And Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said they send “the message loud and clear that there is no point in reporting assault.”

The NWLC is far from alone in legally challenging the Department of Education’s new Title IX guidance. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuitagainst DeVos and the Education Department, on behalf advocacy group Know Your IX.

And 18 state attorneys general (AGs) are challenging the new rules, in an action filed June 4 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and led by Democratic attorneys general Xavier Becerra of California, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gubir Grewal of New Jersey.

Attorneys general for Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.—all Democrats—are also part of the lawsuit.

New York is also (separately) challenging the rules, with state Attorney General Letitia James explicitly invoking Trump in her explanation.

“The president has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t think sexual harassment is a serious matter, but his callousness now threatens our youngest and most vulnerable and could increase the likelihood of sexual harassment and abuse of students in schools,” James said in an announcement about the suit. The announcement misleadingly describes DeVos’ rules as “undo[ing] protections required by Title IX,” as if prohibitions of gender and sex discrimination at schools will no longer exist.

Presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden has already vowed to reverse the rule changes if elected.

It seems pretty clear that despite the seriousness of the issues involved, Title IX has become yet another set of partisan talking points to tussle over. But those using the DeVos changes to spread misinformation about campus assault might want to think about who is really being harmed by their rhetoric.

PR: Growing Number of Schools Being Investigated for Title IX Violations of Sex-Specific Scholarships

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 13, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Growing Number of Schools Being Investigated for Title IX Violations of Sex-Specific Scholarships

WASHINGTON / July 14, 2020 – Title IX administrators are placing their institutions at risk of a burdensome OCR investigation as colleges continue to violate federal requirements banning scholarships that discriminate on the basis of sex. Title IX’s regulation 34 CFR 106.37(a) prohibits schools from offering scholarships that, “On the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance which is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate.” (1)

On March 16, 2020, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project issued a press release identifying 237 schools that offered sex-scholarships that discriminate against male students (2). In response to complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights, 84 new investigations were opened, with additional complaints still under consideration by the federal agency (3).

In the month of June, OCR opened investigations for single-sex scholarship violations against the following schools:

Auburn University, AL
University of Central Arkansas
Colorado State University-Fort Collins
University of Hawaii System
Boise State University
College of Western Idaho
Ivy Tech Community College, IN
Fort Hays State University, KS
University of Kansas-Lawrence
University of Louisville, KY
Montgomery College, MD
Community College of Baltimore County
University of Missouri-Columbia
University of Missouri-Kansas City
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Montana State University-Great Falls College
University of Montana-Missoula
East Carolina University, NC
Central Community College, NE
Metropolitan Community College, NE
Southeast Community College, NE
University of Nebraska-Omaha
New Hampshire Technical Institute-Concord’s Community College
Truckee Meadows Community College, NV
Kent State University, OH
Chemeketa Community College, OR
University of Memphis
University of Tennessee
Brigham Young University-Provo, UT
Weber State University, UT
Virginia Commonwealth University
Bellevue College, WA
University of Washington-Seattle
Washington State University
Madison Area Technical College, WI
Central Wyoming College

Two of the investigations involve allegations of particularly egregious misconduct. The University of Missouri-Columbia offers 70 scholarships to female students and only 1 scholarship to male students. Similarly, Auburn University in Alabama offers 67 scholarships to females and only 1 scholarship to male students (4).

Tulane University, an institution with not only a history of being investigated by OCR for sexual discrimination but also a history of offering female only scholarships (5), has again found itself under OCR’s microscope. Although Tulane entered into a Resolution Agreement with OCR in 2019 (6), OCR is currently evaluating yet another complaint filed in April against the institution for allegedly violating federal requirements that bar sex-discriminatory scholarships.

Mark Perry, an economist at University of Michigan-Flint who himself files OCR complaints against schools with single-sex campus programs, recently opined, “Universities are for the first time being challenged for violating Title IX by offering single sex programs/scholarships, as they continue to live in the past, as if we’re still in the 1960s or 1970s, by pretending that women are handicapped and disadvantaged.” (7)

These findings highlight how university administrators and general counsel need to exercise greater oversight to correct discriminatory practices or risk a costly investigation by the federal Office for Civil Rights.

Citations:

Campus Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

PR: SAVE Files Amicus Brief Against 18 Attorneys’ General, In Support of New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 10, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Files Amicus Brief Against 18 Attorneys’ General, In Support of New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / July 10, 2020 – SAVE filed an Amicus Brief yesterday in support of the recently released Title IX regulation, which seeks to restore fairness and due process in campus sexual harassment cases. The Amicus Brief highlights the legal inadequacies of the attorneys’ general Complaint, and urges that the Court dismiss their request for a preliminary injunction.

In 2011 the Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” that imposed a range of new campus adjudication procedures for sexual assault cases. These changes removed a number of due process protections, such as the right of parties to be represented by counsel. As a result, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against colleges (1). Amidst intense public pressure, the Department of Education revoked its notorious Dear Colleague Letter in 2017, and later issued a new regulation on May 6, 2020. (2)

One month later, the attorneys’ general from 18 states filed a lawsuit seeking to block the long-awaited regulation. The lawsuit claimed the new regulation will “reverse decades of effort to end the corrosive effects of sexual harassment on equal access to education.” (3)

In response, the SAVE Brief highlights that Title IX “is not limited to the protection of one sex or gender; it protects all.” (page 9) This contrasts with the assertion by the California Women’s Law Center Amicus that states Title IX only serves to protect “women and girls.” (page 8).

The SAVE Brief enumerates the types of sex-based discrimination against male students: Biased educational materials; inconsistent enforcement of policies for male and female students; and a double-standard for intoxication policies. (pages 10-16).

The Brief also provides examples of universities that refused to investigate allegations by male students claiming to be victims of female-perpetrated sexual assault. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, each year 1.7 million men are sexually “made to penetrate,” compared to 1.5 million women who are raped (4).

Noting the hundreds of lawsuits filed against colleges, the SAVE Brief reaches a resounding conclusion:

“This demonstrates a simple truth: male students constitute the overwhelming majority of victims of proceedings on campus that are unlawful and constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, in violation of Title IX. Plaintiffs totally ignore this truth in their Complaint and subsequent Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This is especially astounding given that the deprivation of students’ rights in the disciplinary process,…was a substantial predicate for the issuance of the Regulation.” (pages 9-10)

The SAVE Amicus Brief is available online (5).

Links:

Sexual Assault

Men’s Lives Matter: Male Victims of Sexual Abuse

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 9, 2020

When a woman sexually abuses a man, the pain inflicted is dismissed by those whose political paradigm does not include men as victims. Unfortunately, these voices dominate the research, media, and legislation that surrounds the issue of sexual victimization.

Their narrative: “Women are victims, men are perpetrators.” This rigid approach even ignores the glaring male-on-male sexual violence in prisons because it does not fit the mold; in fact, if prisoners were counted, then men might well show a greater rate of rape than women. The blindness to male victimization inflicts a second injustice on every male survivor who is either viewed as a liar or as unimportant. Female survivors of rape in the ‘50s were treated in much the same way by law enforcement and the court system.

The situation with the sexual abuse of men is slowly changing. A few years ago, the CDC added a category of sexual abuse called “made to penetrate,” which is an important but almost entirely overlooked form of sexual abuse, perhaps because it applies only to males. A report entitled “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions” was published in a 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. There, UCLA researchers Lara Stemple and Ilan Meyer explain, “By introducing the term, ‘made to penetrate,’ the CDC has added new detail to help understand what happens when men are sexually victimized…Therefore, to the extent that males experience nonconsensual sex differently (i.e., being made to penetrate), male victimization will remain vastly undercounted in federal data collection on violent crime.” Stemple and Meyer conclude, “we first argue that it is time to move past the male perpetrator and female victim paradigm [of rape]. Overreliance on it stigmatizes men who are victimized.”

Including the category ‘made to penetrate’ could shift the entire paradigm of sexual violence. The CDC, National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010-2012 State Report, released in 2017, indicates (Tables 3.1 and 3.5):

Males:

Made to penetrate: 1.7 million
Rape: Numbers too small to report a reliable estimate
Sexual coercion: 1.6 million
Unwanted sexual contact: 1.9 million

Females:

Rape: 1.5 million
Made to penetrate: Numbers too small to report a reliable estimate
Sexual coercion: 2.4 million
Unwanted sexual contact: 2.5 million

With this shift of paradigm, female-on-male violence may start to receive attention. The problem is enormous. BOJ statistics for 2018 show the imprisonment rate in America as 431 sentenced per 100,000 residents. Extrapolating from the figures for federal prison, well over 90% of prisoners are male. In its report “No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons,” Human Rights Watch indicate s that approximately 20% of male prisoners are sexually victimized. Most sexual violence professionals, however, seem indifferent to the situation.

The rate of male sexual victims is likely understated because men notoriously underreport their abuse. The National Domestic Violence Abuse Hotline offers several reasons why. They are socialized against appearing “weak”; their abuse becomes the brunt of jokes; they believe there is no support out there for them…and with reason. The Maryland nonprofit Stop Abusive and Violence Environments summarized the situation. “On the one hand, about 25% of men who sought help from DV hotlines were connected with resources that were helpful. On the other hand, nearly 67%…reported that these DV agencies and hotline were not at all helpful. Many reported being turned away.” Their research tells “a story of male helpseekers who are often doubted, ridiculed, and given false information. This…impacts men’s physical and mental health.”

How can this happen in a society preoccupied with sexual abuse? The dominant narrative of sexual violence is identity politics. This claims that a person’s identity is not defined by a common humanity and the choices he or she makes as an individual. It is defined by the specific subcategories of humanity into which a person fits; gender and race are examples. Instead of humanity having common interests, such as freedom of religion, the subcategories have interests that clash. Men benefit at the expense of women. They do so by sexually oppressing women…or so the story goes.

The preceding statement reflects some historical truth. In the ‘50s, men as a class did receive preferential treatment in the workplace, academia, and from the general culture. Women who experienced sexual and domestic violence were blamed for their own victimization. But society has changed at a dizzying pace. We live in a healthier society that contains a fatal flaw: identity politics. If people are defined by biological subcategories that are in conflict, then society is at war—a forever war. Fairness or equality to one class means pulling down another. If men perpetrate sexual violence, then raising up women means policing and punishing males. When facts contradict the narrative, they may be given a cursory nod, then the narrators return to the script.

In the ‘60s, the unjust treatment of female rape victims sparked a sexual revolution that ripped open the culture. But no revolution defends male victims. Instead, the ‘60s revolution has been institutionalized within academia, bureaucracy, and law. It has calcified. The established sexual order now depends on ignoring male victims or dismissing them as inconvenient. It must ignore the fact that violence has no gender. Violence only has individuals who abuse and individuals who are abused. Excluding women or men from either category shows a willful blindness to reality. It expresses political self-interest, not justice.

Source: https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/mens-lives-matter-male-victims-of-sexual-abuse/

Uncategorized

Black students four times as likely to allege rights violations in Title IX proceedings

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 7, 2020

Jonathan Taylor, Founder

Title IX for all

Among plaintiffs whose races are known and when adjusted for student population, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in higher ed Title IX disciplinary proceedings. This data, sourced from lawsuits in our Title IX Legal Database, is based on Title IX For All’s recent research analyzing plaintiff demographic data from the ~650 lawsuits filed against higher-ed institutions since 2011.

This data confirms what many have long suspected: that students of color are significantly more likely to be impacted by higher ed Title IX proceedings. While a sizable portion of plaintiffs are of unknown race, we see no reason to suspect this would disconfirm the basic issue of proportionality.

Please see this attachment for a PDF of the race/sex breakdown of plaintiffs in lawsuits by accused students based on our analysis. The data reveals that when the race of the plaintiff is known, white and black students file lawsuits in fairly even numbers overall. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, however, white students outnumber black students four to one. If they file lawsuits in even numbers, this means that black students are four times as likely as white students to file a lawsuit when adjusted for student population.

These findings come at a time when public officials who have long regarded themselves as champions of civil rights for minorities suspected or accused of crimes advocate a heightened awareness of their rights while simultaneously working to undermine their rights in higher ed settings.

As always, Title IX For All advocates that the rights to due process and freedom from discrimination are fundamental rights for all people and do not stop at the campus property line. Public officials should be consistent with their values and acknowledge that these rights are not in conflict with one another; on the contrary, they are part of the same mission of equal rights for all.

Uncategorized

University of Minnesota considers policy changes to comply with new Title IX regulations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 3, 2020

https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnesota-considers-policy-changes-comply-new-title-ix-regulation

What and when: University of Minnesota Board of Regents Meeting and Retreat (Wednesday, July 8 and Thursday, July 9, beginning at 9 a.m. both days)
Where: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these meetings will be conducted virtually with a livestream publicly available at youtube.com/UMNRegents

As public higher education institutions throughout the country consider necessary adjustments to sexual misconduct policies to comply with new federal Title IX regulations, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents will consider proposed amendments to the University’s policies and processes during its July meeting.

Released by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) last month, these regulations narrow the scope of sexual misconduct (including sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, and relationship violence) that educational institutions are required to prohibit. They also set requirements for how institutions must conduct grievance processes related to Title IX concerns. The University’s policies and procedures must comply with the federal regulations by Aug. 14.

In many places, the DOE regulations set minimum standards and allow individual institutions to make policy choices appropriate for their unique needs. Since the DOE publicly announced these changes, University leaders have reiterated that the discretion built into this guidance will allow the University to continue providing effective and fair response to all types of sexual misconduct that harms University community members, whether that misconduct occurs on- or off-campus.

The Board will discuss the following primary considerations related to these changes:

A uniform standard of evidence for all Title IX cases, whether these matters involve students, faculty or staff;
Adjustments to how live hearings are conducted, as well as the process for appealing University Title IX decisions;
The size and composition of Title IX hearing panels;
The scope of advisor roles for those assisting parties involved in these matters, and;
The level of systemwide centralization the University will employ as it moves forward with updates to its processes.

Since the initial DOE announcement, the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, in collaboration with other University offices, has consulted broadly with students, faculty and staff systemwide to determine how the University can best meet these federal mandates on all five of its campuses. Though University administrators are continuing to gather feedback from governance groups and beyond, consultation in recent months is reflected in materials coming before the Board for consideration in July.

As part of its July meetings, the Board is also expected to:

Act on a recommendation for a one-time employee retirement incentive option.
Hear the annual report from the University of Minnesota Alumni Association, which represents nearly 500,000 alums from the University’s Twin Cities and Rochester campuses.
Act on the purchase of 501 Oak Street SE in Minneapolis and the sale of 1.66 acres at UMore Park in Rosemount.

For more information, including future meeting times, visit regents.umn.edu.

Uncategorized

In college I was falsely accused of sexual harassment. Men like me deserve due process.

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 2, 2020