Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On CampusSave - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On CampusMen and Masculinity
‘While this sort of thinking had been hitherto relegated to bitter eccentrics in unloved corners of academia, suddenly it was grafted into the souls of attractive young heteronormative types, ready to tweet’
‘A post-#MeToo Men’s Amnesty could be possible, where males are open about what they want, what they deserve, and what is fair, expressed without fear or favour, and also without having to be looked at through the prism of feminism’
By Sean Parker
September 25, 2023
Men and masculinity has been under attack across the West for much of the 21st century so far. The hundred year-long struggle for equal rights under feminism culminated in the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, when the war was in essence won. Niggles such as intra-cultural pay gaps remained, let alone traditional and religious attitudes to gendered roles, but by and large equity had been achieved.
Following contemporaneous Title IX sex laws being fully commercialised in the US punishing sexual discrimination, harassment and assault on campuses (and beyond), #MeToo arrived around 2017 to decimate the entertainment industry, for better or worse. From tiny, positive acorns, massive mixed-blessing oaks can grow, and a 1970s version of radical feminism – ‘all men are rapists, thus must be minimised’ – became amplified by the binary-attraction model of internet algorithms.
While this sort of thinking had been hitherto relegated to bitter eccentrics in unloved corners of academia, suddenly it was grafted into the souls of attractive young heteronormative types, ready to tweet. The myth that women were still ignored in a patriarchal society seemed hard to give up, even as the matriarchy took over every lever of power from publishing to government, sliding messaging out anonymously through social media departments.
In poll after poll feminism as an identity to be supported or with which to identify could not surpass 10% prevalence with the public, while domestic violence and sexual assault statistics were re-written in ways favourable to the RadFem cause. High profile men such as Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen and Jeffrey Epstein found themselves posthumously cancelled or in prison due to sexual allegations various. Others, such as Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini and Kevin Spacey found themselves falsely accused but facing massive legal hurdles, and no small degree of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The younger the man in question as time went on, the more problematic the allegations, as the contexts became greyer and greyer. Whether it was law student Liam Allan being falsely accused of rape by a disgruntled ex girlfriend, goth rocker Marilyn Manson facing down numerous lawsuits, or both ex-US president Donald Trump being found liable for sexual assault and incumbent Joe Biden – he who had signed off the Title IX-enacting ‘Dear Colleague’ letter in the first place – being accused of ‘digital penetration’, the gloves were off.
The more public mouthpieces such as family court barrister Charlotte Proudman, academic Jess Taylor and MP Jess Philips were facilitated in increasingly shrill discourse, the more gerrymandered the statistics became. Non-politicised figures such as Cheryl Thomas KC, Canadian academic Janice Fiamengo and Australian journalist Bettina Arndt calmly pointed out the reality behind the headlines, thus enraging the legions of hitherto dormant power-fembots lined up ready to slay rhetorical across the algorithms.
Men’s disquiet with what felt like completely one-sided sexual politic propaganda was growing – and their concern became increasingly echoed in more traditionally-minded women. This traditional-mindedness simply meant those who believed that men and women were at their best when working together, rather than trying to destroy each other in an intersectional, indoctrinated power game.
Andrew Tate brandished his pecs, Masarati, cigars and aviators, and amassed an army of disenfranchised young men (and women) before being put under house arrest in Romania on suspicion of rape and human trafficking. Saifullah Khan took Yale University to court for improperly carried out sexual assault investigations, claiming false allegations had stolen his future – and won. Comedian and neo-political activist Russell Brand had his communication channels cancelled due to coordinated allegations made against his sexual past via Channel 4 and The Sunday Times, a decade after a similar trick had been successfully pulled on WikiLeaker Julian Assange (whose extradition woes rumble on).
Men’s rights activists, often portrayed as far-rightists by the power-feminists, have generally done their best to look after the state of increasingly done-down men and boys, as mothers found their husbands and sons falsely accused and fathers forbidden from seeing their children by an almost completely captured family court system. The XY Crew in the US and the Justice for Men and Boys organisation in the UK try to sneak out their exasperated message via (occasionally) Piers Morgan on Talk TV or YouTube personality Pearl Davis, but the discourse remains decidedly ‘counter’.
While legal dominance and power-feminists capitalise on every inter-personal sexual-political news story, online MRAs will repeatedly point to white working class boys being the worst performing demographic in society, turning to Incel (involuntary celibate) culture as a result. MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) has become a movement in itself: including Passport Bros, who are western males travelling abroad to look for or to be with women who aren’t preoccupied with power dynamics, and are more interested in a peaceful, cooperative, unindoctrinated life.
While it often feels like third and/or fourth wave feminism is in a permanent state of arrested development adolescence, collective masculinity has of late been tiring of being the patient adult in the room, being quietly tolerant as the disruptive delinquent smashes up the kitchen. It’s fully understandable that a new form of post-MeToo male assertion is possible: needing no hate, resentment or even conflict.
Those already in long-term relationships are no doubt happy with their situations, but those terrified of the new pitfalls of modern dating and relationships would be forgiven for turning their backs on the whole shebang. This doesn’t mean turning gay, or becoming addicted to porn; it means focussing creative and adventurous energy on other things, about reassessing aims beyond the indoctrination to nest: how can anyone nest when it’s so full of risk, and mostly for men? If the feminists wanted the end of heteronormativity, they might have almost achieved it.
A male view on the act of sex has been entirely ignored in culture (when that culture isn’t too squeamish to even go there). Emasculated, feminised gyneocentrism is the only sexual conversation in town, even though any mutually satisfactory experience takes two to meaningfully tango. In moving forward from the current chronically biased situation, a Minister for Men in the UK – since there has been a Minister for Women since 1997 – would be a useful voice in UK Parliament. Beyond that, a post-#MeToo Men’s Amnesty could be possible, where males are open about what they want, what they deserve, and what is fair, expressed without fear or favour, and also without having to be looked at through the prism of feminism.
The term ‘toxic masculinity’ needs to be expunged from common discourse in the way that have been racial slurs, and identity theories as they are currently weaponised need to be recognised as the psychological abuse they are. The progressive left shibboleth ‘have fewer babies to save your independence and the Earth’ could be being achieved by stealth through this ‘men walking away’, quietly and surreptitiously, as the psycho-spiritual pressure increases, and so the ideological replacement strategy continues. This replacement theory is a political tactic of removing powerful people by whatever means, and replacing them with approved, on-message characters.
Beyond conflict there must be resolution, even when that conflict becomes intra-national rather than international. Whether that happens by males setting aside romantic or domestic ambitions while aiming their unique energies in less risky directions should be less a matter of bleak desperation rather than one of enlightened choice.
PRESS RELEASE
Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org
Presidential Candidates — Republican and Democratic — Denounce Biden Title IX Plan
WASHINGTON / September 25, 2023 – The Biden Department of Education released a proposed Title IX regulation in 2022 that would redefine sex to include “gender identity.” (1) The proposal has faced strong criticism from lawmakers, attorneys general, and others (2).
A number of presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, have spoken out against the Biden plan, as well:
Ron DeSantis: DeSantis called Biden “off his rocker” over the Title IX proposal, vowing his administration will be “fighting on that.” (3) In 2021, Gov. DeSantis signed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits biological male students from participating in women’s sports (4).
Robert Kennedy: “I am against people participating in women’s sports who are biologically male. I think women have worked too hard to develop women’s sports over the past 30 years, I watched it happen, and I don’t think that’s fair.” (5)
Mike Pence: Pence has promised to “Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and convert some of its current budget to grants to states and localities, providing maximum flexibility in how to deploy federal dollars.” (6)
Vivek Ramaswamy: “The U.S. Dept of Education strikes again – now saying local schools can’t stop boys from competing in girls’ sports. It’s appalling that we spend *$83 billion per year* on this toxic agency. It’s rotten waste. That’s why I’ll shut it down without apology.” (7)
Tim Scott: In 2022, Scott introduced the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, which would bar schools from allowing a student to use a different name, pronoun, restroom or locker room without the knowledge of their parents (8).
Donald Trump: “On Day One, I will revoke Joe Biden’s cruel policies on so-called ‘gender-affirming care,’…we will promote positive education about the nuclear family…I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the U.S. government are male and female…the bill will also make clear that Title IX prohibits men from participating in women’s sports.” (9)
The Title IX Network was formed in 2022 to oppose the Biden Title IX proposal, and now consists of 217 organizations working at the national, state, and local levels (10).
Last week, 59 member organizations called for the resignation of Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon for violations of her Oath of Office in connection with her efforts to change Title IX. The Statement was released at a press conference held in Washington, DC (11).
Lawmakers and others who support the resignation of Catherine Lhamon should express their concerns directly to the Department of Education: alejandro.reyes@ed.gov
Citations:
PRESS RELEASE
Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org
59 Groups Call for Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon to Resign for Violating Oath of Office
WASHINGTON / September 21, 2023 – Fifty-nine organizations today are calling for the resignation of Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon for repeated violations of her Oath of Office. The Statement was released at a press conference held today in Washington, DC.
When Lhamon became a federal employee, she took this Oath of Office: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
Unfortunately, in the process of developing a new Title IX regulation (1), Lhamon has broken three key provisions of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress passed Title IX in 1972 with the understanding that Title IX was designed to apply to the male and female sexes (2). Title IX was not intended to include protections on the basis of gender identity. Lhamon’s proposed Title IX regulation would change the definition of “sex,” representing a dramatic usurpation of Congressional authority.
In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.” (3)
But the Department of Education’s proposed regulation rejects the Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment, proposing that speech would only need to be “pervasive” or “severe” to violate Title IX. One federal court has ruled such a definition to be “staggeringly broad.” (4)
Dozens of federal courts have affirmed a series of due process rights for college students, including the rights to an impartial investigation, elimination of pro-complainant bias, notice to the accused, cross examination, access to evidence, and evaluation of evidence (5).
But Lhamon’s proposed regulation would severely weaken or eliminate the following due process protections for students accused of a Title IX infraction:
For these reasons, 59 organizations have endorsed a Statement calling for Lhamon’s immediate resignation from office (6).
Citations:
What ‘Privilege’? On a Minister for Men
By Sean Bw Parker
September 8, 2023
‘Over the last century we’ve worked hard with equality to put women at the table along with men which is super important. But we can do two things at once’ — Nick Fletcher MP
Do boys and men at last have a hero in the UK House of Commons? Softly spoken northern MP Nick Fletcher is proposing a Minister for Men (MfM), and this seemingly radical idea has prompted lively debate on BBC Radio Four’s Woman’s Hour. The fact that Minister for Women Caroline Nokes has been an strident rhetorical attacker of men, in word or in tone, in recent years might surely have played into Fletcher’s thinking on this initiative.
Debate on Women’s Hour threads tended to circle back to the craven point that happier men would be also better for women. No doubt, but is the proposal simply some sort of levelling-up? The fact that there wasn’t a Minister for Men automatically created when the women’s position was created is already injustice enough. Justice for men and boys has to neither genuflect to the justifiably won rights of women, nor somehow apologise for its own existence.
Twenty-five-plus years after the Westminster demographic shift of Blair’s Babes (and their male facilitators) passing policies virtually unopposed, ‘affirmative action’ has been exposed as the imbalanced prejudice it always was, as democratic representation of the people’s choice has gradually returned. In an advanced liberal democratic society members of parliament should be elected solely by the residents of their constituencies, regardless of sex. It’s not up to civil service wonks to socially engineer them out of their wrong-choice.
The apparently terrifying figure of ‘self-declared misogynist’ Andrew Tate is invoked in every other line on the MfM subject, rather than being the cartoon cut-out idea of machismo that most see him as. One of the duties of the incoming MP will presumably be to make sure school pupils stop asking awkward questions about Tate’s brand of unapologetic masculinity (Romanian human trafficking and rape charges notwithstanding). Tate has his nemesis however in Charlotte Proudman, a similarly attention-hungry online force, a self-declared ‘c*nt’ who tweets almost hourly against men in any story into which she can spanner her undergraduate rage-musings. Great look for a family court barrister, you might think.
Regarding the “The Misogyny Myth,” John Tierney writes:
“This instinct to protect women has been essential for societies to survive, but it has also made us easy prey for a modern industry of academics, journalists, activists, lobbyists, and bureaucrats who falsely blame sexism for any gender gap that doesn’t favor women.”
Back on Women’s Hour, following robust early points made by Mike Buchanan of Justice for Men and Boys, female callers were mixed in their reception of the idea of a MfM. ‘Male privilege’ was repeatedly mentioned without challenge by the host. What privilege is this? The privilege to be the most likely to die by suicide, at work, or years earlier than women? The privilege to be more likely to be the victim of violence, false allegations or massive prejudicial bias in the family courts? Or the privilege to be denied work or opportunities due to diversity of ‘positive discrimination’ policies that preclude them on the basis of the immutable characteristic of their born sex?
The truth is that privilege in the west is (still) based on class and wealth; rich men and women are privileged, the poor somewhat less so – while the risible 2010 Equality Act insists all outcomes be the same, in a horrendous real-time race to the bottom, played out in an increasingly incredulous media. The theory that the angry reaction that many males are expressing in response to the current blanket misandry across mainstream culture stems from ‘fear’ was also repeated. Anger about injustice is not fear – it’s anger about injustice.
Endless messaging about the ‘patriarchy’ and ‘toxic masculinity’ – both theories that have been massively damaged since the Depp-Heard trial and exposes about #MeToo-era corruption in the media – have left males of all ages feeling shut out of a society built by their forefathers. Ideological activists, emerging from gender studies indoctrination for the last thirty-plus years, have metastasized from academia to publishing, to television and the civil service, and now every message channel is full of relentless ‘with us or against us’ rhetoric.
This has become a silent political extremism, and that is why Nick Fletcher is correct, and brave, and very very necessary.
The Myth of Female Under-Representation in STEM
SAVE
September 7, 2023
Higher education leaders often claim that women are underrepresented in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. Like so much else in higher ed, this claim is false. A recent series of posts explains why.
Ever wondered why you hear ‘35% of stem graduates are women’, when HESAs own data show actually 54% of STEM graduates are women? Here’s the hidden secret of “STEM:”
‘STEM’ is a carefully crafted political term that removes the sciences in which women are over represented.
Biology (where women dominate) is not considered to be “STEM”… medicine… psychology… veterinary science… neuroscience… none of these are considered to be “STEM.”
Breakdowns by Sex of Several Science Fields that are Excluded from the STEM Definition
| Field | Female Share | Reference (listed at end of article) |
| Nursing | 82% | (1) |
| Veterinary Medicine | 81% | (2) |
| Psychology | 79.1% | (3) |
| Biology | 63.2% | (3) |
| Medicine | 53.8% | (4) |
Case Study: Veterinary Medicine
As seen in the table above, women account for 81% of veterinary students nationwide. This female share is one of the highest sex disparities among professional programs. In light of this discrepancy, you’d think veterinary medicine leaders would be starting outreach programs to encourage more male students.
Instead of correcting the imbalance, they’ve allowed it to become significantly worse. Below are data from Iowa State’s veterinary medicine program.
Before 2017, the male share of the class ranged between 22% and 30%. Starting about eight years ago, however, the share of male students has been cut almost in half and held steady (with two exceptions) at 17%:
Male Student Enrollments at Iowa State Veterinary Medicine Program
| Grad Class | Male % |
| 2026 | 17.6% |
| 2025 | 18.2% |
| 2024 | 17.8% |
| 2023 | 17.5% |
| 2022 | 13.4% |
| 2021 | 17.4% |
| 2020 | 22.6% |
| 2019 | 17.5% |
| 2018 | 20.0% |
| 2017 | 24.0% |
| 2016 | 24.2% |
| 2015 | 25.5% |
| 2014 | 28.8% |
| 2013 | 31.5% |
| 2012 | 26.4% |
| 2011 | 24.0% |
| 2010 | 22.5% |
| 2009 | 23.3% |
These numbers are even more inexplicable when you consider there is a substantial shortage of large animal vets nationwide.
Women Vets Shun Work on the Farm
Female veterinarians generally prefer small animal practices over large animal practices, which has contributed to shortages of large animal vets:
The growing ranks of female vets prefer a career looking after pets than pigs or cattle https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/30/gender.ruralaffairs
Wanted: More large-animal veterinarians. https://www.farmprogress.com/animal-health/why-large-animal-vets-are-in-short-supply
In conclusion, the claim that females are underrepresented in science fields is a myth.
References:
(1) “What Percentage of Student Nurses Are Female,” available at https://www.zippia.com/answers/what-percentage-of-student-nurses-are-female/
(2) “The Gender Divide — Truth be told, misogyny is a problem in veterinary medicine. Our increasingly female profession can take constructive steps to even the playing field,” available at https://todaysveterinarybusiness.com/misogyny-veterinary-profession/ (“According to data from the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, women comprise 81% of DVM students.”)
(3) “Chart of the Day: Female Shares of Bachelor’s Degrees by Field, 1971 to 2019, available at https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-female-shares-of-ba-degrees-by-field-1971-to-2019/ (“In 2019, women [earned] more than 62% of the bachelor’s degrees in 9 out of the 16 academic fields: Health Professions (84.3% and the greatest gender imbalance for either sex for the 16 majors), Public Administration (82.7% and the field with the second-highest gender imbalance), Education (82.0% and the field with the third-highest female share and the greatest share ever), Psychology (79.1% and a record high female share), English (71.3% and a record female share), Foreign Languages (69.1%), Communication and Journalism (65.6%, a new record high), Biology (63.2%, a new record high)”). (emphasis added)
(4) “The nation’s medical schools grow more diverse,” available at https://www.aamc.org/news/nation-s-medical-schools-grow-more-diverse (“Women again accounted for the majority of applicants (56.5%), matriculants (55.6%), and total enrollment (53.8%) — the fourth consecutive year that women made up the majority of all three groups.”)
‘Ayudar & Crecer’ Foundation Calls on Citizens and Victims of False Accusations to Raise Their Voices on International Falsely Accused Day
This September 9 marks the third anniversary of Falsely Accused Day, an international initiative aiming to spotlight flaws in the judicial system related to false accusations while upholding fundamental legal guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, due process, and equality before the law.
Originating from the case of British teacher Simon Warr, which shook the education sector in England, the initiative has gained international prominence. It engages individuals and organizations across countries in raising awareness about the damage and injustices caused by false accusations.
In Argentina, the education sector has not been immune to this phenomenon. Collectives have been formed to defend affected colleagues, as seen in the cases of Lucas Puig and teacher Erika Vázquez. Marches have been organized in various cities demanding protocols to prevent false accusations in classrooms.
The ‘Ayudar & Crecer’ Foundation has taken a step further by creating the False Allegations Observatory, an online platform allowing victims and their families to securely report their cases. It serves as a data repository aimed at providing detailed analysis to promote judicial reforms and raise awareness about false accusations.
After a year of recording cases, the Observatory published its first statistical report in June, providing an initial view of the situation in Argentina. It will continue to compile additional data with the aim of identifying recurring patterns across various jurisdictions in the country.
Adding weight to this cause will be activist and YouTuber Valentina Ortiz, who collaborates with the Observatory and has recently gained media attention for her role in the controversial Palermo Case. From Córdoba, she will live-stream on her Instagram account to give voice to those affected by false accusations. The public is invited to dress in black and carry a candle in memory of those who have taken their own lives as a result of false accusations.
Additionally, Andrea Guacci, collaborator with the Observatory and leader of the Women’s Front of Argentina, has mobilized a group of women focused on defending not only the rights of falsely accused men but also women who face collateral consequences: aunts cut off from nephews, grandmothers separated from grandchildren, daughters parted from fathers, mothers and new partners whose life plans are ruined. They aim to address this issue which they feel is wholly neglected by the government. Simultaneously, legal reforms are also being advocated to penalize those who make public shaming and false gender-based accusations.
Observances and Marches Across the Country:
The main gathering will take place in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. Scheduled for Saturday, September 9 at 5:00 pm in Parque Lezama, the event aims to demand justice on Falsely Accused Day. It will feature the participation of several groups, including “No Mas Hijos Rehenes”, representatives of the False Allegations Observatory, Union Latam Argentina, Frente de Mujeres Argentinas, Nosotras por Ellos, NGO Joshua, Morelli Foundation, Healthy Parenting Bahía Blanca, Parents from Río Negro and Neuquén, Infancia Compartida, and many others.
Aside from the main gathering in the Capital City of Buenos Aires, events will be held in various cities:
● Capital Federal: Parque Lezama
● Bahía Blanca, Provincia de Buenos Aires
● Pilar, Provincia de Buenos Aires
● Gualeguay, Entre Ríos
● Santa Fe Capital, Santa Fe
● Rafaela, Santa Fe
● Rosario, Santa Fe
● Córdoba Capital
● Resistencia, Chaco
● La Rioja Capital
● Neuquén Capital
● Cipolletti, Neuquén
● Mendoza Capital
● Bariloche, Río Negro
● San Miguel de Tucumán, Tucumán
Similar events will take place globally, including a march in Chicago, IL, and various protests in the United Kingdom coordinated by FalselyAccusedDay and other organizations.
This year, more people in Latin America and around the world are expected to join the unanimous call of “No More False Accusations”. The Ayudar & Crecer Foundation invites all affected individuals and their families to participate in a collaborative video that will be widely disseminated.
To be part of this important cause, send your photo via email to
prensa@observatoriodefalsasdenuncias.org or post your photos on social media with the hashtags:
Here is a video of those who participated last year::
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CiTiJyUN_1N/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=6e46e803-afef-4
27e-b84b-9a486d3baf20
About the False Allegations Observatory:
The False Allegations Observatory is a non-governmental organization based in Argentina that works on identifying, documenting, and analyzing reports of false accusations. Founded in 2021 and with its digital platform relaunched in 2022, the Observatory is an open space for victims to safely report their experiences. With a dedicated team of legal and social professionals, the Observatory strives to promote transparency in information, conducting ongoing monitoring and analysis of reported cases. Its mission is to provide statistical data through case surveys to foster transparency in the justice system surrounding this issue. Through education and data dissemination, we aim to eradicate all forms of violence and raise awareness about the severity of false accusations. The False Allegations Observatory is administered by the Ayudar & Crecer Foundation.
UK Falsely Accused Protest Gains Momentum for International Falsely Accused Day 2023
September 4, 2023 – In a resolute stand for justice for the falsely accused and wrongfully convicted, the Falsely Accused Day movement is spearheading peaceful protests on Saturday 9th September 2023. Demonstrations will take place from 2pm – 4pm outside New Scotland Yard, Victoria Embankment in London and HMP Liverpool, 68 Hornby Road, Bootle. This year marks the third anniversary of Falsely Accused Day, an initiative that has attracted global attention, inspiring activists around the world to rally against the grave injustice of false accusations.
While expressing unwavering solidarity with genuine victims of rape or sexual assault, the FAD campaign emphasises that not all allegations are substantiated. The focal point of Falsely Accused Day is to raise awareness that innocent individuals can find themselves wrongly accused of sexual offences leading to profound, often life-changing, negative consequences. Through peaceful demonstrations, the event seeks to underscore the significance of Due Process and the protection of the rights of those accused.
The influence of this movement has transcended national borders, sparking international demonstrations. On 8th September 2023, demonstrations are scheduled in the USA, followed by rallies on 9th September 2023 in Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. The launch of International Falsely Accused Day 2023 amplifies the collective voice against wrongful convictions and the erosion of fundamental rights.
At the heart of this protest lies the stories of individuals like Andy Malkinson who endured 17 years of wrongful imprisonment for a crime he did not commit. Such cases serve as poignant examples, underscoring the pressing need for a justice system that is just, impartial and equitable.
Acknowledging the imperative of supporting survivors, FAD points out the potential pitfalls of the “believe the victim” approach. This stance can sometimes undermine the presumption of innocence, leaving those falsely accused at a disadvantage in proving their innocence. The pressure exerted by the government on law enforcement agencies and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to secure convictions can inadvertently lead to biased investigations and trials that do not afford defendants a fair chance.
A pivotal factor contributing to these miscarriages of justice is the selective withholding of exculpatory evidence by law enforcement and the CPS. This practice can obstruct the emergence of truth in courtrooms, further perpetuating wrongful convictions that exact a heavy toll on innocent lives.
Tragically numerous individuals are presently incarcerated for crimes they did not commit, highlighting the urgency of addressing this systemic issue. Equally concerning is the practice of awarding financial compensation and guaranteed lifetime anonymity to false accusers, which may inadvertently encourage malicious intent.
This protest serves as an impassioned call to action for legislators, law enforcement agencies and the public at large to join forces in advocating for a justice system that upholds the rights of all individuals, maintains Due Process and prevents the devastating consequences of false accusations. MPs, celebrities and concerned members of the public are cordially invited to stand in solidarity on 9th September and demand justice for those wrongly accused.
For media inquiries and additional information, please contact:-
Lyn Crabtree (lyncrab99@hotmail.com)
or
Sheila Harmon (sharmon456@gmail.com)
Falsely Accused Day is an annual event committed to raising awareness about the predicament of the wrongly accused and advocating for reform within the justice system. Originating in the UK, this initiative has garnered international traction, uniting activists worldwide in their pursuit of equitable justice for all.
UK Falsely Accused Protest Gains Momentum for International Falsely Accused Day 2023
London, UK – In a resolute stand for justice for the falsely accused and wrongfully convicted, the Falsely Accused Day movement is spearheading peaceful protests on Saturday 9th September 2023. Demonstrations will take place from 2pm – 4pm outside New Scotland Yard, Victoria Embankment in London and HMP Liverpool, 68 Hornby Road, Bootle. This year marks the third anniversary of Falsely Accused Day, an initiative that has attracted global attention, inspiring activists around the world to rally against the grave injustice of false accusations.
While expressing unwavering solidarity with genuine victims of rape or sexual assault, the FAD campaign emphasises that not all allegations are substantiated. The focal point of Falsely Accused Day is to raise awareness that innocent individuals can find themselves wrongly accused of sexual offences leading to profound, often life-changing, negative consequences. Through peaceful demonstrations, the event seeks to underscore the significance of Due Process and the protection of the rights of those accused.
The influence of this movement has transcended national borders, sparking international demonstrations. On 8th September 2023, demonstrations are scheduled in the USA, followed by rallies on 9th September 2023 in Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. The launch of International Falsely Accused Day 2023 amplifies the collective voice against wrongful convictions and the erosion of fundamental rights.
At the heart of this protest lies the stories of individuals like Andy Malkinson who endured 17 years of wrongful imprisonment for a crime he did not commit. Such cases serve as poignant examples, underscoring the pressing need for a justice system that is just, impartial and equitable.
Acknowledging the imperative of supporting survivors, FAD points out the potential pitfalls of the “believe the victim” approach. This stance can sometimes undermine the presumption of innocence, leaving those falsely accused at a disadvantage in proving their innocence. The pressure exerted by the government on law enforcement agencies and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to secure convictions can inadvertently lead to biased investigations and trials that do not afford defendants a fair chance.
A pivotal factor contributing to these miscarriages of justice is the selective withholding of exculpatory evidence by law enforcement and the CPS. This practice can obstruct the emergence of truth in courtrooms, further perpetuating wrongful convictions that exact a heavy toll on innocent lives.
Tragically numerous individuals are presently incarcerated for crimes they did not commit, highlighting the urgency of addressing this systemic issue. Equally concerning is the practice of awarding financial compensation and guaranteed lifetime anonymity to false accusers, which may inadvertently encourage malicious intent.
This protest serves as an impassioned call to action for legislators, law enforcement agencies and the public at large to join forces in advocating for a justice system that upholds the rights of all individuals, maintains Due Process and prevents the devastating consequences of false accusations. MPs, celebrities and concerned members of the public are cordially invited to stand in solidarity on 9th September and demand justice for those wrongly accused.
For media inquiries and additional information, please contact:
Lyn Crabtree (lyncrab99@hotmail.com)
or
Sheila Harmon (sharmon456@gmail.com)
About Falsely Accused Day
Falsely Accused Day is an annual event committed to raising awareness about the predicament of the wrongly accused and advocating for reform within the justice system. Originating in the UK, this initiative has garnered international traction, uniting activists worldwide in their pursuit of equitable justice for all.
Communications from Brett Sokolow to the Office for Civil Rights Reveal Strong Support for 2011 Dear Colleague Letter
Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23933046-17-02732-f
Below are two messages from Brett Sokolow to the Department of Education in 2011 and 2012 regarding the DOE’s 2011 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). In these messages, Sokolow repeatedly expresses his support for the controversial policy:
September 6, 2011:
February 7, 2012:
See entire communications, below:
Pages 35-36
From: Brett Sokolow
<brett@ncherm.org>
To: Ali, Russlynn
Sent: Tue Sep 06, 2011
Subject: Title IX Keynote Invitation
Dear Asst. Secretary Ali,
I hope you are doing well. I have a number of items I want to raise, and I was hoping we might find an opportunity to do it in person. Please let me know if my partners and I can meet with you at a time of your convenience. On a personal note, you may or may not know of our work, but we have worked diligently for the last fourteen years to advance the cause of Title IX compliance on campus sexual violence with student affairs administrators. Our efforts were met with great skepticism until the DCL, the issuance of which now has us looking like prophets. That’s credit beyond what we deserve, but our advocacy of Title IX compliance, cases and complaints has been substantial and now carries an authority we could never have dreamed it would.
Because of that, it seems like FIRE, the False Rape Society, and the Mens’ Rights folks have us both in their sights these days. I’m happy to be taking some of the pressure off of you the last few weeks, though I expect that’ll be short-lived. I thought your comments this week to the Christian Science Monitor were very helpful to many college administrators who are left wondering whether the FIRE and AAUP attacks on the DCL will carry any weight. They need to hear your pushback. Talk in the field is that Harvard and Princeton are publicly stating that they intend to contest the imposition of the preponderance standard, and their codes of conduct are still publishing higher standards as of the start of this semester, post-DCL and with investigations ongoing. Resolving those complaints should bring about some greater finality, but it is fascinating to watch so many campuses making fundamental changes all at once. Historic, really.
If you are looking for a vehicle to carry the message further, we are hosting a campus sexual misconduct web stream on Sept. 12th. There will be hundreds of campus conduct officers participating. If we can share a written, live or recorded word from you or OCR, we’re happy to make space for you.
On another front, I have put your name forward to both ACPA and ASCA, two national higher education associations that have deep interest in Title IX, and I expect they have been in touch to invite you to their conferences. I hope you can attend or send an OCR representative.
Finally, you may be aware that we launched ATIXA in mid-August, the Association of Title IX Administrators (www.atixa.org). We have 225 members in less than a month, which is very exciting. We are accomplishing some amazing things as the result of the momentum created by the DCL. We are planning our first annual conference in 2012 to coincide exactly with the 40th Anniversary of Title IX. We have a substantial event planned for June, with a commemoration reception on the anniversary. Please consider this my formal request to have you preside over this reception and/or provide a keynote address at the conference in Chicago. We have a decent budget to make this event a centerpiece of national Title IX anniversary events, and hope OCR will tie some of its efforts to ATIXA’s, whether it be by personal appearance, content sessions at the conference, a platform to issue new Guidance, etc.
You may also know that I am trying to include OCR representatives in the Title IX Coordinator Training events we are doing around the country. Gayle Sakowski in the San Francisco office had to pull out of our early August event in St. Louis at the last minute, but we have upcoming events in Philadelphia, San Antonio and Atlanta. We’re trying to work with a few OCR offices, but I wonder if there is a way we could orchestrate a consistent OCR representative (as these events are not regional in attendance) to share a broader perspective on compliance and enforcement than we can?
Sorry to dump all of these inquiries on you at once, but hopefully they can serve to form a bridge of communication between us that is beneficial to advancing Title IX compliance in schools and colleges. Again, please let me know when we might be able to schedule a meeting in Washington or another location that is convenient for you.
Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow. Esq. Attorney-at-Law
Managing Partner, The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (www.ncherm.org)
Executive Director, The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (www.nabita.org)
Executive Director, The Association of Title IX Administrators (www.atixa.org)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pages 38-41
From: Nancy Hogshead-Makar
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:52 PM
To: OCR; Ali, Russlynn
Subject: Support for the April DCL on Sexual Harassment and Violence under Title IX
Dear Assistant Secretary Ali,
Please find the attached letter, signed by 47 organizations, in support of the April 4th, 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter” on sexual harassment and violence under Title IX.
Warm regards, Nancy Hogshead-Makar
Senior Director of Advocacy, Women’s Sports Foundation
8787 Baypine Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32256
904 – 680 – 7784 w
904 – 307 -4293 c
904 – 680 – 7771 f
@Hogshead3au
NhogsheadgWomensSportsFoundation.org
++++++++++++++
[Text of Letter – entire letter with footnotes is available at https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/organizational-signon-for-dcl-re-sexual-violence-2012-final-sign-on-3.pdf ]
February 7, 2012
[Letterheads of the Women’s Sports Foundation and ATIXA: Association of Title IX Administrators]
Russlynn Ali
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Office for Civil Rights United States
Department of Education
Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building
400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202-1100
Sent by E-mail, U.S. Mail and Facsimile (202-453-6012)
Re: WE SUPPORT THE TITLE IX DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER ON CAMPUS SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Dear Assistant Secretary Ali:
On April 4th, 2011, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague Letter,” (DCL) which explained schools’ responsibilities for addressing campus sexual violence under Title IX. 1 While the letter does not amend Title IX or depart from previously issued regulatory guidelines, it provides depth and explanatory content on compliance standards. Announced jointly by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the DCL signals the OCR’s strong commitment to increased enforcement of Title IX as a prohibition against discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment and sexual assault. Overall, the DCL addresses needed improvements in the promptness of administrative responses and resolutions of complaints, and enhanced equity in policies, investigations and procedures. The DCL also notes in particular that complaints against athletes must be subjected to the same rigorous standard as when the accused individual is a non-athlete.
Certain provisions in the DCL have been the subject of public controversy. This statement is intended as a response to that controversy and as a declaration of support for the DCL as a whole.
The two main provisions of the DCL that have generated the most debate are:
Each of these will be addressed in turn and considered through the lens of Title IX’s mandate requiring prompt, equitable and effective redress and remedies.
THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD
Proof by a “preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.” Contrary to a few highly publicized claims, the DCL’s requirement of a preponderance of evidence standard is neither new nor controversial. Indeed, according to Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, approximately 80% of colleges and universities were already using the standard prior to the issuance of the DCL. This reflects, in part, the OCR’s consistent message to school over many years and administrations that they must apply a preponderance of evidence standard. Prior to the issuance of the DCL, a minority of schools applied a “clear and convincing” or “clear and persuasive” evidence standard. This much higher level of proof had already been rejected by the OCR long before publication of the DCL.
The preponderance standard is the only equitable choice under Title IX as it avoids the presumption, inherent in a higher standard of proof, that the word of a victim is less weighty than the word of an accused individual’s denial. It also enables school officials to render more decisive findings with greater confidence, given that a determination that one individual is more credible than another will support a finding. This is important given widespread criticism of school policies that enable decision-makers to claim they “believed” the victim, thus offered her counseling services, etc., but did not believe her enough to justify a finding against the assailant.
While Title IX’s equity mandate does not require that similar violations receive the same punishment, it does require that discrimination based on sex be subjected to the same policies and procedures as other forms of discrimination. As institutions routinely apply a preponderance standard to allegations of harassment based on race, ethnicity, disability, etc., it would be inequitable in the extreme not to apply the same standard to matters involving discrimination based on sex.
Because the preponderance standard allows for high confidence in decision-making, it better enables schools to take effective steps to prevent the future recurrence of discriminatory behavior, and to repair harm done to the school community.
Finally, a preponderance standard is appropriate because it is the applicable standard of proof in civil litigation when issues of sexual harassment and assault are redressed. If civil courts must apply a preponderance of evidence standard when holding schools and/or individuals accountable for negligence and intentional tort claims and civil rights violations, then schools should be obligated and empowered to protect their communities under the same standard. To conclude otherwise would ironically render victims more vulnerable to violence and harassment on college campuses than in the relatively less regulated “real” world simply because a lower standard will be less effective in deterring and vetting out harmful behavior within the community. Furthermore, with the same standard in place for school-based proceedings and civil justice matters, students may be less likely to file lawsuits because they will no longer perceive the civil justice system as affording a more favorable venue for legal redress.
THE EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF VICTIMS AND ACCUSED STUDENTS
Fair treatment of victims and accused students is consistent with the explicit mandate that schools adopt policies providing for “equitable” redress. The DCL is clear that the rights, benefits, privileges or opportunities typically extended to accused individuals should also be extended to victims. For example, if an accused individual is provided with a right to an advocate, the same benefit should be made available to the victim. Equity also requires that relevant investigative materials be provided by the school to the accused individual and to the victim, such that they have equal opportunities to prepare and respond. The victim should neither be burdened with the responsibility of serving as a kind of “prosecutor” during the process, nor be relegated to the role of mere witness with no individual rights at stake. Title IX obligates the school, not the victim, to take all responsibility for the remediation of harm by providing for the prompt, equitable and effective redress of complaints.
A minority of schools have adopted policies and procedures that mimic criminal justice proceedings. These school procedures afford greater rights to the accused student, with few if any substantive or enforceable rights for victims. Applying criminal justice rules to school-based proceedings is not appropriate because schools are not the government and are not vested with the power to deprive an individual of a liberty interest akin to the nature of liberty at stake in criminal courts. Moreover, unlike the criminal justice system, the primary purpose of schools under Title IX is to ensure equal access to education, not to deter, punish and provide rehabilitation for accused and convicted criminals.
This does not mean schools should be unfair to accused students or that the interests at stake for accused students are not important. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that public schools must provide some degree of due process to students prior to the imposition of punishment that rises to a level of suspension or dismissal. The Court has cautioned, however, that the student’s interest is much less weighty than that which is at stake for criminal defendants. Thus, far less “process” is required in school-based proceedings compared to the protections of due process afforded the accused in criminal justice matters.
At the same time, schools must act to protect students from discrimination, harassment, criminal victimization and other types of harm. In certain circumstances, schools are even obligated to take action prior to affording an accused individual notice and an opportunity to be heard, as when a “student’s presence endangers persons or … threatens disruption of the academic process…”
Equity does not mean applying exactly the same rules to victims as accused students. For example, it is inappropriate for schools automatically to issue mutual “no-contact” orders between victims and offenders as this restrains a victim’s freedom of movement and access to campus facilities without justification. Likewise, a victim should not be made to adjust her living conditions and/or be ordered to stay away from the offender on the grounds that requiring the accused individual to adjust his circumstances will violate his due process rights. The DCL makes clear that imposing any such burdens on a victim is inequitable and may constitute new harm under Title IX because the victim may endure additional suffering that interferes with her ability to participate in educational programs.
Finally, equity requires schools to consider allegations that an accused offender has committed multiple similar offenses. In criminal proceedings, this so-called “pattern evidence” can be excluded because judges are duty bound to apply criminal Constitutional rights that are not applicable in school-based proceedings. The special nature of a school community renders “pattern evidence” far more relevant because schools can be held liable to victims if they are “deliberately indifferent” to known risks of harm on campus, or fail to meet the duty of reasonable care for foreseeable harm. Likewise, consideration of “pattern evidence” is relevant to a proper assessment of whether class-based harm has occurred. This is an especially important factor in sexual assault cases because 90% of campus assaults are committed by repeat offenders. Indeed, failure to consider such evidence could inhibit or prevent equitable consideration of specific cases and interfere with a school’s duty to redress discrimination directed at protected classes on campus.
Other Issues
DOES THE DCL SATISFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT?
A question was raised as to whether the DCL violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires government agencies to propose new regulations before implementing them, and provide for a period of public commentary. This objection is inapt as the DCL is not a “new regulation” and the OCR has always had authority to enforce Title IX. The DCL is not a regulatory scheme, but rather, serves as a clear statement of the OCR’s established positions on issues of promptness, equity, effective redress, risk management and legal consistency.
WHAT DOES “PROMPTNESS” MEAN?
While there is no fixed period of time within which complaints must be finally resolved, the DCL is clear that “promptness” is not satisfied if a school delays conducting an investigation and/or holds off convening a hearing until the criminal justice system has run its course. In fact, a school will be found to have violated Title IX’s promptness mandate if it declines to act because it is awaiting either the completion of a criminal investigation, prosecutorial decision as to whether charges will be filed and/or a final judgment by judge or jury. The DCL requires promptness as to the initial investigation and hearing process, as well as to post-decision appeals, rehearings and requests for reconsideration. In short, promptness means prompt as to the final resolution, including all appeals and post-decision “motions,” and the DCL indicates that a school should reach its full and final resolution within a 60-day timeframe.
HOW DOES THE DCL APPLY TO ATHLETICS SPECIFICALLY?
The DCL requires that athletes accused of sexual violence be subject to the school’s regular Title IX disciplinary process, without preferential treatment, softer sanctions or tracking of misconduct and disciplinary action solely through the athletics department, as is the policy on some campuses. In addition, the DCL singles out athletes and athletics departments as audiences worth targeting for preventive education programs, and recommends that schools develop specific sexual violence materials within student-athlete handbooks. Such material should include the schools’ policies, rules, and resources for students, faculty, coaches, and administrators. The materials also should include resources for student-victims looking for help, including specific information about their rights and the responsibilities of teammates and employees of athletics departments regarding reporting and other obligations when sexual assaults are reported or reasonably known.
THE CAMPUS SaVE ACT
We believe the April 4th, 2011 Dear Colleague Letter advances the inherent societal good that gender equity represents. The DCL offers uniformity and clarity on many important issues related to Title IX, and promises to improve student access to equal educational opportunities. To the extent that the recently proposed Campus SaVE Act seeks to codify certain provisions of the DCL, such as mandated use of the preponderance standard, we are supportive. We agree with the aims of gender equity in education under Title IX. Towards that end, we are supportive of the powerful message expressed in the DCL and the ideas expressed in this statement.
Signed,
Brett Sokolow, Esq.
Executive Director, ATIXA
The Assoc. of Title IX
Administrators www.atixa.org
[And 46 other organizations]