Categories
Civil Rights Domestic Violence Due Process False Allegations Feminism Innocence Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

As False Allegations Spiral Out of Control, Feminist Groups Work to Give False Accusers a Free Pass

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

As False Allegations Spiral Out of Control, Feminist Groups Work to Give False Accusers a Free Pass

WASHINGTON / August 23, 2023 – Courtney Conover of Pennsylvania made a series of false accusations against Dr. James Amor and another person, claiming they had mishandled the complaints of victims of rape and sexual assault. Using her blog and social media account, Conover accused them of being “the devil,” a “human monster,” had been “aiding and abetting a pedophile for two decades,” and other outlandish claims.

The jury was so disturbed by the accusations that it found in favor of Dr. Amor and awarded $1.4 million in damages. This past Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Gallagher upheld the jury finding, although he did reduce the damages (1).

False allegations represent a growing threat across the country. A 2020 YouGov survey found that 8% of Americans had been falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse (2). Three years later, that number had increased to 10% (3).

Unfortunately, feminist groups are working to give a free pass to false accusers, focusing on both the civil and criminal settings:

Civil: Feminists are seeking to confer absolute legal immunity on women who make accusations that are knowingly false. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that lawsuits for damages from defamatory claims reflect “our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being.” (4)

But that didn’t stop Legal Momentum (formerly, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund) from filing an amicus brief in Khan v. Yale University seeking absolute immunity for the false accuser (5). In June, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Khan, rejecting the Legal Momentum arguments (6).

Criminal: Feminist organizations are pressuring prosecutors to not file criminal charges against false accusers, even though every state has laws that ban persons from making false reports. Last week a group known as End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) released an email message titled, “Is Prosecution for False Reporting Ever Appropriate?”

The message links to a longer document with the provocative title, “Raped, Then Jailed: The Risks of Prosecution for Falsely Reporting Sexual Assault” (7). The report fails to clarify the key distinction between an allegation that is “unfounded” — not meeting the legal standard of proof — versus “false,” that is, made in bad faith.

The crux of the EVAWI argument is that prosecuting an accuser is contrary to the “public interest.” Predictably, the feminist organization’s concept of “public interest” excludes any consideration of the effects of a bogus accusation on the falsely accused, including its devastating effects on the person’s reputation, mental and physical health, social standing, and career opportunities.

Worse, EVAWI never mentions the fact that false allegations and perjury are now the number one cause of wrongful convictions, according to the National Registry of Exonerations (8).

September 9 is International Falsely Accused Day (9). The global event is intended to raise awareness of how easy it is to fall victim to a false accusation, to point out how the presumption of innocence has been eroded, and how the law continues to be upended in the name of “social justice.”

Citations:

  1. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/22/court-reduces-1-4m-verdict-to-71-5k-in-theylied-renaissance-faire-libel-case/#more-8246241
  2. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/survey-over-20-million-have-been-falsely-accused-of-abuse/
  3. https://endtodv.org/survey-false-allegations-of-abuse-are-a-global-problem-women-most-often-the-accusers/
  4. Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 341 (1974).
  5. https://www.legalmomentum.org/amicus-briefs/khan-v-yale-univ-et-al 
  6. https://www.thefire.org/news/connecticut-supreme-court-issues-blistering-critique-yales-unfair-title-ix-proceedings
  7. https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-5_TB_Raped-Then-Jailed-1.pdf 
  8. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx
  9. https://falselyaccusedday.org/#:~:text=Falsely%20Accused%20Day%20is%20intended,in%20the%20name%20of%20justice.&text=Falsely%20Accused%20Day%20will%20take%20place%20on%20the%209th%20September%20every%20year.
Categories
Domestic Violence

Women, Custody Disputes, and Spousal Murder

Women, Custody Disputes, and Spousal Murder

SAVE

August 21, 2023

Recently, the ex-wife of murdered Microsoft executive Jaren Bridegan was charged with first-degree murder in connection with his murder.  Bridegan, who was in the midst of a custody dispute with his ex-wife, was ambushed on the street after dropping-off the couple’s children at his ex-wife’s house.  The mother’s new husband has also been charged in the murder.

Ex-wife of slain Microsoft exec Jared Bridegan charged with his murder

Bridegan was shot and killed in the middle of a Jacksonville Beach street.

Aug 17, 2023

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wife-slain-microsoft-exec-jared-bridegan-charged-murder/story?id=102348013

A few weeks earlier, a New York woman and her new husband were charged with killing her ex-husband, with whom she shared two children.  He went missing after dropping-off the couple’s children at the ex-wife’s house.

Accused in Missing Man’s Grisly Killing: His Ex-Wife and Her Husband

Three years ago, Steven Kraft disappeared. This week, Jamie and Nicholas Orsini were arrested and accused of carrying out an elaborate plot to kill him and dispose of his body.

June 16, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/nyregion/steven-kraft-murder-arrests.html

These stories are reminiscent of the infamous murder of Florida State law professor Dan Markel, who was murdered while sitting in a car in his garage.  Markel was in the midst of a custody dispute with his ex-wife, who was also a law professor.  The ex-wife’s brother, a prominent dentist, has been charged with first degree murder for arranging the contract killing.  The trigger-men have already been convicted.  Many people believe other members of the wife’s family, including the wife herself, were involved.

Charlie Adelson’s trial over Dan Markel’s killing will now start in October

March 19, 2023

https://news.wfsu.org/wfsu-local-news/2023-03-19/charlie-adelsons-trial-in-dan-markels-killing-will-now-start-in-october

These cases are also reminiscent of an earlier Illinois case in which a father, Steve Watkins, was murdered by his former mother-in-law.  Watkins was gunned down from behind when he went to the home of his estranged wife to pick up their child while their divorce case was pending. Watkins died from a single gunshot to the back of his head.

She fought the law and the law won

https://www.illinoistimes.com/springfield/she-fought-the-law-and-the-law-won/Content?oid=11450421

“During the 2010 trial, prosecutor Michael Vujovich called the murder a “family affair,” committed because Jennifer Watkins and her kin considered [the child] their property, and they feared that Steven Watkins might gain custody, or at least substantial visitation rights, during divorce proceedings.”

Other cases:

Dad wins custody of kids, then ex’s boyfriend kills him moments after, VA family says

May 12, 2023

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article275354046.html

Father of Children Killed in Reseda Was in Custody Fight With Mother Now Suspected of Murder

Apr. 12, 2021

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/father-of-children-killed-in-reseda-was-in-custody-fight-with-mother-now-suspected-of-murder/2571301/

Cruel twist in Queens custody fight: Mother accused of killing her baby’s father shares joint custody with his heartbroken mom

Nov. 20, 2020

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-custody-battle-queens-killing-20201120-34jkse7v5bdrdp2i3yvgh7zume-story.html

Here’s a twist on the theme.  A mother murdered her child’s paternal grandmother.

Texas Grandmother Killed Outside Starbucks, Allegedly by Child’s Mother in Dispute Over Custody

Police said Watts allegedly pulled out a handgun and fired shots at Edwards, killing her in front of the child

Apr. 20, 2022

https://people.com/crime/texas-grandmother-killed-outside-starbucks-allegedly-by-childs-mother-in-dispute-over-custody/

The common theme that runs throughout these cases is a mother who views the children as her property and is unwilling to share custody with their father.  Of interest, none of the fathers in these cases was seeking (or had) more than 50% parenting time.

Categories
Uncategorized

USDA Holds Low-Income Children Hostage on Controversial Transgender Policy

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

USDA Holds Low-Income Children Hostage on Controversial Transgender Policy

WASHINGTON / August 14, 2023 – The US Department of Agriculture is under fire from Republican lawmakers who say the USDA has politicized its school lunch program to force children to accept transgender ideology.

On July 27, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced a Joint Resolution providing for Congressional disapproval (S. J. Res. 42) of the USDA policy that removes funding from schools that do not comply with the Biden Administration’s LGBTQIA+ policy. [1]

In his press release, Sen. Marshall stated, “This administration is weaponizing funding for school lunch programs in an effort to force public schools to embrace Joe Biden’s transgender agenda.”  Marshall warned, “The USDA has no authority to force our children to adhere to woke mandates such as requiring biological boys to be given access to girls bathrooms and locker rooms, or allow biological boys to compete against biological girls in girls’ sports,” [2]

The Joint Resolution is in response to the Biden Administration’s USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service announcement on May 5, 2022 concerning a new policy on school lunch programs and gender ideology to interpret “the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972” to include “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” [3]

In a subsequent June 5, 2023 letter, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) [4] concluded the Biden administration’s USDA policy on school lunch programs is subject to the Congressional Review Act’s (CRA) [5] requirement, and that the USDA first needs to submit its proposed policy as a draft regulation.

But, the USDA has apparently ignored the GAO decision.

The Biden administration’s proposed Title IX regulations, which are scheduled to be released in October, would change the definition of “sex” to include “gender Identity.”  The regulations also would harm women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among young children without parental consent, infringe on free speech, and remove due process protections for men who have been falsely accused.

Lawmakers are urged to contact Secretary Miguel Cardona at the Department of Education and urge that the Biden administration abandon its plan to release the proposed Title IX regulations in October.  Contact: Alejandro Reyes at alejandro.reyes@ed.gov.

Citations:

  1.   https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/42/text?s=1&r=1
  2.   https://www.marshall.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-marshall-introduces-school-lunch-cra/
    3.    https://www.christianpost.com/news/22-states-sue-usda-for-tying-school-lunch-funding-to-lgbt-policy.html
  3.   https://www.gao.gov/assets/830/825996.pdf
  4.   https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10023
Categories
Department of Education Title IX

Growing Number of State Lawmakers Call for Abolition of Department of Education

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 

Growing Number of State Lawmakers Call for Abolition of Department of Education

 

WASHINGTON / August 4, 2023 – Sixteen state lawmakers have signed on in support of a national campaign to abolish (or “overhaul”) the Department of Education, if the Biden Administration moves forward to release its proposed Title IX regulation.
 
 
The Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations, which are scheduled to be released in October, would change the definition of “sex” to include “gender Identity.”  The proposed regulations also would harm women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among young children without parental consent, infringe on free speech, and remove due process protections for men who have been falsely accused.  
 

The following 16 state lawmakers, listed on SAVE’s website, are calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education: [1]

  • Rep. Susan DuBose (AL- 45)
  • Rep. Michael Ramone (DE-21)
  • Rep. Tina Lambert (ID-23)
  • Rep. Bill Rhiley (KS-80)
  • Rep. Brett Fairchild (KS-113)
  • Rep. Chris Sander (MO-33)
  • Rep. Tom Mannion (NH-Hillsborough-1)
  • Rep. Travis Corcoran (NH-Hillsborough-44)
  • Rep. David Love (NH-Rockingham-13)
  • Rep. Mark A. Pearson (NH-Rockingham-34)
  • Rep. Michael Granger (NH-Strafford-2)
  • Rep. Walter Stapleton (NH-Sullivan-6)
  • Rep. Josiah Magnuson (SC-38)
  • Rep. Jay Kilmartin (SC-85)
  • Rep. Monty Fritts (TN-32)
  • Delegate Dave LaRock (VA-33)
 
In addition, four Presidential candidates have called for the abolition of the Department of Education:
 
  • Ron DeSantis: In response to the question, are you in favor of eliminating any agencies: “We would do education, commerce, energy, and the IRS….With the Department of Education, we reverse all the transgender sports stuff. Women’s sports should be protected.”
  • Mike Pence: “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.”
  • Vivek Ramaswamy: “I would shut down the U.S. Department of Education…Do I favor 6-year-olds being educated on sexuality and gender ideology? No, I don’t.”
  • Tim Scott: “The federal government has absolutely no role in our education system whatsoever. So, let’s get them out and let’s abolish the Department of Education.”
 
Also, dozens of Members of Congress have come out in opposition to the Biden administration’s Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations or made similar requests. 
 
State lawmakers who would like to add their name to this growing list should contact Bob Thompson, Outreach and Coalitions Manager, SAVE at rthompson@saveservices.org
Categories
Department of Education Title IX

Growing Number of State Lawmakers Call for the Abolition of the Department of Education

 
 
PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Growing Number of State Lawmakers Call for Abolition of Department of Education

 

WASHINGTON / August 3, 2023 – Sixteen state lawmakers have signed on in support of a national campaign to abolish (or “overhaul”) the Department of Education, if the Biden Administration moves forward to release its proposed Title IX regulation.
 
 
The Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations, which are scheduled to be released in October, would change the definition of “sex” to include “gender Identity.”  The proposed regulations also would harm women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among young children without parental consent, infringe on free speech, and remove due process protections for men who have been falsely accused.  
 

The following 16 state lawmakers, listed on SAVE’s website, are calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education: [1]

  • Rep. Susan DuBose (AL- 45)
  • Rep. Michael Ramone (DE-21)
  • Rep. Tina Lambert (ID-23)
  • Rep. Bill Rhiley (KS-80)
  • Rep. Brett Fairchild (KS-113)
  • Rep. Chris Sander (MO-33)
  • Rep. Tom Mannion (NH-Hillsborough-1)
  • Rep. Travis Corcoran (NH-Hillsborough-44)
  • Rep. David Love (NH-Rockingham-13)
  • Rep. Mark A. Pearson (NH-Rockingham-34)
  • Rep. Michael Granger (NH-Strafford-2)
  • Rep. Walter Stapleton (NH-Sullivan-6)
  • Rep. Josiah Magnuson (SC-38)
  • Rep. Jay Kilmartin (SC-85)
  • Rep. Monty Fritts (TN-32)
  • Delegate Dave LaRock (VA-33)
 
In addition, four Presidential candidates have called for the abolition of the Department of Education:
 
  • Ron DeSantis: In response to the question, are you in favor of eliminating any agencies: “We would do education, commerce, energy, and the IRS….With the Department of Education, we reverse all the transgender sports stuff. Women’s sports should be protected.”
  • Mike Pence: “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.”
  • Vivek Ramaswamy: “I would shut down the U.S. Department of Education…Do I favor 6-year-olds being educated on sexuality and gender ideology? No, I don’t.”
  • Tim Scott: “The federal government has absolutely no role in our education system whatsoever. So, let’s get them out and let’s abolish the Department of Education.”
 
Also, dozens of Members of Congress have come out in opposition to the Biden administration’s Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations or made similar requests. 
 
State lawmakers who like to add their name to this growing list should contact Bob Thompson, Outreach and Coalitions Manager, SAVE at rthompson@saveservices.org

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Title IX

68 Groups Endorse Appropriations Plan to Trim Controversial Title IX Provisions from Department of Education

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

68 Groups Endorse Appropriations Plan to Trim Controversial Title IX Provisions from Department of Education

WASHINGTON / July 25, 2023 – A coalition of 68 organizations is sending a letter today to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that endorses important provisions related to the federal Department of Education, as enumerated in the FY2024 Appropriations Bill for Labor-HHS-Education.

The 68 organizations are all members of the Title IX Network, which was formed in July 2022 in opposition to the Biden administration’s proposed Title IX regulations (1).

The Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations, which are scheduled to be released in October, would change the definition of “sex” to include “gender Identity.”  The proposed regulations also would harm women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among young children without parental consent, infringe on free speech, and remove due process protections for men who have been falsely accused.

As explained in the letter, the 68 organizations support key provisions that were approved by the House Appropriations sub-committee in its FY2024 Appropriations bill (2):

  1. Section 244: Prohibits the implementation of Biden’s Executive Order on “Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.”
  2. Section 311: Prohibits the Department of Education from implementing the proposed Title IX regulations that were issued in July of 2022 and in April of 2023.
  3. Section 312: Protects religious liberty in schools.
  4. Section 534: Prohibits the use of federal funds for hormone therapy or surgical treatment for “gender affirming care.”
  5. Section 535: Prohibits the implementation of any other “diversity, equity, inclusion office, program, or training.”

We urge the House of Representatives to retain all five of these Sections, keep the strong language used in these Sections, and bring the FY2024 Appropriations Bill for Labor-HHS-Education for a prompt floor vote.

The entire coalition letter can be viewed online (3).

Links:

  1. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/
  2. https://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/labor-health-and-human-services-education-118th-congress
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/7.25.23-Coalition-letter-Appropriations.pdf
Categories
Department of Education

Plan to Abolish or Overhaul the U.S. Department of Education

Plan to Abolish or Overhaul the U.S. Department of Education

Lindsey Burke, Heritage Foundation

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-11.pdf

  1. Block-grant the program to the states
    • Funding to institutions should be block-granted and narrowed to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and tribally controlled colleges. (Historically Black Colleges and Universities)
    • To the extent that federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund education programs, those funds should be block granted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats. Eventually, policymaking and funding should take place at the state and local level, closest to the affected families
    • Transfer Title I, Part A, which provides federal funding for lower-income school districts, to the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the Administration for Children and Families. It should be administered as a no-strings-attached formula block grant.
    • All other programs at OESE (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education) should be block-granted or eliminated.

Most IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) funding should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant targeted at students with disabilities and distributed directly to local education agencies by Health and Human Services Administration for Community Living.

2. Transfer the program to another agency

  • To the extent that OSERS (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services) supports federal efforts to enforce our laws against discrimination of individuals with disabilities, those assets should be moved to the Department of Justice (DOJ) along with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
  • Move programs deemed important to our national security interests to the Department of State.
  • Move ED’s statistical office, the National Commission for Education Statistics (NCES), to the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau. If Congress believes the federal government can play a valuable research role, those research centers can be moved to the National Science Foundation. If Congress decides to maintain IES as an independent agency, it needs to address major governance and management issues that keep it from being a productive contributor to the knowledge base related to teaching and learning.
  • The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010 and work with Congress to spin o” FSA (Federal Student Aid) and its student loan obligations to a new government corporation with professional governance and management. With a statutory charge that preserves the federal student loan portfolio for the benefit of the taxpayers and students, this new entity would be (1) professionally governed by an agency head and board of trustees appointed by the President.
  • OCR (Office for Civil Rights) should move to the Department of Justice. The federal government has an essential responsibility to enforce civil rights protections, but Washington should do so through the Department of Justice and federal courts. The OCR at DOJ (Department of Justice) should be able to enforce only through litigation.
  • Attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department’s remaining offices subject to closure, and whose positions are indispensable to serving the mission, should have the opportunity to join other agencies
  • Attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department’s remaining offices subject to closure and whose positions are indispensable to serving the mission should have the opportunity to join other agencies.

3. Phase out and eliminate the program

  • Phase out earmarks for a variety of special institutions, as originally envisioned.
  • The next Administration should abandon this change redefining “sex” to mean “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX immediately across all departments.
  • All ongoing investigations should be dropped, and all school districts affected should be given notice that they are free to drop any policy changes pursued under pressure from the Biden Administration.
  • On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately.
  • As part of this effort, the new Administration should also direct the department and DOJ jointly to issue enforcement guidance stating that the agencies will no longer investigate Title VI cases that exclusively rest on allegations of disparate impact.
  • Phase Out Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason. And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students. l The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible and should implement: a new IDR plan.

4. Transfer or Eliminate Program

  • Reduce the number of programs managed by OESE (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education), and transfer some remaining programs to other federal agencies.
  • Transfer Title I, Part A, which provides federal funding for lower-income school districts, to the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the Administration for Children and Families. It should be administered as a no-strings-attached formula block grant.
  • Transfer the Vocational Rehabilitation Grants for Native American students to the Bureau of Indian Education.
  • The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate or move OPE (Office for Postsecondary Education) programs to ETA at the Department of Labor.
  • The Department of Education should work with Congress to amend the HEA to eliminate the negotiated rulemaking requirement. At a minimum, Congress should allow the department to use public hearings rather than negotiated rulemaking sessions.
  • Eliminate Grad PLUS loans (for graduate students) and Parent PLUS loans (for parents of undergraduates).
  • Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future.
  • Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category.
  • Eliminate the PLUS loan program. As mentioned above, the PLUS (Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success) loan program, which provides graduate student loans and loans to the parents of undergraduate students, should be eliminated. This would generate an estimated $2.3 billion in savings.
  • Eliminate GEAR-UP. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to provide taxpayer dollars to create a pipeline from high school to college. GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) should be eliminated, and its functions should instead be handled privately or at the state and local levels, where policymakers are better equipped to increase college preparedness within their school districts.
  • MISSION Federal education policy should be limited, and ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not the government. In our pluralistic society, families and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments that best fit their needs.
  • The future of education freedom and reform in the states is bright and will shine brighter when regulations and red tape from Washington are eliminated.
  • The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congressionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants.
Categories
California Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Feminism Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX Training

Broken on Campus: High-Profile Failures Reveal Title IX Offices are in Desperate Need of Reform

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Broken on Campus: High-Profile Failures Reveal Title IX Offices are in Desperate Need of Reform

WASHINGTON / July 24, 2023 – Three recent reports reveal widespread oversights and failures at university offices that were established to assure compliance with Title IX, the federal law enacted to stop sex discrimination in schools. The problems with Title IX are being seen throughout the country at institutions large and small, private and public, in three areas:

  1. Discrimination against Male Students: A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals the existence of a broad array of scholarships, leadership development programs, awards, and summer camps that illegally exclude male students. The article notes that economist Mark Perry has filed hundreds of anti-discrimination complaints with the federal Office for Civil Rights, alleging more than 2,000 violations of federal antidiscrimination law by more than 750 colleges in virtually every state around the country (1).
  2. Due Process: To date, 265 judicial decisions have been handed down (2) against colleges for sex discrimination (3), lack of due process, and other similar violations. One of the most notable decisions was rendered on June 27 when the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of student Saif Khan, who had been falsely accused of sexual assault. The Court singled out numerous due process deficiencies in the school’s Title IX procedures, including the fact that Yale “failed to establish an adequate record of the proceedings.” (4)
  3. Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints: A new report reveals a constellation of failures at California State University, the nation’s largest four-year public university. The report documents the lack of a coordinated approach across the 23-campus system, resulting in sexual misconduct complaints being ignored, mishandled, or falling through the cracks. The report deplores the lack of a “consistent formal process for reporting, resolving, documenting, or tracking” of complaints, and makes numerous recommendations for improvement (5).

Part of the problem can be traced to a lack of legal expertise among Title IX coordinators. According to the Association of Title IX Administrators, the leading trade organization for Title IX coordinators, fewer than one in four coordinators have a Juris Doctor degree (6).  Another analysis revealed a pro-feminist, anti-male bias among many Title IX coordinators (7).

In addition, the Association of Title IX Administrators has a well-documented history of seeking to roll back on Fourteenth Amendment-based due process protections for the accused (8). Last year, a lawsuit was filed against ATIXA president Brett Sokolow for allegedly using company funds for personal purposes and defrauding clients (9).

All of these facts point to a pervasive lack of impartiality, professionalism, and legal expertise in the Title IX field. One might reasonably conclude that these problems need to be addressed before any efforts are make to widen the scope of the Title IX law or increase the duties of Title IX coordinators.

And that’s exactly what the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulation seeks to do (10).

Citations:

  1. https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-crusade-to-end-reverse-discrimination?cid=gen_sign_in
  2. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Analysis-of-Title-IX-Regulation-3.24.2022.pdf
  4. https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR347/347CR30.pdf
  5. https://www.calstate.edu/titleix/documents/cozen-presentation-bot-52423.pdf
  6. https://cdn.atixa.org/site-media/atixa/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/16135903/2021-Survey-Summary.pdf
  7. https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/Reports/Dear%20Colleague/Dear%20Colleague.pdf
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/more-resources/
  9. https://www.dailywire.com/news/prominent-title-ix-consultant-accused-of-financial-fraud-in-lawsuit-filed-by-former-employee
  10. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/30/new-title-ix-rules-raise-concerns-accused
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

Five Presidential Contenders Have Called for Abolition of the U.S. Department of Education

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Five Presidential Contenders Have Called for Abolition of the U.S. Department of Education

WASHINGTON / July 18, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Education has introduced two proposed Title IX regulations in the past year (1,2) that would expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity,” a change that would have far-reaching effects on students, families, and women’s sports. The proposals also would serve to revamp the meaning of the Constitution, especially its provisions regarding free speech (First Amendment) and due process (Fourteenth Amendment).

In response, five current or previous Republican presidential contenders, listed below in alphabetical order, have called for the abolition of the Department of Education (3):

  1. Ron DeSantis: In response to the question, Are you in favor of eliminating any agencies: “We would do education, commerce, energy, and the IRS….With the Department of Education, we reverse all the transgender sports stuff. Women’s sports should be protected.”
  2. Mike Pence: “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.”
  3. Mike Pompeo: Asked by commentator John Stossel, “Should America abolish the Department of Education?” Pompeo replied, “Yes, you should get rid of it.” (Pompeo subsequently announced his decision to not run as a presidential candidate).
  4. Vivek Ramaswamy: “I would shut down the U.S. Department of Education…Do I favor 6-year-olds being educated on sexuality and gender ideology? No, I don’t.”
  5. Tim Scott: “The federal government has absolutely no role in our education system whatsoever. So let’s get them out and let’s abolish the Department of Education.”

Four other persons, discussed in media accounts as possible presidential candidates, have called for major changes to Title IX-related education policies (3):

  1. Nikki Haley: “When I was in school you didn’t have sex ed until seventh grade. And even then, your parents had to sign whether you could take the class. That’s a decision for parents to make.”
  2. Kristi Noem: “The [South Dakota] Board of Regents should remove all references to preferred pronouns in all school materials…Students should have the ability to exercise their right to free speech.” “Our universities should not be hosting and/or promoting drag shows…Just as other dangerous theories have been allowed to thrive on college campuses, gender theory has been rebranded and accepted as truth across the nation.” (Noem subsequently announced her decision to not run as a presidential candidate).
  3. 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.”
  4. Glenn Youngkin: “Political indoctrination has no place in our classrooms….Inherently divisive concepts, like Critical Race Theory and its progeny, instruct students to only view life through the lens of race and presumes that some students are consciously or unconsciously racist, sexist, or oppressive, and that other students are victims.” (Youngkin subsequently announced his decision to not run as a presidential candidate).

State lawmakers in Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Tennessee also have gone on record to abolish the federal Department of Education (3).

In addition, former Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has stated, “I personally think the Department of Education should not exist.” (4)

All persons are invited to sign the petition, “Tell the Dept. of Education to Stop Its Radical Title IX Plan:” https://www.change.org/p/tell-the-dept-of-education-to-stop-its-radical-title-ix-plan

Note: This press release was updated to clarify that Mike Pompeo, Kristi Noem, and Glenn Youngkin later announced their decision to not run for president.

Citations:

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-admin-releases-new-title-ix-rules-bars-states-banning-transgender-students-competing-sports
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/attorneys-general-and-lawmakers/
  4. https://www.axios.com/2022/07/17/betsy-devos-abolish-department-of-education
Categories
Feminism

In Their Own Words: Feminists Claim the Family is ‘Oppressive’ to Women

 

In Their Own Words: Feminists Claim the Family is ‘Oppressive’ to Women

SAVE

July 11, 2023

  1. “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Simone de Beauvoir, quoted in the Saturday Review, June 14, 1974, p. 18.
  2. “Romance itself serves a larger political purpose by offering at least a temporary reward for gender roles and threatening rebels with loneliness and rejection.” — Gloria Steinem, Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, 1992, p. 260.
  3. “You become a semi-nonperson when you get married.” — Gloria Steinem
  4. “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin
  5. “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” — National NOW Times, January 1988
  6. “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. ” — Sheila Cronan, Page 219.
  7. “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession…The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” — Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, “The Daily Illini,” April 25, 1981.
  8. “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” — Mary Jo Bane, associate director of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women
  9. “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women… We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men” — The Declaration of Feminism, 1971.