Author: Edward Bartlett

A Black Mom Explains How the Civil Rights Movement Was Hijacked to Allow Men in Girl’s Bathrooms

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 9, 2022

A Black Mom Explains How the Civil Rights Movement Was Hijacked to Allow Men in Girl’s Bathrooms

Deborah Owens

August 9, 2022

My name is Deborah Owens, and I am the mom of two young children who I refuse to allow to be targeted for indoctrination about gender identity.

I’m also the executive director of the Coalition of Americans for Action and Principles – at least, that’s our name now. Formerly, we were known as the Coalition of African American Pastors, but we changed that name to reflect our wider membership and our priorities.

Yes – while the Left is obsessing about racial identity, there are some of us who still believe that principle and character trump everything.

Our organization really rose to prominence during the fight for traditional marriage. That was when we saw the beginnings of a worrisome trend that has now completely taken over our national discourse.

I’m talking about the LGBT hijacking of the civil rights movement.

Let me tell you a little about the Founder of CAAP, my husband, Rev. Bill Owens.

Bill first became politically active during the civil rights movement – the REAL civil rights movement.

You see, Bill grew up in Tennessee in the days of Jim Crow, when segregation was still the norm. He worked hard to get an education, and during his college days, became involved with the fight for racial equality.

In those days, they trained civil rights marchers to endure the abuse of others and turn the other cheek – even when faced with violence.

Bill marched with Dr. King and other legends of the civil rights movement. Like his contemporaries, he was inspired by the principles of freedom and democracy. He loved our country and wanted to make it better.

You know what he did not march for?

He didn’t march for gay marriage. And he definitely didn’t march so that a biological man could use a woman’s locker room or compete in women’s sports and call it “equality.”

Over the past several decades, a terrible thing has happened in our country. The Left has hijacked the civil rights movement and used it to promote an agenda that is about special treatment, promiscuity, and gender ideology.

And you know what? We let it happen.

Because they did this in the name of “civil rights” and “equality” and “love”, too few of us were afraid to speak up and stop it.

Of course, there are exceptions.

Like the pastors in Houston who stood up against a lefist mayor who threatened to silence them for organizing against a transgender bathroom bill. CAAP was there to help defend the pastors and the First Amendment.

In fact, we have been involved in this issue since the beginning, organizing boycotts against companies that embraced transgender bathrooms (like Target) and those that tried to bully cities into adopting transgender policies (like Paypal – to this day, I still don’t have a Paypal account because of their bully tactics).

Unfortunately, too many people are still cowed by that false title: “civil rights”

Let me ask you – is it “civil rights” to counsel young children about gender identity in school, even instructing teachers to use the kids’ “preferred pronouns or names” over a parent’s objection?

Is it “civil rights” to promote puberty blockers, surgery, and irreversible medical treatments for minors based on vague ideas about “gender identity”?

Is it “civil rights” to allow a biological man to take women’s sports’ scholarships or compete against female athletes?

No.

None of this has anything to do with rights or equality. It is a politically-driven effort to override biology with a fringe ideology.

And it is destroying our culture.

Even now, you will find educated professionals and influential policymakers who will refuse to tell you what the definition of a “woman” is.

That’s right, a question a 2-year-old could answer can stump a justice of the Supreme Court.

And this is all because the left has hijacked the mantle of civil rights.

Let me tell you: it’s time to take that title back.

Let’s take back civil rights in the name of every parent who has the right to oversee their child’s education and pass on their values.

Let’s take it back for our first amendment freedom to follow Biblical teachings on marriage and family … and to speak the truth about what a woman is.

And let’s take back the title of civil rights for the women who are being pushed back into secondary status by men who call themselves female. Not for the feminists who helped get us into this mess, but for our daughters, sisters, and granddaughters who will suffer as a result.

This our new civil rights movement, and like the men and women who marched for racial equality in the 50s and 60s, we will do it for the love of our country. Because we believe in America and what it stands for. And we want to save it for those generations to come.

Note: This speech was prepared for presentation at the Stop the Title IX Take-Over rally, held in Washington DC on August 11, 2022.

DHHS’ Rachel Levine Must Retract Dishonest Claims About ‘Safe’ Puberty-Blockers, Or Face Calls for Resignation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 3, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

DHHS’ Rachel Levine Must Retract Dishonest Claims About ‘Safe’ Puberty-Blockers, Or Face Calls for Resignation

WASHINGTON / August 3, 2022 – The FDA issued a warning on July 1 regarding puberty blockers, alerting doctors to the serious risks of GnRH drugs that can cause brain swelling, loss of vision, and other serious disorders (1). Despite this fact, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine has continued to tout the benefits of “gender-affirming care,” which includes the administration of puberty blockers to children and youth.

In a July 19 tweet, Levine claimed that some medical groups assert that “gender-affirming care is medically necessary, safe, and effective for transgender and non-binary children and adolescents.” (2) Each of these assertions is false:

Medically Necessary: The vast majority of youth who question their gender identity eventually come to accept their biological sex (3).

Safe: The FDA warns that doctors need to monitor patients taking puberty-blockers for “signs and symptoms of pseudotumor cerebri, including headache, papilledema, blurred or loss of vision, diplopia, pain behind the eye or pain with eye movement, tinnitus, dizziness, and nausea.” (1)

Effective: Dr. Michelle Cretella has written in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, “There is not a single large, randomized, controlled study that documents the alleged benefits and potential harms to gender-dysphoric children from pubertal suppression.” (4)

In a second statement posted on July 27, Levine stated emphatically that “gender-affirming care is lifesaving, medically necessary, age appropriate, and a critical tool for health care providers.” (5)

In response, former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard charged the Biden Administration with promoting “child abuse” by endorsing gender-affirming care (6).

A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 calling on President Biden to disavow his gender identity campaign (7).

According to a recent UCLA report, 1.4% of all youth ages 13-17 self-identify as transgender (8).

Citations:

Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Assailed from the Right and the Left, Biden ‘Gender Identity’ Proposals Face Mounting Opposition

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 1, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Assailed from the Right and the Left, Biden ‘Gender Identity’ Proposals Face Mounting Opposition

WASHINGTON / August 1, 2022 – Criticisms of the Biden “gender identity” proposals have increased in recent days. The disapprovals have been issued by liberals and conservatives, federal lawmakers, state governors, attorneys general, and others.

These criticisms have multiplied and intensified over the past two weeks:

July 21: Twenty U.S. senators wrote a letter to President Biden charging his Title IX proposal would return colleges to a “deeply flawed disciplinary process.” (1)

July 22: Three feminist professors published an editorial in the Chronicle of Higher Education claiming the Title IX regulation’s mandatory reporting provision is a “violation of adult autonomy” and saying the proposal “will only make things worse.” (2)

July 26: Twenty-two Attorneys General filed a 17-count lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture seeking to block its plan to withhold school lunch funding from schools that do not comply with Biden’s gender identity agenda (3).

July 26: Former President Trump issued a strongly worded statement describing the Biden gender identity proposals as the “perverted sexualization of minor children.” (4)

July 27: Fifteen Republican governors released a joint letter to President Biden vowing, “our states will have no choice but to pursue avenues to redress any harm that is done to our children as a result” of any reinterpretation of Title IX (5).

July 27: The Catholic News Service described a recently proposed DHHS regulation on transgender services as posing an “existential threat to religious-based employers.” (6)

July 30: Bari Weiss’ Common Sense published an article, “The Beginning of the End of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’?” documenting how several liberal-leaning European countries are now reining in their gender transitioning initiatives (7).

The Biden Title IX proposal is deeply flawed because it would harm due process, free speech, women’s sports, bathroom privacy, and parental rights; and would expand the practice of gender experimentation (8).

To date, nearly 140 organizations have come out in opposition to the Title IX plan (9). A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 to call on the Department of Education to disavow its plan to move forward with its Title IX proposal (10).

According to a recent UCLA report, 1.4% of all youth ages 13-17 self-identify as transgender (11).

Citations:

Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Title IX

SAVE Commends 21 Senators Who Criticized ‘Lawless’ Title IX Proposal

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 26, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Commends 21 Senators Who Criticized ‘Lawless’ Title IX Proposal

WASHINGTON / July 26, 2022 – SAVE applauds the 21 Republican senators who recently sent the Department of Education a letter that is critical of its Title IX proposal (1). The communication notes, “the new proposed rule encourages institutions to adopt processes that have either been struck down or been viewed skeptically by multiple courts.”

The letter was signed by Senators Richard Burr (N.C.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Mike Braun (Ind.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Steve Daines (Mont.), Joni Ernst (Iowa), James Inhofe (Okla.), James Lankford (Okla.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), and Tommy Tuberville (Ala).

SAVE regards the Title IX proposal as “lawless” because it seeks to effectively overturn the decisions of hundreds of trial and appellate court judges, a milestone Supreme Court decision, and explicit congressional intent:

Due Process: Hundreds of judicial decisions against universities, of which 175 are summarized in a recent SAVE analysis (2), provide for a series of due process rights to accused students, including impartial investigations, prior review of evidence, and hearings with cross-examination. Unfortunately, the proposed Department of Education rule seeks to remove these constitutionally-based rights.

Definition of Sexual Harassment: The regulatory proposal seeks to negate the Supreme Court’s 1999 Davis v. Monroe definition of sexual harassment as conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” (3). Specifically, the Department of Education proposes a dramatic and unwieldy expansion of sexual harassment to be, “conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, that, based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively, denies or limits a person’s ability to participate” in their education.”

Definition of Sex: The draft regulation seeks to redefine the word “sex” to include “gender identity.” This would serve to erase congressional intent as reflected in the original Title IX law. Federal Judge Kim Gibson has opined, “On a plain reading of the statute, the term ‘on the basis of sex’ in Title IX means nothing more than male and female….It is within the province of Congress—and not this Court—to identify those classifications which are statutorily prohibited.” (4)

Under the American system of government, the Executive branch is charged with carrying out the laws that are enacted by Congress. The Department of Education’s attempt to redefine “sex” represents an arrogant usurpation of the prerogatives and rights of the Legislative branch.

To date, 130 organizations and 58 editorials have expressed opposition to the Title IX plan (5). A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 to highlight these concerns, and to call on the Department of Education to abandon its plans to move forward with its Title IX proposal (6).

Citations:

Campus Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Restraining Order Sexual Harassment Title IX

Three Judicial Decisions Spotlight Flaws of Biden Title IX Plan. SAVE Urges Lawmakers to Not Remain Silent.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 25, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Three Judicial Decisions Spotlight Flaws of Biden Title IX Plan. SAVE Urges Lawmakers to Not Remain Silent.

WASHINGTON / July 25, 2022 – Three judicial decisions handed down in the past month reveal major problems with the proposed Title IX policy that was recently released by the Department of Education (1). Over 130 organizations around the country have come out in opposition to the plan (2). SAVE urges lawmakers to speak out strongly against the Biden proposal.

The three judicial decisions highlight the harmful effects of the Title IX proposal on free speech, women’s sports, and due process.

Free Speech

On June 30, the District Court of Idaho handed down a decision against the University of Idaho in favor of three Christian law students who had objected to Title IX “no contact orders” that were issued against them (3). The orders had been issued only because the students had offered to engage in a respectful conversation about biblical teachings of marriage and sexuality. In the ruling, Judge David Nye noted that the university’s actions, “were designed to repress specific speech.”

The decision highlights the fact that the Department of Education is proposing a sweeping re-definition of sexual harassment that many believe will interfere with the exercise of free speech (4).

Women’s Sports

On July 15, Judge Charles Atchley of the Eastern District Court of Tennessee ordered the U.S. Department of Education to cease its unlawful enforcement of a directive allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports (5).

The decision is timely because the proposed Title IX regulation would expand the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity,” opening the door to wider participation of transgenders in women’s sports. In response, federal lawmakers of both parties have issued statements condemning the policy’s harmful effects on female athletics (6).

Due Process

Last Wednesday, Judge CJ Williams of the District Court of Northern Iowa issued a sweeping decision against Fordt University. The court noted widespread procedural irregularities including not informing the accused student of his rights, bias by the Title IX Coordinator, and the shredding of documents by school officials (7). The decision was one of the most sweeping Title IX rulings issued in the past decade.

Similar irregularities would be encouraged by the Biden plan, which removes a student’s right to a number of fundamental due process protections such as impartial investigations and cross-examination (8).

A more detailed analysis of the free speech, women’s sports, and due process concerns raised by the Biden Title IX proposal is available online (9). Even though the federal Title IX law was enacted to curb sex discrimination in schools, many believe the recent Title IX proposal will actually worsen these problems (10).

A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 to highlight these concerns, and to call on the Department of Education to abandon its plans to move forward with the Title IX proposal (11).

Citations:

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

119 Organizations On Record as Opposed to Biden Title IX Plan, Cite Numerous Concerns

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 18, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

119 Organizations On Record as Opposed to Biden Title IX Plan, Cite Numerous Concerns

WASHINGTON / July 18, 2022 – A growing number of organizations – 119 at last count — have gone on record in opposition to the Biden Title IX regulation, which was issued on June 23 (1). The opposing groups include public policy organizations, public interest law firms, religious groups, and local grass-roots entities. The complete listing of groups is included at the bottom of this press release (2).

Collectively, these organizations represent a formidable social and political force.

Opposition to the draft Title IX policy centers around six major concerns: due process, free speech, women’s sports, parental rights, bathroom and locker room privacy, and gender experimentation (3):

Due Process

Many colleges have failed to abide by the Fourteenth Amendment, which promises due process protections for all. The new Title IX regulation seeks to remove key due process protections for persons, especially male students, accused of violating campus sexual misconduct policies.

Free Speech

A recent survey of 481 colleges reported only 12% received a “green-light” rating. The draft Title IX regulation expands the definition of sexual harassment, which will serve to curtail campus speech about controversial topics.

And once the legal definition of “sex” is expanded to include gender identity, students can demand that persons call them by their preferred pronouns. But mandated speech is not free speech. In a recent Wisconsin case, a 13-year-old boy refused to use a fellow student’s preferred “they” and “them” pronouns, resulting in a Title IX complaint against him.

Women’s Sports

Transgenders enjoy numerous physical advantages over biological females. This contradicts the whole purpose of Title IX, which is to assure fairness for all students regardless of sex. For example, transgender Lia Thomas set new school and program records after competing on the women’s UPenn swim team.

Bathrooms and Locker Room Privacy

In August 2021, Loudon County, VA approved a new policy on Rights of Transgender and Gender-Expansive Students. During the following three months, a student committed a sexual assault in a girl’s bathroom, high schoolers staged a walk-out to protest the schools’ handling of the incident, and the case became a focus of heated debate during the race for governor.

Parental Rights

If the definition of sex is expanded to include “gender identity,” parents may lose their right to restrict the exposure of young children to age-inappropriate discussions of sexual practices. Worse, children could be gender “transitioned” and assigned a new name without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Gender Experimentation

The vast majority of children who struggle with their sex come to accept their biological sex by adulthood. Boys and girls need to be supported, not encouraged to question fundamental facts of their biology. Encouraging young children to question their own biology represents a radical experiment in gender engineering.

A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 to highlight these concerns, and to call on the Department of Education to not move forward with its Title IX proposal (4).

Citations:

++++++++++++++++++

ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO TITLE IX PLAN

SAVE
Alliance Defending Freedom
American Association of Christian Schools (21):
- Buckeye Christian School Organization
- Christian Schools of Arizona
- Christian Schools of Vermont
- Delaware Association of Christian Schools
- Golden State Association of Christian Schools
- Illinois Association of Christian Schools
- Indiana Association of Christian Schools
- Maryland Association of Christian Schools
- Michigan Association of Christian Schools
- Mid-South Association of Christian Schools
- Missouri Association of Christian Schools
- New Mexico Association of Christian Schools
- New York Association of Christian Schools
- North Carolina Christian School Association
- Northwest Association of Christian Schools
- South Carolina Association of Christian Schools
- Sunshine State Association of Christian Schools
- Tennessee Association of Christian Schools
- West Virginia Christian Education Association
- Wisconsin Association of Christian School
American Principles Project
Concerned Women for America
Eagle Forum (6)
- Alabama Eagle Forum
- Tennessee Eagle Forum
- Texas Eagle Forum
- Utah Eagle Forum
- Washington Eagle Forum
Families Advocating for Campus Equality:
Family Policy Alliance
FIRE
Heritage Action
Heritage Foundation
Independent Women’s Forum
National Association of Scholars
Parents Defending Education
Speech First
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
National Groups (36): 60 Plus Association; Advancing American Freedom; Alexander Hamilton Institute; ACRU Action; American Council for Health Care; American Family Association; Americans for Limited Government; Center for Military Readiness; Center for Urban Renewal and Education; Child Protection League; Children First Foundation; Citizens for Renewing America; Coalition for a Fair Judiciary; ConservativeHQ; Dr. James Dobson Family Institute; FAIR Energy Foundation; Firebrand Moms; First Liberty Institute; ForAmerica; Learn to Protect Kids; Less Government; Men and Women for a Representative Democracy; Moms for America; No Left Turn in Education; Radiance Foundation; Recover America Action; Reaching America; Rule of Law Committee; Save Our States; Strategic Coalitions & Initiatives; Tea Party Nation; The Conservative Caucus; United Families International; Voices Against Trafficking; Washington Marketing Group; and Women for Democracy in America.
State-Level Groups (17): California Association of Scholars; Caesar Rodney Institute (DE); Cascade Policy Institute (OR); Delaware Family Policy Council; Family Action Council of Tennessee; Family Policy Alliance of Wyoming; Frontline Policy Council (GA); Louisiana Family Forum; Louisiana Save Our Schools; Middle Resolution Policy Network (VA); Moms for Liberty (TN); Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs; Palm Beach Freedom Institute; Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity; Roughrider Policy Center (ND); South West Policy Group (AZ); and United Against Racism in Education (MD).
Religious Groups (12): American Association of Evangelicals; Association of Christian Schools International; Catholics Count; Coalition of African American Pastors; Coalition of Conservative Christian Colleges; Conservatives of Faith; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Katartismos Global; Schindler’s Ark; Maranatha House Ministries; Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.; and Well Versed.
Title IX Law Firms (14): Agee, Owens & Cooper, LLC; Albeit Weiker, LLP; Binnall Law Group; Bucci Law; Friedman & Nemecek, LLC; Jauregui Law Firm; Law Offices of Barry S. Jacobson; Law Offices of Scott J. Limmer; Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP; Rosenberg & Ball Co., LPA; Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham LLC; Sammons Law; Tin Fulton Walker & Owen; and West, Webb, Allbritton & Gentry, P.C.

Campus Free Speech Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Biden Sees Two-Point Approval Drop Following Release of Controversial Title IX Plan

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 11, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Biden Sees Two-Point Approval Drop Following Release of Controversial Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / July 11, 2022 – On June 23, President Biden’s Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulation (1). Two weeks later, Biden’s approval rating had fallen by two full points. The many controversies surrounding the Title IX proposal likely contributed to the approval decline.

According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll of American adults, Biden’s approval rating from June 21- 22 stood at 38%. Two weeks later, July 5-6, his approval had fallen to 36%, a two-point decline. Likewise, the Economist/YouGov poll of registered voters recorded a 43% job approval from June 18-21. Two weeks later, July 2-5, his approval had declined to 41%, a two-point fall (2).

Title IX is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools. Biden’s recently introduced Title IX regulation features three highly controversial changes:

Expands the definition to “sex” to include “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”
Encroaches on free speech by broadening the definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sex-based conduct” that can be evaluated “subjectively and objectively.”
Eliminates a series of due process protections for accused students, marking a return of the notorious “Kangaroo Courts” to college campuses.

These changes are predicted to have harmful ripple effects in six areas: Due process, free speech, pronoun mandates, women’s sports, parental rights, and student privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms (3).

As a result, the Biden education policy has been beset by numerous challenges (4):

Over 100 organizations have gone on record opposing the proposal.
48 editorials have criticized the plan.
The Attorneys General from 20 states have filed a lawsuit against the proposed rule (5).

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are expressing opposition to the proposal. In a recent TV interview, former Democratic member of Congress Tulsi Gabbard complained that Biden’s Title IX plan is “rejecting the objective reality that there are biological differences between a man and a woman” and is “essentially pointing to the erasure of women.” (6)

Biden’s recent decline in approval ratings can be attributed to a number of factors, including his controversial Title IX plan. According to the Washington Post, education is one of the top five concerns of Americans as they approach the November elections (7).

Citations:

Campus Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Dept. of Education Uses Tricky Maneuver to Undermine Long-Standing Religious Exemption

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 7, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Dept. of Education Uses Tricky Maneuver to Undermine Long-Standing Religious Exemption

WASHINGTON / July 6, 2022 – Since its enactment in 1972, the federal Title IX law has provided an exemption for religious schools (1). But in stealthy manner, the recently released draft Title IX regulation (2) seeks to remove the regulatory basis for the long-standing religious exemption, without revealing the existence of that plan.

According to the original 1972 law, Title IX “does not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization.” This exemption applies only to the extent that its “religious tenets” conflict with Title IX (3).

In 2010, the Obama administration issued guidance that included LGBTQ people within Title IX’s purview (4). As a result, many schools began to seek the religious exemption (5), and over the years, the Office for Civil Rights has never denied a religious exemption claim (6).

In 2019, two students married to same-sex partners sued Fuller Theological Seminary, which had expelled them for violating its sexual standards policy. Although the federal court agreed in principle that Title IX covered LGBTQ persons, it sustained the religious exemption claim and dismissed the complaint (7).

The long-standing religious exemption was re-affirmed in the 2020 Title IX regulation that states in part, “Assurance of exemption. An educational institution that seeks assurance of the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section may do so by submitting in writing to the Assistant Secretary a statement by the highest ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of this part that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.” (8)

So Title IX’s religious exemption is firmly grounded in statutory law and has been affirmed in both case law and regulatory law.

But in secretive manner, the recent draft Title IX regulation removes the 2020 regulatory provision without alerting the regulated community to the action, or providing justification for the proposed change.

Citations:

Campus Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

New Title IX Proposal Will Obstruct Free Speech, Worsen Declines in College Enrollments

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 5, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Title IX Proposal Will Obstruct Free Speech, Worsen Declines in College Enrollments

WASHINGTON / July 5, 2022 – The Title IX policy recently proposed by the U.S. Department of Education (1) seeks to dramatically expand the definition of sexual harassment, thereby curtailing free speech on campus. If enacted into law, the change is likely to exacerbate the worrisome 10-year decline in college enrollments.

On June 23, the Department of Education released a proposal to expand the definition of sexual harassment to be “conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, that, based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively, denies or limits a person’s ability to participate” in their education.

This broad definition means that any comment, gesture, or joke that is “subjectively” offensive could trigger a Title IX complaint, and is certain to curtail campus free speech. Several observers have issued statements strongly critical of the proposed definition:

Hans Bader: “The Biden administration’s proposed definition of sexual harassment disregards the Supreme Court’s Davis decision. It adopts a definition of harassment that is even broader in some respects than the broad harassment definition used in workplaces, which the Supreme Court rejected as impractical for schools.” (2)

Robby Soave: “legitimate classroom speech that was subjectively offensive and occurred repeatedly could now become a matter for the campus Title IX cop.” (3)

Independent Women’s Law Center: “Under the proposed rules, schools that do not crack down on ‘misgendering’ or the refusal to use preferred pronouns can have their federal funding revoked or be sued for monetary damages.” (4)

If the proposed changes go into effect, they will likely impact college enrollments, which have declined 13% over the past decade (5), with male students the hardest hit (6). The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center recently reported the alarming fact that “postsecondary institutions have lost nearly 1.3 million students since spring 2020.” (7)

To date, nine Congressional lawmakers, 61 organizations, and 41 commentators have gone on record in opposition to the Title IX proposal (8). SAVE urges college administrators who are concerned about falling student enrollments to speak out against the Title IX proposal.

Citations:

Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

SAVE Commends Attorneys General for Lawsuit to Block Dud Title IX Proposal

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 30, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Commends Attorneys General for Lawsuit to Block Dud Title IX Proposal

WASHINGTON / June 30, 2022 – Last Thursday the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulation (1). Within days, the Attorneys General from 20 states amended a prior lawsuit (2) against the Department of Education to also obtain a Preliminary Injunction to block implementation of the draft Title IX rule (3).

The June 27 amended lawsuit explains that the Department of Education issued a Notice of Interpretation in 2021 that stated, “Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Then the Department of Education used its own sub-regulatory statement as a legal basis for its recent Title IX policy.

This sidesteps the well-recognized administrative procedure to first issue a regulation, and then release guidance that interprets the regulation.

The newly released draft regulation has triggered a strong negative response. Within seven days, the new policy has resulted in (4):

Criticisms by Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
Statements of opposition by over 50 national and state-level organizations
Scathing commentaries by the Editorial Boards of the Wall Street Journal (5) and Washington Examiner (6).
Over 30 editorials, including ones that compare the policy to Soviet Show-Trials (7) and to the Spanish Inquisition (8).

An earlier Attorney General letter to the Department of Education warned, “we will fight your proposed changes to Title IX with every available tool in our arsenal.” (9) Areas of concern include campus due process, free speech, women’s sports, and parental rights (10).

Eleven states have enacted laws designed to assure fairness in campus Title IX proceedings (11). Many of these statutes mandate investigator impartiality, parties’ access to evidence, a formal hearing, cross-examination, and/or the presumption of innocence. All five of these procedures are substantially weakened or eliminated by the draft Title IX policy.

SAVE commends the 20 Attorneys General for taking bold action. SAVE calls on the Attorneys General in the remaining 30 states to take proactive steps to assure campus fairness and due process in all institutions of higher education in their states.

Citations: