Category: Campus

Lawsuit Against USF Moves Forward, Sending a Message that Schools Must Not Take Short-Cuts on Due Process Protections

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 22, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@endtodv.org

Lawsuit Against USF Moves Forward, Sending a Message that Schools Must Not Take Short-Cuts on Due Process Protections

WASHINGTON / October 24, 2022 – Last week U.S. District Judge Scriven issued a ruling in a sexual assault case, denying the University of South Florida its Motion to Dismiss. The decision in favor of former USF student Kevaughn Dingle will allow the case to proceed to discovery and trial, if the university does not opt to settle the case (1).

The complaint arose from a sexual encounter in which the female student was the initiator (2). She entered the dormitory room of Dingle, a Black man, removed his shirt, expressed her sexual excitement, asked the man to text someone for a condom, and performed fellatio on him.

An hour later, she told some friends she “might have been sexually assaulted,” and filed a Title IX complaint.

During the Title IX proceeding, USF restricted Dingle’s review of the file, denied him the right to cross-examine the accuser, and even revoked his right to appeal.

In addition, USF misinterpreted its definition of consent. Specifically, USF’s Title IX Office defined consent as “words and/or actions that clearly indicate a willingness to engage in a specific sexual activity… at some point during the interaction or thereafter.” In contrast, USF’s determination letter faulted the man based on what the school referred to as a lack of “ongoing affirmative consent.” [emphasis added]

As a consequence, USF found Dingle responsible of sexual assault, expelled him, and stripped him of his football scholarship.

In addition, Dingle was arrested by local police on sexual assault charges, which were eventually dropped (3).

Dingle’s experience is not uncommon. Since the Department of Education issued its “Dear Colleague Letter” in 2011, 814 similar lawsuits have been filed (4). As a consequence, 44 judicial decisions have been issued against colleges finding sex bias against the male student (5).

While Black men make up only about six percent of college undergraduates, they are substantially overrepresented in the Title IX proceedings (6). Among the 30% of cases in which the race of the accused student was known, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging due process violations (7).

Citations:

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

Ignoring Wave of Attacks on Campus Due Process, Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Help ‘Survivors.’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 10, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Ignoring Wave of Attacks on Campus Due Process, Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Help ‘Survivors,’ For the Fifth Time

WASHINGTON / October 10, 2022 – Basic principles of “due process” on campus are being challenged by a growing number of frivolous and false Title IX complaints. Despite these developments, Congressional lawmakers introduced last week the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a bill that does nothing to shore up due process protections.

Due process, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, serves to protect innocent citizens from false accusations. But a review of recent Title IX complaints reveals that female students increasingly are resorting to Title IX as a weapon to settle old scores.

For example, Clemson University student Erin Wingo initiated a sexual encounter with a male acquaintance. But worried that her boyfriend might learn of the tryst, Wingo fabricated an allegation of sexual assault. A South Carolina jury later awarded the male student $5.3 million for defamation (1).

In another case, the male student was taking a medication that precluded his ability to have intercourse— but that did not deter an accusation of “rape” from being filed by the female student. In other recent complaints, there is no allegation of intimate sexual contact. Rather, the complaint centers around vague and unverifiable claims of “harassment.”

In addition, recent developments reveal that certain groups are seeking to roll back fundamental due process protections:

The Department of Education released a draft Title IX regulation in June that was widely criticized for its removal of key due process protections. One letter from 19 state Attorneys General charged, “The Proposed Rule threatens to destroy Title IX.” (2)
The presumption of innocence has long been seen as the bedrock to due process (3). Nonetheless, 12 Democratic Senators submitted a letter calling on the Department of Education to remove any ”presumption that the respondent is not responsible for sex discrimination until a determination is made.” (4) This extreme position provoked the ire of leading liberal commentators (5).

Ignoring these worrisome threats to due process, last week federal lawmakers introduced the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (6). The bill had been introduced, unsuccessfully, in four previous sessions of Congress (7).

The House bill was co-sponsored by Representatives Carolyn Maloney and John Katko, neither of whom will be serving in Congress next year. Announced five weeks before the highly contested November 8 elections, the bill has little chance of being passed into law in the current session of Congress.

“The truth is that there is no crisis in sexual assault on campus,” notes a leading Title IX attorney. “Title IX teaches women to blame the guy instead of accepting her share of responsibility for the failed relationship.”

Citations:

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

Attorneys General School the DOE on Meaning of ‘Free Speech,’ ‘Due Process,’ and ‘Constitutional Rights’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 19, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Attorneys General School the DOE on Meaning of ‘Free Speech,’ ‘Due Process,’ and ‘Constitutional Rights’

WASHINGTON / September 19, 2022 – The Attorneys General from 18 states have submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), in response to a proposed Title IX regulation that has stimulated widespread debate and opposition (1). The Attorneys’ General comments represent a tutorial on the meaning and application of First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees in the higher education setting.

The first letter, signed by the Attorneys General of MT, AL, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, and VA, first analyzes the DOE proposal to vastly expand the definition of sexual harassment. This change would “chill the free exchange of ideas,” which would “intimidate students and faculty into keeping quiet on controversial issues.” (2)

The letter then deplores the rule’s plan to remove or modify important due process safeguards, including advance disclosure of evidence, impartial investigations, key written notice provisions, and live hearings. Cumulatively, these changes are “reminiscent of Star Chambers” that “stacked the deck against accused students.” The 37-page letter concludes, “In many instances, moreover, the Department’s Proposed Rule conflicts with the text, purpose, and longstanding interpretation of Title IX.”

The second letter charges the draft regulation lacks a clear statement of authority from Congress, and highlights the proposed rule’s unlawful attempt to preempt state laws that protect the rights of females. Signed by the Attorneys General of IN, AL, AZ, AR, GA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, and WV, the letter concludes simply, “The Proposed Rule threatens to destroy Title IX.” (3)
Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas flatly charges the Biden proposal will “destroy constitutional rights.” (4) AG Paxton’s letter to the DOE concludes tartly, “the Proposed Rule promises to repeat the mistakes of the Department’s ill-advised 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.” (5)

All three letters sharply criticize the DOE plan to expand the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity.” Noting that the draft policy lacks definitions of “sex” or “gender identity,” the first letter notes that the Department of Education “simply waves its hand and—by regulatory fiat—alters a fundamental term, as if its novel definition was axiomatic.” (2)

The first letter also highlights the role of Catherine Lhamon, who served as the DOE Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights from 2013 to 2017, and was re-appointed to the same position in 2021. During the earlier period, the letter notes that Lhamon played the lead role in creating a “constitutional and regulatory mess.”

Citations:

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

Title IX Network Groups Lead Effort to Bombard DOE with Over 240,000 Title IX Comments

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 15, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Title IX Network Groups Lead Effort to Bombard DOE with Over 240,000 Title IX Comments

WASHINGTON / September 15, 2022 – The Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation on June 23 that provoked widespread debate. In response, 240,085 public comments about the controversial policy were filed with the DOE before its September 12 deadline (1). Many of these comments were filed as a result of the efforts of over 160 groups that participate in the Title IX Network (2).

Following are examples of the outreach activities of several Title IX Network members to promote the submission of comments:

The Family Policy Alliance drafted a comment (3) and encouraged the submission of 13,000 comments by the members of its network.
The Texas Eagle Forum (4) sent an action alert to its subscribers/members, providing links to the SAVE website, including research links and submission instructions (5).
Speech First sent multiple emails to its email list of 110,000 members directing them to the comment submission pages of SAVE and the Defense of Freedom Institute (6), as well as to Speech First’s website (7).
United Families International created a dedicated webpage, including talking points, tips for effective writing of comments, instructions, and the link to the government portal, and sent several Action Alerts and reminders (8).
Katartismos Global sent information to the Anglican Church in North America, American Association of Evangelicals, and a national prayer initiative called the World Prayer Network (9).

SAVE submitted nine separate comments, including a listing of the organizations opposed to the draft regulation (10), the names of 235 religious leaders opposed to the Title IX policy (11), and an analysis of 175 judicial decisions in favor of campus due process (12).

The proposed Title IX regulation negates basic free speech and due process provisions of the Constitution, ignores the milestone Davis v. Monroe Supreme Court decision, subverts Congressional intent, and inexplicably contradicts the fundamental purpose of Title IX, which is to curb sex discrimination in schools.

SAVE calls on the Department of Education to promptly withdraw its ill-considered Title IX regulation.

Citations:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Falsely Accused Day Spotlights Growing Exasperation of Judges and Juries with Pernicious Problem that Affects 20 Million

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 26, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@endtodv.org

Falsely Accused Day Spotlights Growing Exasperation of Judges and Juries with Pernicious Problem that Affects 20 Million

WASHINGTON / August 29, 2022 – This past week, First Circuit Court Judge Bruce Selya issued a milestone ruling in a case involving an MIT student accused of nonconsensual sexual behavior (1). The opinion will allow accused students who contend the accusation is false to file a lawsuit using a pseudonym. Being publicly viewed as a “sex offender” can represent an impediment to such students claiming the university failed to uphold due process protections.

The decision represents the latest in a string of victories by accused students who initiate legal action against their former schools. Over the past decade, judges have ruled in favor of the accused student in 238 cases (2). Many of these cases have been compiled and summarized in the SAVE publication, “Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation” (3).

In South Carolina, student Erin Wingo claimed she was a victim of non-consensual sexual assault. Wingo filed a complaint with the Clemson University Title IX office, resulting in the suspension of the alleged “rapist” from the school. After the suspension was finalized, Wingo’s boyfriend sent the accused student this revelatory text message: “You’re innocent. I lied in that hearing. Erin wanted to have sex that night.” The accused man then filed a defamation lawsuit against Wingo. On March 25, 2022, the jury announced a stunning $5.3 million award against the woman (4).

More recently, a Virginia jury awarded $15 million to actor Johnny Depp for defamatory claims of domestic violence made by Amber Heard in a Washington Post editorial (5).

The high dollar value of the South Carolina and Virginia awards reflects a growing public impatience with the widespread problem of false allegations. A 2020 national survey found that 8% of Americans — 11% of men and 6% of women — report being falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. The 8% figure represents 20.4 million adults (6).

False allegations can have a range of serious consequences including loss of family relationships, social stigmatization, impairment of career opportunities, and mental health problems (7). In response, New York (8), Iowa (9), and California (10) have enacted laws designed to sanction false accusers.

Falsely Accused Day will be observed on Friday, September 9. Falsely Accused Day will be marked by events held in the United States (11) and in other countries around the world (12).

Citations:

Campus Free Speech Gender Identity Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Flawed Biden Proposal May Irreparably Harm Title IX. Lawmakers Are Urged to File Comments.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 22, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Flawed Biden Proposal May Irreparably Harm Title IX. Lawmakers Are Urged to File Comments.

WASHINGTON / August 22, 2022 – The Biden Title IX proposal is attracting a growing wave of criticism by lawmakers, attorneys general, 150 organizations, and editorialists (1). The criticisms underscore a concern that the Department of Education proposal is so deeply flawed that it is discrediting the nation’s broader effort to end sex discrimination. SAVE invites lawmakers around the nation to file Comments urging that the Department of Education withdraw its ill-considered proposal.

The federal Title IX law states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

But the Biden draft Title IX regulation, released on June 23, ignores the plain language and clear intent of the Title IX law, which is designed to curb sex discrimination against males and females.

By means of 175 lawsuit decisions, federal judges have delineated a series of due process protections to protect male students from false allegations (2). In a recent editorial, Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, accused the Department of Education of promoting “guilty without remorse regulations” in which the “concept of justice in America is turned on its head.” (3)

Equally strong criticisms have been leveled by advocates for women’s rights. The Independent Women’s Voice, for example, charges the Biden proposal will “subvert” the rights of parents and “destroy” the purpose of Title IX (4).

The Biden Title IX plan proposes to alter the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity.” This signifies a repudiation of congressional intent, which never contemplated such a change.

The proposed “gender identity” language would provide a formidable legal foundation to the “gender identity movement” (5). Recent articles have documented how the gender identity movement has established a presence in schools across the nation:

Nationwide, the GSA Network serves as an umbrella organization for more than 4,000 “gender and sexuality alliances” in 40 states. The organization recommends that school advisors not advise parents about their child’s participation in such clubs (6).
In California, the Sacramento City Unified School District has adopted a “queer theory–based pedagogy that encourages teachers to ‘normalize gender exploration,’ confront their ‘cisgender privilege,’ and maintain strict secrecy when facilitating a child’s gender or sexual transition.” (7)
In Oregon, the Portland public schools have launched a new curriculum that teaches students to ”begin exploring ‘the infinite gender spectrum.’” (8)

Under the Biden plan, questioning such initiatives would constitute sex discrimination and therefore be illegal. This would violate First Amendment free speech guarantees (9).

Lawmakers are called upon to submit Comments to the Department of Education, urging the DOE to abandon its deeply flawed proposal. Step-by-step instructions to submit Comments are available online (10).

The deadline to submit Comments is September 12.

Citations:

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

Relentless Pressure on Colleges and Universities to End Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 18, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Relentless Pressure on Colleges and Universities to End Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / August 18, 2022 – As the new academic year approaches, SAVE is urging school administrators to exercise greater oversight over their Title IX offices to bring an end to the notorious “Kangaroo Courts.” Several developments during the Summer months highlight the growing pressures on institutions to assure fairness in Title IX proceedings:

Judicial Deference: On June 2, Second Circuit Appellate Judge Jose Cabranes issued a concurrence that compared campus disciplinary committees to the infamous English Star Chambers and warned, “[T]hese threats to due process and academic freedom are matters of life and death for our great universities.” (1) The continued wave of Title IX lawsuits has eroded the long-standing notion of judicial deference to institutions of higher education.

State Legislation: On June 15, Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed the “Student Due Process and Protection Act” into law (2). The campus bill had been approved in both the House and the Senate without a single opposing vote. To date, 11 states have enacted legislation that mandate campus due process protections (3).

Presumption of Innocence: A national survey conducted in June for SAVE by YouGov found that 87% of respondents support a presumption of innocence for college disciplinary hearings (4).

Lawsuit: On July 20, Judge CJ Williams of the District Court of Northern Iowa handed down a decision against Fordt University that documented widespread procedural irregularities (5). The decision was one of the most sweeping Title IX rulings issued in the past decade.

DC Rally: An August 11 rally held in Washington, DC featured several presentations on the need for greater attention to campus fairness (6). Teresa Manning of the National Association of Scholars highlighted how campus due process rights “protect the lone individual up against powerful institutions like government and schools.” (7)

Student Enrollments: The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reports that “postsecondary institutions have lost nearly 1.3 million students since spring 2020.” (8) Negative media coverage of unconstitutional Title IX procedures is likely to worsen the problem of declining student enrollments, especially among male students.

This past week in Ithaca, New York, a person dressed as a kangaroo made an appearance on the campus of Cornell University. Sponsored by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the kangaroo charged, “If you have a Title IX sexual misconduct complaint filed against you, chances are you will not get a fair hearing.” (9)

SAVE’s “Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation” summarizes 175 Title IX decisions favorable to the accused student (10).

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: