Category: Campus

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

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:

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

Unlawful: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Biden Title IX Proposal

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 27, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Unlawful: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Biden Title IX Proposal

WASHINGTON / June 27, 2022 – A robust body of American case law undergirds due process and free speech at colleges and universities. Unfortunately, the Title IX policy recently proposed by the Biden Department of Education (1) ignores and effectively overturns much of this case law, ignoring key protections enumerated in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The body of Title IX case law includes 145 decisions by trial courts, 29 holdings by appellate courts, and one Supreme Court decision (2). The case law has continued to expand in recent months, with appellate findings against the University of Denver, Cornell University, and Harvard University for violations of fair procedure (3).

Following are examples how the Biden proposal sidesteps these judicial decisions:

The Biden plan would allow the same official to serve as both the investigator and decision-maker, what is known as the “single-investigator” approach. Conflating these two roles constitutes a conflict of interest and leads to biased investigations. Indeed, 47 judicial decisions specifically highlighted the problem of investigative bias.
Under the proposed rule, respondents would be allowed access only to a “description of the relevant evidence,” which could be provided either “orally or in writing.” But 27 judicial decisions called out schools for restricting student’s access to relevant evidence.
The Biden approach would dispense with cross-examination and hearings. Instead, adjudicators would be permitted to ask their questions “during individual meetings with the parties.” But 38 judicial decisions highlighted schools’ lack of adequate cross-examination procedures, and 24 decisions specifically called out the failure of schools to assure adequate credibility assessment of the parties.

The over-reach of the Department of Education policy is most apparent in its proposed definition of sexual harassment. In Davis v. Monroe, the Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as “harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” (4)

In contrast, the Department of Education is proposing to dramatically 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 or gesture that is “subjectively” offensive could trigger a Title IX complaint, and is certain to curtail campus free speech.

The proposed Biden plan also violates many provisions found in state-level campus due process laws, which are enumerated on the SAVE website (5).

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial decries, “By proposing to jettison fair proceedings, the Education Department is setting colleges and universities on a collision course with the courts.” (6)

The Department of Education’s Title IX proposal is flawed in its over-arching disregard for due process and fairness, and is antithetical to democratic ideals of free speech. SAVE calls on lawmakers to reject the Biden Title IX proposal.

A listing of media outlets, lawmakers, organizations, and commentators who have already expressed opposition to the Title IX proposal is available online (7).

Citations:

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Louisiana Governor Edwards Signs Due Process Bill into Law

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 23, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Louisiana Governor Edwards Signs Due Process Bill into Law, Setting the Stage for the 50^th Anniversary of Title IX

WASHINGTON / June 23, 2022 – On Tuesday, Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed the “Student Due Process and Protection Act” into law (1). Louisiana joins with nine other states with campus due process laws: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota (2). The law sets the stage for a renewed focus of Title IX programs to end all forms of sex discrimination.

The new law provides the following due process protections for students attending public colleges and universities in Louisiana:

Right to be informed of their rights.
Right to receive notice of the alleged violation.
Right to be informed of the evidence the institution used to make the charge.
Presumption of innocence.
Access to an administrative file that contains all non-privileged documents pertaining to the allegation.
Elimination of conflicts of interest among counselors, investigators, institutional prosecutor, and adjudicators.
Right to appeal.
Right to legal counsel.
Right to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Private right of action against the institution to recover actual damages.

Exemplifying strong bipartisanship, House Bill 364 passed both the Louisiana House and the Senate without a single opposing vote in either chamber (3). The due process law, which takes effect on August 1, is generally consistent with the Title IX regulation that was promulgated by the Department of Education in 2020.

The Title IX law, originally enacted in 1972, now faces criticism that it has lost its focus on ending sex discrimination. SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation identifies 43 judicial decisions against universities in which institutional sex bias against male students was highlighted (4).

In his recent concurrence against Cornell University, Appellate Judge Jose Cabranes issued a stern warning about the current state of due process on college campuses:

“I pause briefly to comment, in my own name, that, as alleged, this case describes deeply troubling aspects of contemporary university procedures to adjudicate complaints under Title IX and other closely related statutes. In many instances, these procedures signal a retreat from the foundational principle of due process, the erosion of which has been accompanied—to no one’s surprise—by a decline in modern universities’ protection of the open inquiry and academic freedom that has accounted for the vitality and success of American higher education.” (5)

As we enter the second 50 years of Title IX’s existence, institutional officials are encouraged to read and reflect upon Judge Cabranes’ prescient concurrence.

Links:

Campus False Allegations Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Judge Jose Cabranes on Title IX

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 14, 2022

Judge Jose Cabranes on Title IX

‘The day is surely coming . . . when the Supreme Court will be able to assess the various university procedures that undermine the freedom and fairness of the academy in favor of the politics of grievance.’

Link: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ce4cef90-9788-4406-9a1e-09c8f499fb77/2/doc/20-1514_complete_opn.pdf

Judge Jose Cabranes of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals writing in Vengalattore v. Cornell, June 2:

I concur in the judgment of the Court and in Judge [Amalya] Kearse’s comprehensive opinion. I pause briefly to comment, in my own name, that, as alleged, this case describes deeply troubling aspects of contemporary university procedures to adjudicate complaints under Title IX and other closely related statutes. In many instances, these procedures signal a retreat from the foundational principle of due process, the erosion of which has been accompanied—to no one’s surprise—by a decline in modern universities’ protection of the open inquiry and academic freedom that has accounted for the vitality and success of American higher education.

This growing “law” of university disciplinary procedures, often promulgated in response to the regulatory diktats of government, is controversial and thus far largely beyond the reach of the courts because of, among other things, the presumed absence of “state action” by so-called private universities. Thus insulated from review, it is no wonder that, in some cases, these procedures have been compared unfavorably to those of the infamous English Star Chamber.

[Prof. Mukund] Vengalattore’s allegations, if supported by evidence, provide one such example of the brutish overreach of university administrators at the expense of due process and simple fairness. His allegations, if corroborated, would reveal a grotesque miscarriage of justice at Cornell University. As alleged, Cornell’s investigation of Vengalattore denied him access to counsel; failed to provide him with a statement of the nature of the accusations against him; denied him the ability to question witnesses; drew adverse inferences from the absence of evidence; and failed to employ an appropriate burden of proof or standard of evidence. In other cases and other universities, the catalogue of offenses can include continuing surveillance and the imposition of double jeopardy for long-ago grievances.

There is no doubt that allegations of misconduct on university campuses—sexual or otherwise—must, of course, be taken seriously; but any actions taken by university officials in response to such allegations must also comport with basic principles of fairness and due process. The day is surely coming—and none too soon—when the Supreme Court will be able to assess the various university procedures that undermine the freedom and fairness of the academy in favor of the politics of grievance.

In sum: these threats to due process and academic freedom are matters of life and death for our great universities. It is incumbent upon their leaders to reverse the disturbing trend of indifference to these threats, or simple immobilization due to fear of internal constituencies of the “virtuous” determined to lunge for influence or settle scores against outspoken colleagues.

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

Title IX Reform Emerging as High-Profile Issue for November Elections

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 13, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Title IX Reform Emerging as High-Profile Issue for November Elections

WASHINGTON / June 13, 2022 – Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools. As a result of a series of controversial policy changes, Title IX has now become one of the most hotly debated topics in America, and is poised to influence the outcome of numerous elections on Tuesday, November 8.

In 2021, Loudon County, VA approved a policy on Rights of Transgender and Gender-Expansive Students that states, “All students are entitled to have access to restrooms and locker rooms that are sanitary, safe, and adequate…Students shall be allowed to use the facility that corresponds to their consistently asserted gender identity.” (1)

Shortly afterwards, a male student entered the school girl’s bathroom and committed a sexual assault. The incident soon became a flashpoint in the Virginia governor’s race (2), leading to the upset victory on November 3 of Republican Glenn Youngkin over Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Since then, Title IX controversies have spread to schools across the country. The following Title IX-related events occurred within the past several days:

June 2: In a milestone Title IX decision against Cornell University, appellate Judge Jose Cabranes 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.” (3)
June 8: A Washington Post editorial deplored the Title IX complaints against three eighth-grade boys in Wisconsin for referring to a classmate using the biologically correct pronoun “her,” instead of the classmate’s preferred “them.” (4)
June 8: Female long-distance runner Madison DeBos published a widely circulated editorial in which she shared the “disheartening and even heartbreaking” feeling of competing against biological males (5).
June 12: Democrat Tulsi Gabbard made a statement strongly critical of the new gender pronoun policy at the State University of New York, deriding the policy as an example of “forced conformity” (6).

A recent SAVE survey reveals that 63% of Americans oppose the Department of Education’s plan to expand its long-standing definition of sex to include “gender identity.” The national survey also shows that strong majorities of Americans reject other proposed changes to Title IX (7).

All candidates for political office are urged to outline their views on the need for Title IX reform. Concerned persons should urge the Department of Education to cancel its plans to issue a new Title IX regulation. Contact Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

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

63% of Americans Oppose Expanding Definition of Sex to Include ‘Gender Identity’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 6, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

63% of Americans Oppose Expanding Definition of Sex to Include ‘Gender Identity’

WASHINGTON / June 6, 2022 – A new survey reveals that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose the Department of Education’s plan to expand its long-standing definition of sex to include “gender identity” (1). The national survey, conducted for SAVE by YouGov, also shows that strong majorities of Americans reject other proposed changes to Title IX, the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools.

Following are respondents’ responses to the six survey questions, among those who offered an opinion:

Definition of Sex:

Keep traditional biological definition: 63%
Expand the definition to include “sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity:” 37%

Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports:

Allow: 29%
Not allow: 71%

Parental Consent Prior to School Counseling about Gender Dysphoria:

Require parental consent prior to counseling: 61%
Not require parental consent: 39%

Parental Opt-out for Children’s Participation in Sex Education Classes:

Allow parental opt-out: 69%
Not allow parental opt-out: 31%

Presumption of Innocence or Guilt for College Disciplinary Hearings:

Presumption of innocence: 87%
Presumption of guilt: 13%

Definition of Sexual Harassment:

Retain current definition to protect free speech: Conduct that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities:” 57%
Expand the current definition to discourage persons from saying things that may be unwelcome or upsetting: 43%

Overall, males and females gave similar responses, with the exception of Question 6. While 66% of males preferred to retain the current definition of sexual harassment, 53% of females indicated a preference to expand the definition of sexual harassment to discourage statements that may be unwelcome or upsetting.

For all six questions, 17-24% of all persons responded, “No opinion/Don’t know.” The “No opinion/Don’t know” responses were excluded from the results presented above. The full survey results and cross-tabulations can be viewed online (2).

All data are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,566 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between May 31 to June 2, 2022. The survey was conducted online. The data have been weighted and are representative of all U.S. adults (ages 18+). Response options were randomly switched to minimize primacy-recency effects.

Nearly 90 groups have expressed opposition to the draft Title IX regulation (3), which is expected to be issued later in June. SAVE urges concerned persons to speak out to assure the upcoming Title IX regulation conforms to the opinions of a majority of Americans.

Contact Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

Campus Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Sexual Harassment Title IX

Free Speech May Be Imperiled by Upcoming Title IX Policy; Lawmakers Urged to Speak Out

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 31, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Free Speech May Be Imperiled by Upcoming Title IX Policy; Lawmakers Urged to Speak Out

WASHINGTON / May 31, 2022 – First Amendment free speech protections currently hang in the balance, affected by a variety of social cross-currents and political agendas. SAVE urges Republican and Democratic lawmakers to speak out forcefully to restore free speech in colleges and universities across the nation.

National leaders such as Bill Maher and Elon Musk have called for an end to restrictive speech codes (1). Netflix recently instructed its employees to be tolerant of viewpoint diversity, or seek employment elsewhere (2). And 84% of college students say free speech rights are extremely or very important, according to a Knight/Ipsos poll (3).

Several recent developments proffer hope to proponents of campus free speech:

Earlier this month, Georgia enacted a law to strengthen campus free speech, including a provision designed to thwart the establishment of so-called “free speech zones.” (4)
Last week a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the University of Houston, saying the school’s definition of harassment was unduly broad and served to constrict free speech (5).
Positive developments in Ohio, Oklahoma, and Florida have been reported (6).

But two worrisome trends foretell growing restrictions on free speech:

School Title IX policies often include a requirement that transgenders be referred to by their preferred pronouns. In a recent Wisconsin case, a boy was charged with Title IX sexual harassment for not referring to a female classmate as “they” or “them” (7). Forced speech is a violation of free speech.
At the University of Washington, new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) standards for faculty tenure decisions are causing faculty members to be “afraid to speak out, say what they really think.” (8)

Recently a coalition of 88 groups announced its opposition to the plan of the U.S. Department of Education to release a new Title IX regulation (9). One of the concerns of coalition members focused on how the new Title IX policy would be used to stultify free speech.

SAVE urges lawmakers to speak out to assure the upcoming Title IX regulation protects and enhances constitutional free speech guarantees. Contact Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links: