Category: Department of Education

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

State Lawmakers to Dept. of Education: ‘Do Not Experiment with the Definition of Sex’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 23, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

State Lawmakers to Dept. of Education: ‘Do Not Experiment with the Definition of Sex’

WASHINGTON / May 23, 2022 – Lawmakers in Congress introduced bills this past Thursday with the purpose of clarifying the definition of “male” and “female.” (1) The Resolutions are being proposed to counter the controversial plan to the Department of Education to redefine sex to include: “sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” (2)

Senate Resolution 644 was introduced by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi. House Resolution 1136 was spearheaded by Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona.

The Resolutions state, “for purposes of Federal law, a person’s ‘sex’ means his or her biological sex (either male or female) at birth.” The bills emphasize, “for purposes of Federal law addressing sex, the terms ‘woman’ and ‘girl’ refer to human females, and the terms ‘man’ and ‘boy’ refer to human males.” (3)

The Resolutions go on to explain, “there are important reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons, domestic violence shelters, restrooms, and other areas.”

Recently, a coalition of 88 groups announced its opposition to the proposal of the U.S. Department of Education to release a new Title IX regulation (4). One of the concerns of coalition members centers on Title IX’s proposed redefinition of sex.

For example, the letter from 15 Attorneys General warned, “Adding gender identity to the definition of “sex” in Title IX would have a detrimental effect on the great strides made over the last 50 years to create equal athletic opportunity [for women].” (5)

The Title IX Coalition noted, “we are alarmed by the administration’s extremist position that ED should extend Title IX, by regulatory fiat, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” (6)

A third letter from 27 parental rights organization emphasized unequivocally, “we vehemently disagree with the Department’s purported incorporation of “gender identity” into Title IX regulations.” (7)

SAVE urges state lawmakers to tell the Department of Education to leave the Title IX’s definition of sex the same as it has remained over the past 50 years. Contact Secretary Miguel Cardona:

Telephone: (202) 401-3000
Fax: (202) 260-7867
Email: ocr@ed.gov
Street address: Department of Education; 400 Maryland Ave, SW; Washington, DC 20202

Links:

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

MSU Lawsuit Reveals Why New Title IX Regulation Must Seek to End Widespread Discrimination Against Men

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 9, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

MSU Lawsuit Reveals Why New Title IX Regulation Must Seek to End Widespread Discrimination Against Men

WASHINGTON / May 9, 2022 – Following a judicial ruling against the institution, Michigan State University recently agreed to a settlement payment for the unjust suspension of a wrongfully accused male student. The agreement highlights the widespread problem of sex bias by campus Title IX officials, as well as the need for the upcoming Title IX regulation to institute measures to stop discrimination against male students and faculty members.

The lawsuit against MSU arose from a sexual encounter between two undergraduate students in which the female student was the sexual aggressor. During a dormitory encounter, she took the initiative to remove the man’s clothing, perform oral sex on him, and engage in other sexual actions. The woman did not seek the man’s permission or consent to engage in the sexual activities (1).

But inexplicably, the female student decided to file a Title IX complaint, claiming to be the victim of sexual misconduct. The college provided inadequate notice to the accused man and conducted a “victim-centered,” guilt-presuming investigation. MSU also failed to conduct a live hearing and provided no opportunity for cross-examination, ignoring a Sixth Circuit Court decision against the University of Cincinnati ruling that colleges are required to allow for cross-examination (2).

As a result, the male student was suspended for a two-year period. He then filed a lawsuit against Michigan State.

Given the numerous and egregious due process violations by the school, Judge Janet Neff ruled in favor of the male student (1). Last week, Michigan State agreed to a confidential settlement (3) that likely involved a payment in the high six figures.

The MSU saga is not unique. To date, 44 judicial decisions have been issued against colleges, large and small, finding sex bias against the male student (4). These institutions include the University of Denver, University of Minnesota, University of Arizona, UCLA, and many others.

Numerous organizations and individuals have spoken out in recent weeks to emphasize the importance of due process in campus sexual assault proceedings. These include the Attorneys General from 15 states (5), the National Association of Scholars (6), 26 other leading organizations (7), and 82 leading professors and attorneys (8).

Persons are invited to contact Secretary Miguel Cardona and urge that the new Title IX regulation afford full due process protections to accused students and faculty members. Telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

https://api.knack.com/v1/applications/56f5e6b2c3ffa97c68039523/download/asset/5f5e740deb3cf00017f58485/314opinionordermtdordertofiledoc77.pdf
Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 401–02 (6th Cir. 2017)
https://api.knack.com/v1/applications/56f5e6b2c3ffa97c68039523/download/asset/626713d2a570460021af5d5f/314ordermtdstipdoc115.pdf
https://www.saveservices.org/2022/04/44-judicial-decisions/
https://media.dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/Title-IX-Coalition-Letter-4.5.22.pdf
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/comment-promulgating-lower-due-process-protections
https://dfipolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Title-IX-Coalition-Letter-to-OCR-04.04.2022.pdf
saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Stop-the-Weaponization-of-Title-IX-Resolution-5-2-22.pdf

Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Press Release

Twitter Controversy Highlights Precarious State of Campus Free Speech. Concerned Persons Urged to Act by Friday.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 26, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Twitter Controversy Highlights Precarious State of Campus Free Speech. Concerned Persons Urged to Act by Friday.

WASHINGTON / April 26, 2022 – Monday’s news that Elon Musk reached an agreement to purchase Twitter for $44 billion has triggered heated debate about the role of free speech in American society, including on college campuses.

While many hailed the Twitter purchase as helping to restore democratic ideals, Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at the University of California at Berkeley, darkly warned that Musk was seeking to “control one of the most important ways the public now receives news.” (1)

The dismal state of campus free speech is revealed by a recent survey of 481 colleges. The survey found that only 12% of colleges received a “green light” rating, meaning the schools had no written policies that seriously imperil free speech (2).

Three recent developments reveal growing momentum in the national effort to restore free speech on college campuses:

Ohio: Last week, it was announced that Shawnee State University had agreed to pay philosophy professor Nick Meriwether $400,000 after disciplining him for not using a transgender student’s preferred pronouns (3).
Oklahoma: Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 3543 into law, which will establish the Oklahoma Free Speech Committee to review First Amendment complaints at public universities in the state (4).
Florida: Last Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that the University of Central Florida’s broadly worded free speech policy violates the First Amendment. In a 38-page decision, Judge Kevin Newsom wrote the UCF policy “objectively chills speech because its operation would cause a reasonable student to fear expressing potentially unpopular beliefs.” (5)

Unfortunately, a new threat to campus free speech now looms. In May, the federal Department of Education is expected to release a draft Title IX regulation that many fear will reduce due process protections for students and faculty members accused of violating campus speech codes (6).

In response, the Attorneys General from 15 states sent a strongly worded letter on April 5 to the Department of Education. The letter concludes, “We strongly urge the Department to cancel its plans to engage in rulemaking on Title IX.” (7)

SAVE invites interested persons to contact the Department of Education and urge that the new regulation:

Preserve the presumption of innocence
Not expand existing definitions of sexual harassment
Mandate live hearings with cross-examination of the parties

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

The new Title IX regulation is expected to be issued in May. Persons are urged to contact Secretary Cardona by this coming Friday, April 29.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Lawmakers Urged to Cut Funding for Universities that Refuse to End Sex-Discriminatory Programs

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 7, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Lawmakers Urged to Cut Funding for Universities that Refuse to End Sex-Discriminatory Programs

WASHINGTON / March 7, 2022 – The federal Title IX law bans sex discrimination in schools. Defying this decades-old law, hundreds of universities currently offer programs that discriminate against male students. SAVE calls on lawmakers to cut funding for institutions that refuse to end programs that engage in sex-discrimination.

These discriminatory programs address issues such as computer coding; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); and leadership development. Literally hundreds of colleges around the country are known to offer such illegal offerings. Listings of schools with discriminatory programs (1) and scholarships (2) are available online.

As a rule, universities do not offer corresponding programs designed to address areas for which men are under-represented, such as the behavioral sciences, nursing, or teaching. Nor do they sponsor programs designed to rectify the lagging number of male enrollments in colleges.

In the Teamsters v. United States decision, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination is not limited to explicit statements like “no male students allowed,” but also can include “actual practices” such as how the program is publicized and “recruitment techniques.” (3) But ignoring this milestone decision, many colleges have responded to discrimination complaints by making “fig leaf” adjustments to program descriptions.

For example, Arizona State University offers a program called “Girls in Tech.” In response to a recent complaint, the school added a legal disclaimer that “Girls in Tech is open to all, regardless of race, color, national origin, or sex.” But male students are unlikely to apply to a program with such a gender-biased title.

James Madison University in Virginia offers a program titled, “madiSTEM” that is described as a “STEM Conference Designed for Girls in Grades 6-8.” Responding to a complaint, the university added the legal disclaimer, “Open to all students, grades 6-8,” but did not change the program description.

The most egregious offender appears to be Stanford University. A recent complaint filed with the federal Office for Civil Rights lists a total of 33 discriminatory programs sponsored by the school. A partial list of the programs includes: Girls Teaching Girls to Code, Girls Code @Stanford, VMware Woman’s Leadership Program, Girls Engineering the Future, Women in STEM, and many more (4).

Sex-discriminatory policies may arise from an undercurrent of anti-male sentiment on college campuses (5). State lawmakers have already begun to place budget cuts on schools that sponsor programs based on social ideologies. (6-7)

SAVE urges state lawmakers to impose a 10% appropriations reduction on “woke” universities that continue to flaunt anti-sex discrimination mandates.

Links:

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

Penn State the Worst Offender Among Pennsylvania ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 21, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Penn State the Worst Offender Among Pennsylvania ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / December 21, 2021 – Five Pennsylvania universities have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process and other procedural failings, including a presumption of guilt, lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, and sex discrimination against male students.

The school with the largest number of adverse rulings is Pennsylvania State University, with four decisions against the institution to date. In Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, for example, Judge Matthew Brann highlighted the school’s failure to adhere to fundamental cross-examination procedures:

“Penn State’s failure to ask the questions submitted by Doe may contribute to a violation of Doe’s right to due process as a ‘significant and unfair deviation’ from its procedures [regarding cross examination].”

This adjudicative failure suggests a “Queen of Hearts” mentality. In Lewis Carroll’s classic novel, Alice in Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts announced to her surprised retinue, “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”

In addition to Penn State, four other Pennsylvania schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

St. Joseph’s University – 2 judicial decisions
Drexel University – 1
University of Pennsylvania – 1
University of Sciences – 1

The Oxford Dictionary defines Kangaroo Court as an unofficial court held “in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.” More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations: https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

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

Case Citations

Name of College	No. of Decisions	Case Citation
Pennsylvania State University	4	Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, 336 F. Supp. 3d 441 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2018) Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 4:17-CV-01315, 2018 WL 317934 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2018) Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, 276 F. Supp. 3d 300, at 313 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2017) Doe II v. The Pennsylvania State University, No. 4:15-CV-02108 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2015)
St. Joseph’s University	2	Powell v. St. Joseph’s University, et al., No. 17-4438 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2018) Harris v. St. Joseph University, No. CIV.A. 13-3937, 2014 WL 1910242 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2014)
Drexel University	1	Saravanan v. Drexel University, No. CV 17-3409, 2017 WL 5659821(E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017)
University of Pennsylvania	1	Doe v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 13, 2017)
University of Sciences	1	Doe v. University of Sciences, 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. May 29, 2020)

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

Washington & Lee the Worst Offender Among Virginia ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 21, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Washington & Lee the Worst Offender Among Virginia ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / December 21, 2021 – Seven Virginia schools have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process and other procedural failings, including a lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, sex discrimination against male students, and a presumption of guilt.

The school with the largest number of adverse rulings is Washington and Lee University, with two decisions against the institution to date. In the 2015 decision, Judge Norman Moon revealed that campus officials declined to interview some of the respondent’s witnesses because they reportedly had all the facts they needed, revealing a “Queen of Hearts” mentality. (In Lewis Carroll’s classic, Alice in Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts announced to her surprised retinue, “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”)

In addition, six other Virginia schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

George Mason University – 1 judicial decision
James Madison University – 1
Liberty University – 1
Marymount University – 1
University of Virginia – 1
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University – 1

Kangaroo Court methods were not limited to Washington and Lee University. In Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University, the judge highlighted the university’s biased investigative methods and presumption of guilt:

“The undisputed record facts reflect that, as of the time plaintiff was allowed to present his defense before [university investigator] Ericson, Ericson admits that he had ‘prejudged the case and decided to find [plaintiff] responsible’ for sexual assault.”

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

Case Citations

Name of College	No. of Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
Washington & Lee University	2	Doe v. Washington & Lee University, No. 6:19-CV-00023, 2021 WL 1520001 (W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2021) Doe v. Washington & Lee University, No. 6:14-CV-00052, 2015 WL 4647996 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015)
George Mason University	1	Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University, 149 F. Supp. 3d 602 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2016)
James Madison University	1	Doe v. Alger, 228 F. Supp. 3d 713 (W.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2016)
Liberty University	1	Jackson v. Liberty University, no. 6:17-cv-00041-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2017)
Marymount University	1	Doe v. Marymount University, 297 F. Supp. 3d 573 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2018)
University of Virginia	1	Doe v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, No. 3:19CV00038, 2019 WL 2718496 (W.D. Va. June 28, 2019)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University	1	Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, No. 7:19-CV-00249, 2020 WL 1309461 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2020)

Campus Department of Education Due Process Investigations Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Seven Massachusetts Universities Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ U. Mass at Dartmouth the Worst Offender

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 21, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Seven Massachusetts Universities Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ U. Mass at Dartmouth the Worst Offender

WASHINGTON / December 21, 2021 – Seven Massachusetts schools have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process failings, including lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, sex discrimination against male students, and a presumption of guilt.

Most egregious was the Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth lawsuit. Plaintiff John Harnois was a disabled veteran who enrolled at the University to pursue a doctorate in Oceanography, and maintained a 4.0 GPA during his first year of graduate studies.

The Harnois case attracted extensive negative publicity for the college. One legal analysis concluded tartly, “One would be hard-pressed to find more egregious allegations than those in Harnois.” https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/say-what-selective-enforcement-and-46477/

In his ruling, Judge Richard Stearns exposed the witch-hunt style methods utilized by the school’s Title IX office:

“During its investigation, UMass Dartmouth’s Title IX office asked two female students in Harnois’s graduate program to file complaints against Harnois, but both refused to do so. Eventually, the Title IX investigator contacted every female student in Harnois’s classes in search of derogatory information.”

In addition, six other Massachusetts schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

University of Massachusetts, Amherst – 1 judicial decision
Amherst College – 1
Boston College – 1
Brandeis University – 1
Harvard University – 1
Western New England University – 1

The campus adjudications that are challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process protections are under assault by Massachusetts institutions. A listing of the case citations is shown below.

More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations: https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

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

Case Citations

Name of College	No. of Adverse Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
University of Massachusetts System	2	Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, No. CV 19-10705-RGS, 2019 WL 5551743 (D. Mass. Oct. 28, 2019) John Doe v. University of Massachusetts, No. 1:20-cv-11571 (D. Mass. April 28, 2021)
Amherst College	1	Doe v. Amherst College, no. 3:15-cv-30097-MGM (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2017)
Boston College	1	John Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. June 8, 2018)
Brandeis University	1	Doe v. Brandeis University, 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. March 31, 2016).
Harvard University	1	Doe v. Harvard University, 462 F. Supp. 3d 51 (D. Mass. May 28, 2020)
Western New England University	1	Doe v. Western New England University, 228 F.Supp.3d 154 (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2017)

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

16 New York Colleges Now Listed in the Kangaroo-Court ‘Hall of Shame.’ Syracuse U. is Worst Offender.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 8, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

16 New York Colleges Now Listed in the Kangaroo-Court ‘Hall of Shame.’ Syracuse U. is Worst Offender.

WASHINGTON / December 8, 2021 – Judges have issued 31 rulings in recent years against 16 New York state colleges and universities. These decisions reveal widespread due process deficiencies for sexual harassment cases, which are typically handled by campus Title IX offices.

By far the worst offender is Syracuse University, with a total of six adverse judicial decisions to date. The school’s motto, translated from the Latin, states, “Knowledge crowns those who seek her.” In contrast, a Kangaroo Court cares more about reaching a “guilty” verdict (1), rather than engaging in an impartial search for knowledge and truth.

Unfortunately, many New York schools have ignored the most rudimentary notions of fairness. As a result, judges have handed down more decisions against New York colleges than schools in any other state, including states with larger populations.

Judges have ruled the following New York institutions violated key due process, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

Syracuse University – 6 decisions
Columbia University – 3 decisions
Cornell University – 3 decisions
SUNY Purchase – 3 decisions
Colgate University – 2 decisions
RPI – 2 decisions
Hobart and William Smith – 2 decisions
SUNY Stony Brook – 2 decisions
Hofstra University – 1 decision
Hamilton College – 1 decision
New York University – 1 decision
Skidmore College – 1 decision
John Fisher College – 1 decision
SUNY Albany – 1 decision
SUNY Cortland – 1 decision
United States Merchant Marine Academy – 1 decision

A complete listing of the case citations is available online (2).

The campus adjudications that are challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process violations may be endemic at New York institutions. Due process includes timely notification of allegations, an impartial investigation, fair hearing, the right to appeal, and the presumption of innocence.

In 2015, New York enacted its “Enough is Enough” law that mandated a uniform definition of affirmative consent (3). The law did not address the due process rights of the accused.

More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations (4).

Citations: