Categories
California Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Feminism Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX Training

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Nikki Haley: “When I was in school you didn’t have sex ed until seventh grade. And even then, your parents had to sign whether you could take the class. That’s a decision for parents to make.”
  2. Kristi Noem: “The [South Dakota] Board of Regents should remove all references to preferred pronouns in all school materials…Students should have the ability to exercise their right to free speech.” “Our universities should not be hosting and/or promoting drag shows…Just as other dangerous theories have been allowed to thrive on college campuses, gender theory has been rebranded and accepted as truth across the nation.” (Noem subsequently announced her decision to not run as a presidential candidate).
  3. Donald Trump: “On Day One, I will revoke Joe Biden’s cruel policies on so-called ‘gender-affirming care,’…we will promote positive education about the nuclear family…I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the U.S. government are male and female…the bill will also make clear that Title IX prohibits men from participating in women’s sports.”
  4. Glenn Youngkin: “Political indoctrination has no place in our classrooms….Inherently divisive concepts, like Critical Race Theory and its progeny, instruct students to only view life through the lens of race and presumes that some students are consciously or unconsciously racist, sexist, or oppressive, and that other students are victims.” (Youngkin subsequently announced his decision to not run as a presidential candidate).

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

False Allegations Forum: Pushing Back on Legal Dominance Ideology

False Allegations Forum: Pushing Back on Legal Dominance Ideology

By Sean Parker

June 14, 2023

‘But eventually Dum spiro spero – ‘while I breathe, I hope”

The False Allegations Forum (FAF) is a union of various groups working in the UK FA movement, supporting those claiming to be falsely accused, their families and loved ones. The Forum includes representatives of FACT, FASO, PPMI, Accused.me, Fighting for the Falsely Accused, Letters to the Establishment, Empowering the Innocent and individual campaigners, and the remit is on putting the accumulated knowledge and experience of a 25-plus years campaign into action.

In the inaugural meeting in early June 2023, subjects were raised such as the Law Commission’s proposal to make theoretical ‘rape myths’ obligatory to be followed by judges, juryless trials, recovery groups for the falsely accused, and how all who go through this process are treated in the media. If judges are to decide alone, how will they ascertain that defendants were aware of these supposed rape myth-based offences at the time of the alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt?

It is acknowledged that the moves by ‘progressive’ activists to transform the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard to ‘conviction-upon-allegation’ started in the 1990s with the care home scandal in North Wales and the north of England. Each time the media cycle turns (whether that be through stories such as those of Bill Clinton, John Worboys, Jimmy Savile, Carl Beech or Harvey Weinstein), a new chunk seems to be lopped off the once apparently golden trunk of the British justice system.

If the intention is to outlaw casual sex even further than it has been already in the 21st century, then the new proposals by the Criminal Law Reform Network (CLRN) to make ‘deceit sex’ a new offence should do the trick. However, as was raised by Ian Osborne at the meeting, his son John Lee Osborne was already serving a sentence of 18 years due to such allegations – of which he maintains his innocence, some four years after conviction. This proposal puts putting the cart before the horse into absurd new territory.

Should all contested convictions for category 2-3 rape or sexual assault from 2003 onwards be judicially reviewed with the presumption of the new category of ‘sexual misadventure’? The justice system has gone beyond ‘believing the victims’ to determination to not further upset complainants, however variable the recollections. By pushing the same levers of power as trans activists in attempting to invert natural reality, legal dominance ideologues are trying to redefine sexual behaviour with the presumption of these so-called ‘rape myths’ (recently discredited by Nuffield Foundation research, as reported by Joshua Rozenburg).

The weaponisation of ‘shame’ in the false allegations industry ensures that almost all successful appeals are reported as being on ‘technicalities’, since the accused mostly want to run and hide when it’s all over, and ‘new evidence’ is required for convictions which have increasingly needed no evidence to convict in the first place.

Power-preoccupied activists versus The People is the name of the game in the media affiliated political realm, as the question of whether the patriarchy of Moses or Mick Jagger that needs dismantling is next on the news agenda. Clare’s Law is one in an array of named laws, spannered through after the death of a woman at the hands a man; in this case a mentally deranged ex-turned-stalker. This law ensures that potential new partners are told about the criminal records of their new beaus, regardless of their maintaining innocence stance or lack of violence/controlling behaviours. This is in effect a counter-intuitive overreach, with no interest in being on a case-by-case basis, since the risk criteria in allegations of sexual misconduct is already so vast, and vehemently contested.

The counter-discourse of the False Allegations Forum opens up all such arbitrary – if well meaning – moves up to a scrutiny many of them didn’t seem to receive in the House of Commons. Even when MP Christopher Chope asked for a pause to hear the ‘upskirting’ bill -as all MPs are in fact required to do – he was hurricaned by incensed politicos and their facilitating activists.

Fake doctors and activist academics abound in this sphere, grandstanding on Twitter and emotioneering from their legally-tenured day jobs at Chambers or in universities. Their activities since 2003 (at least) have engendered a sort of New Protestantism across society, as the progressive agenda of what has come to be known as ‘woke’ has run up against a far deeper culture of pragmatic thought.

The false allegations industry has made the dating scene a new minefield, as online swipe-rights have met Tinder or Plenty of Fish-era playboys, newly relabelled ‘predators’. The CLRN’s proposed new offence of deceit sex would make lying about being in a relationship punishable as a form of rape – as could be posing with an expensive car when (he) can’t in fact even afford the insurance. Seduction by pretence used to be the stuff of light films, and often a part of how a couple met. Now that is to be criminalised, leading to even more bizarre hearings – spun in the press as journalists are apparently compelled to do.

The intellectual cowardice involved in forever pitching empathy versus objectivity in a culture that has for some decades been degrading masculinity has resulted in biased media reports being essentially an abuse of free speech principles. Whatever his other moves as Justice Secretary, the orchestrated, bullying pile-on on to the admittedly redoubtable Dominic Raab was an example of the politicised defenestration of an alpha male: Raab’s unapologetic discontinuation of radfem-in-high-office Vera Baird’s contract as Victims Commissioner clearly unacceptable.

Legal dominance ideology is eroding if not destroying western institutions, removing elected officials if they don’t follow the prescribed progressive narrative. The new and non restrictive definition of MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is distinct from ‘incel’ (involuntary celibate) culture by resembling a sort of postmodern priesthood in its uncompromising, exasperated reaction to extreme establishment feminism. The benefits of heteronormative relationships are increasingly failing to outweigh the negatives.

There is no actual patriarchy any more in the Anglosphere – if there indeed ever was – but there has been a class system, which has been replaced by Diversity, Equality and Inclusion policies as the new elite ruling class. Jurassic prisons, with their inmates as dinosaurs of the cultural revolution, are housing thousands of less high profile Gary Glitter-type cases, with completely understandable ‘dark web’ curiosities standing against them in appraisal of their ‘risk factors’. An allegedly predatory appetite in 1975 is not the same as a hypervigilant, neurotic OAP in the mid 2020s, but the false allegations industry has no interest in recognising that nuance, particularly in those prisons’ eagerness to deny prisoners communications.

Trying to appease the new pseudo-liberals while they merrily cancel Rock n’ Roll as a problematic artform is an endless slog, as the radical feminists take on the Trans activists, lumped in with the Men’s Rights Activists, all of them out-moralising each other over free speech taboos – be they holocaust exaggeration, slavery, rape myths, or the age of consent.

Categories
Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Gender Agenda Gender Identity Title IX

Dwindling Support Among Gay Community for Transgender Agenda

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Dwindling Support Among Gay Community for Transgender Agenda

June 8, 2023 – Gay teacher Ray Shelton recently addressed a meeting of the Glendale Unified School District. Twice named Teacher of the Year, Shelton explained to the board:

“Two plus two equals four. The world is not flat. Boys have penises; girls have vaginas. Gender is binary and cannot be changed. Biology is not bigotry. Heterosexuality is not hate. Gender confusion and gender delusion are deep psychological disorders. No caring professional or loving parent would ever support the chemical poisoning or surgical mutilation of a child’s genitalia….And I can also say this as a gay man.” (1)

The California incident illustrates the reality of dwindling support in the gay and lesbian community for the transgender agenda.

One of the strongest critics of transgender ideology is Gays Against Groomers, which describes itself as an “organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.” (2)

Jaimee Michell, president of Gays Against Groomers, recently explained, “As a lesbian and the founder of Gays Against Groomers, I’m done with Pride. Because it’s become a degenerate kink-fest…They’re shoving it down everyone’s throats, especially children’s. It’s disgusting.” (3)

David Leatherwood, Gays Against Groomers secretary, charged, “I’m done with Pride because it’s become an embarrassment. As a gay man, I want nothing to do with it. All it has become now is a celebration of debauchery, indulgence in narcissism, victimhood, and grooming of kids.” (3)

Another outspoken critic is gay activist Simon Edge, who recently derided the transgender movement as “trying to redefine language, reorganize public toilets and changing rooms, kibosh women’s sport and take control of HR departments.” Edge concludes, “Some people don’t think the T belongs with the LGB.” (4)

Transgenderism has become emboldened in recent months by proposed changes to the federal Title IX sex discrimination law (5). Its advocates claim they are working for inclusion and equality. In fact, they are resorting to the use of coercion and violence (6) in their quest to eliminate fairness in women’s sports, persuade vulnerable children to undergo life-altering medical procedures, and encroach on parental rights (7).

Democratic and Republican lawmakers around the country are urged to join forces to oppose any bills being considered that are designed to promote the transgender agenda.

Citations:

  1. https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/06/06/award-winning-gay-teacher-suspended-for-speaking-out-against-transgenderism/
  2. https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/
  3. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2522868921205579
  4. https://unherd.com/2023/06/pride-is-no-place-for-homosexuals/
  5. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/transgender-violence/
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/groomers/
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Attorneys General to DOE: We will “fight your proposed changes to Title IX with every available tool in our arsenal.”

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Attorneys General to DOE: We will “fight your proposed changes to Title IX with every available tool in our arsenal.”

WASHINGTON / June 5, 2023 – The Biden Department of Education (DOE) has issued two draft Title IX regulations that would have broad effects on schools and on society. Among a wide range of changes, the first proposal would expand the definition of biological “sex” to include “gender identity.” (1) The second would promote the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports (2).

If approved, the proposals would have far-reaching, harmful consequences in other areas such as free speech, due process, parental rights, religious freedom, and gender transitioning of minors (3).

On May 15, 2023 a coalition of 22 state Attorneys General sent a letter to the Department of Education, emphasizing their opposition to the Biden Administration’s proposed athletics regulation. The strongly worded letter from MS, AL, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MT, NE, ND, OH, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, and WV states,

“The proposed rule defies Title IX’s text, history, and purpose. It disregards five decades of evidence showing the benefits of applying the traditional definition of biological sex in sports. It ignores basic considerations of privacy and dignity. And it fails to meet the Department’s duty to analyze costs and benefits.” (4)

This letter is the latest missive from a coalition of Attorneys General opposing the Biden administration’s proposed Title IX regulations:

  • June 23, 2022: Eighteen Attorneys General sent a letter to the DOE warning, “we will fight your proposed changes to Title IX with every available tool in our arsenal.” (5)
  • June 27, 2022: The Attorneys General of AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, and WV amended a prior lawsuit, which resulted in a Preliminary Injunction placed on the draft Title IX regulation (6).
  • September 12, 2022: Responding during the regulation’s open comment period, Attorneys General submitted three separate letters to the DOE:
    • Indiana, joined by the Attorneys General from AL, AZ, AR, GA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, and WV (7).
    • Montana, joined by the Attorneys General from AL, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, and VA (8).
    • Ohio, joined by the Attorneys General from AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, OK, SC, SD, UT, WV, AND WY (9).

SAVE commends the persistent and principled efforts of the Attorneys General seeking to block the Biden administration’s deeply-flawed Title IX proposals.

SAVE calls on state and federal lawmakers to continue to voice their strong opposition to both Title IX proposals. Email comments to the office of Secy. Miguel Cardona at the Department of Education: alejandro.reyes@ed.gov

Links: 

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-admin-releases-new-title-ix-rules-bars-states-banning-transgender-students-competing-sports
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  4. https://files.constantcontact.com/d3e83e11901/eb15a34c-c8be-4539-942d-441586065118.pdf?rdr=true
  5. https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2022/06/23/file_attachments/2192787/Montana%20Indiana%20Title%20IX%20response%20letter.pdf
  6. https://twitter.com/JakeHigherEdLaw/status/1541555134446141442
  7. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Title%20IX%20NPRM%20Indiana%20Comment%20Letter%20FINAL.pdf
  8. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Montana%20Coalition%20Title%20IX%20Comment%20FINAL%209.12.22.pdf
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AG-Dave-Yost-Comment-Letter-Title-IX-Proposed-Rule.pdf
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Due Process Legal Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Supreme Court Must Resolve the Many Circuit Splits that Divide Students’ Rights

Supreme Court Must Resolve the Many Circuit Splits that Divide Students’ Rights

Benjamin North

Associate & Title IX Advisor, Binnall Law Group

May 24, 2023

When a student graduates from high school and looks at potential colleges, they don’t typically do legal research to see where their federal rights differ across federal circuits. They make a very reasonable assumption that their basic rights are the same, because all colleges in the United States are subject to the same federal laws. Unfortunately, this could not be further from the truth when it comes to student discipline. And the recent proliferation of litigation against colleges (meticulously tracked by Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson [1]) has only made the issue more dire.

Court simply cannot agree on the Title IX disciplinary process. Without uniformity in the law, students across the country are subject to wildly different standards, both with respect to what process a university must take before depriving students of their education, and as to what they must allege in a lawsuit if it becomes necessary to correct discriminatory disciplinary actions in court.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been thus far reluctant to take any of these issues up on certiorari, and its continued delay in resolving these divides will only result in more inconsistencies. Students deserve the same rights under the same law, and it is critical that the Supreme Court ensure that basic consistency.

The first area in which courts are split is the requirement of constitutional due process; that is, the process that a public school must follow before depriving its students of their education in the form of a suspension or expulsion.

The threshold question, of course, is whether education is protected by due process, and if there is any “due process” required at all. If there is no due process required at all, public schools are free as a constitutional matter to expel tuition paying students for no reason at all, and students have no recourse.

While this would seem on its face to be unjust and incompatible with our system of government (and contrary to existing Supreme Court law in Goss v. Lopez [2]), federal district courts in the Fourth Circuit [3] consistently decline to find any protected interest in public university students’ education, leading to that same result: that students are not entitled to any due process at all. While several circuit courts have held that due process applies (at least the First, [4] Fifth, [5] Sixth, [6] Seventh, [7] and Eighth [8] Circuits), the continued failure of the Supreme Court to address the issue directly means that students in the Fourth Circuit very likely will continue to be on the receiving end of judicial opinions that fail to recognize any due process interests whatsoever. Students deserve a clear and basic rule, that due process applies in the public university setting.

Of course, once it is decided that due process applies, the next question is what process is due? On this question, circuits also are split.

The Sixth Circuit, for example, held in Doe v. Baum [9] that live adversarial cross examination was required by due process in student discipline cases where credibility is an issue. The First Circuit disagreed, holding in Haidak v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst [10] that live cross examination is not required; rather, impartial questioning by a hearing panel is required. Setting aside the point that the Sixth Circuit took the correct approach (the standard of an “impartial” hearing panel is more vague and far less workable that simply requiring cross examination, among other issues), the issue remains that students in different circuits have different rights, under the same Constitution.

Similarly, circuits are split on what Title IX requires in these cases. The Second Circuit held in Yusuf v. Vassar College [11] that students seeking to remedy discriminatory discipline under Title IX must plead “erroneous outcome” or “selective enforcement” causes of action under the statute. The Seventh Circuit in Doe v. Purdue [12] disagreed, holding that students need only plead facts sufficient to infer discrimination (which tracks almost exactly the language of the Title IX statute itself). This is a foundational difference on what it takes to bring a Title IX lawsuit in the first place, and again, students have wildly different standards based on where they live or attend school.

Even more alarming, sometimes schools assert during litigation that they may have been biased against the student, but it wasn’t on the basis of sex. This argument, schools hope, saves them from liability under Title IX because the law does not prohibit schools from railroading students per se, only if they do so on the basis of the student’s sex.

Circuits again disagree on whether this argument is sufficient to save the school from liability, or put another way, whether a student has to disprove other potential causes of discipline before getting to discovery or to trial. For example, whereas the Eleventh Circuit in Doe v. Samford [13] affirmed a dismissal of a Title IX lawsuit because the student did not disprove other potential causes of the discipline (other than bias on the basis of sex) in his complaint, the Tenth Circuit in Doe v. University of Denver [14] permitted a lawsuit to go to trial on this issue. The Tenth Circuit reasoned, correctly, that the issue of what bias the university used (bias on the basis of sex or bias on the basis of the student being the accused) is a question of fact that needs to be resolved by a jury, because it comes down to what is more believable. Once again, circuits are split, and students across the country do not have uniform rights.

The above is not an exhaustive listing of all of the disagreements among the federal circuit courts in this area. There are other important areas where courts disagree, including the causation standard for Title IX. But for sake of brevity, suffice it to say that students across the country do not have a clear view of what their rights are. Students deserve the same rights under the same law, and I desperately hope that the Supreme Court takes the opportunity to make that a reality in the near future.

Citations:

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0

[2] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

[3] See, e.g., Doe v. Alger, 175 F. Supp. 3d 646 (W.D. Va. 2016); Dillow v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., No. 7:22CV00280, 2023 WL 2320765 (W.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2023); Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 400 F. Supp. 3d 479 (W.D. Va. 2019).

[4] See Haidak, infra.

[5] Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020)

[6] See Baum, infra.

[7] See Purdue, infra.

[8] Doe v. Univ. of Arkansas – Fayetteville, 974 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2020)

[9] Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018)

[10] Haidak v. Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst, 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2019)

[11] Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994)

[12] Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019)

[13] Doe v. Samford Univ., 29 F.4th 675 (11th Cir. 2022)

[14] Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 1 F.4th 822 (10th Cir. 2021)

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

79 Members of Congress Speak Out in Opposition to Biden Title IX Plan

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

79 Members of Congress Speak Out in Opposition to Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / May 24, 2023 – The Biden Department of Education has issued proposed regulations that would expand the definition of biological “sex” to include “gender identity” (1) and allow the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports (2).

If approved, these proposals also will have far-reaching, harmful consequences for parental rights (5), free speech (3), due process (4), religious freedom (6), and gender transitioning of minors (7).

In response, 79 members of Congress have released statements of opposition, many of them strongly-worded:

Senate — 29 members:

  1. John Barrasso – WY
  2. Marsha Blackburn – TN
  3. John Boozman – AR
  4. Mike Braun – IN
  5. Katie Britt – AL
  6. Ted Budd – NC
  7. Richard Burr – NC
  8. Bill Cassidy – LA
  9. Tom Cotton – AR
  10. Kevin Cramer – ND
  11. Mike Crapo – ID
  12. Ted Cruz – TX
  13. Steve Danies – MT
  14. Joni Ernst – IA
  15. Josh Hawley – MO
  16. Ron Johnson – WI
  17. James Lankford – OK
  18. Mike Lee – UT
  19. Cynthia Lummis – WY
  20. Roger Marshall – KS
  21. Markwayne Mullins – OK
  22. Pete Ricketts – NE
  23. Marco Rubio – FL
  24. Rick Scott – FL
  25. Tim Scott – SC
  26. Cindy Hyde Smith – MS
  27. Dan Sullivan – AK
  28. Thom Tillis – NC
  29. Tommy Tuberville – AR

House of Representatives — 50 members:

  1. Jodey Arrington – TX
  2. Brian Babin –TX
  3. Jim Banks – IN
  4. Andy Biggs – AZ
  5. Dan Bishop – NC
  6. Lauren Boebert – CO
  7. Mike Bost – IL
  8. Josh Brecheen – OK
  9. Michael C. Burgess – TX
  10. Eric Burlison – MO
  11. Ben Cline – VA
  12. Michael Cloud – TX
  13. Andrew S. Clyde – GA
  14. Eli Crane – AZ
  15. Dan Crenshaw – TX
  16. Byron Donalds – FL
  17. Jeff Duncan – SC
  18. Michelle Fischbach – MN
  19. Virginia Foxx – NC
  20. Bob Good – VA
  21. Mark E. Green, M.D. – TN
  22. Marjorie Taylor Greene – GA
  23. Glenn Grothman – WI
  24. Michael Guest – MS
  25. Andy Harris, M.D. –
  26. Kevin Hern – OK
  27. Clay Higgins – LA
  28. Randy L. Jackson – TX
  29. Mike Johnson – LA
  30. Doug Lamborn – CO
  31. Debbie Lesko – AZ
  32. Anna Paulina Luna – FL
  33. Nancy Mace – SC
  34. Kevin McCarthy – CA
  35. David McKinley – WV
  36. Mary E. Miller – IL
  37. Cory Mills – FL
  38. Nathaniel Moran – TX
  39. Alex X. Mooney – WV
  40. Troy E. Nehls – TX
  41. Ralph Norman – SC
  42. Andy Ogles – TN
  43. George Santos – NY
  44. Steve Scalise – LA
  45. Pete Sessions – TX
  46. Chris Smith – NJ
  47. Gregory Steube – FL
  48. Ann Wagner – MO
  49. Randy Weber – TX
  50. Daniel Webster – FL

In addition, numerous state lawmakers and attorneys general have issued statements of disapproval. Links to all statements are available online (8).

SAVE calls on federal and state lawmakers to continue to voice their opposition to both Title IX regulations. Send email to: alejandro.reyes@ed.gov

Links:

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-us-department-educations-proposed-change-its-title-ix-regulations-students-eligibility-athletic-teams.
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/parental-rights/
  4. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/free-speech/
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/due-process/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/First-Liberty-Institute-Statement-on-Title-IX.pdf
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/gender-transitioning/
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/attorneys-general-and-lawmakers/
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Law Enforcement Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

String of Transgender Incidents Reveal Threats of Biden Title IX Plan  

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

String of Transgender Incidents Reveal Threats of Biden Title IX Plan  

WASHINGTON / April 11, 2023 – Three recent incidents reveal the growing lawlessness of the national transgender movement. The newfound prominence of transgenderism can be traced to the Title IX proposal released last June by the Biden Department of Education (1). Following are the three incidents:

  1. March 9, Stanford University: Judge Stuart Duncan was invited to give a talk to students at the Stanford Law School. But a group of students with signs that read, “Trans Lives Matter” repeatedly interrupted his comments, forcing him to cut short his presentation.
    The students were protesting the fact that in 2015, Duncan had denied the request of Norman Varner, previously convicted of child exploitation, to change his sex and be referred to by a female name (2). Stanford University later issued an apology (3).
  2. March 27, Nashville: Armed with a rifle, pistol, and handgun, Audrey Hale rushed into Covenant School and fired 152 shots, killing three staff members and three students. Hale had self-identified as transgender (4).
  3. April 6, San Francisco State University: Former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines gave a speech at the San Francisco State University to explain her opposition to the participation of biological males in women’s sports. In response, a group of activists began to frantically chant, “Trans rights are human rights.” The activists chased Riley down a hallway, assaulting her repeatedly and forcing her to seek safety in a room. To secure her release, the activists demanded that Riley pay each of them a $10 “ransom.” (5)

The recent surge of transgender activism can be traced back to June 23, 2022 when the Biden Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulation, the federal law that was designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. The Biden regulation seeks to change the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity,” a change that would bolster the prominence of the transgender movement in America.

Recent developments reveal other serious defects with the Biden proposal (6):

  • Parental Rights: On March 24, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Parents Bill of Rights, which would help protect against secretive school policies and overly-sexualized instructional content (7).
  • Due Process: Last week, a judge ruled against The College of New Jersey, citing a myriad of procedural irregularities and allowing its adjudicators to be influenced by external pressures to convict a student accused of sexual misconduct (8).
  • Free Speech: An article in the Washington Examiner revealed that a majority of U.S. universities have instituted anonymous “snitching” protocols for statements perceived to be biased (9).

To date, 210 organizational members of the Title IX Network have announced their opposition to the Biden Title IX plan (10).  We urge the Department of Education to immediately abandon its plan to release a new Title IX regulation.

Links:

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11878559/Stanford-law-students-protest-judge-denied-transgender-pedophile-right-change-name.html
  3. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/letter-from-Stanford.pdf
  4. https://www.foxnews.com/us/nashville-killer-audrey-hale-slept-with-journals-on-school-shootings-under-bed-court-docs-reveal
  5. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11950063/RILEY-GAINES-hit-face-man-dressed-woman-speaking-against-trans-movement.html?fbclid=IwAR3sY7evWRjlay5z7v78AFDWbwEtzijeVfB6TlfnXUIFIsfJGp8vYDhslGY
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  7. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3916114-house-republicans-pass-parents-bill-of-rights/
  8. https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1644081965530750976/photo/1
  9. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/majority-universities-snitching-protocols-bias-students
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/
Categories
Bills Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Investigations Office for Civil Rights

SAVE Commends Sen. John Kennedy for ‘Ensuring Fairness for Students Act’

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Commends Sen. John Kennedy for ‘Ensuring Fairness for Students Act’

WASHINGTON / April 4, 2023 – Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana recently introduced the Ensuring Fairness for Students Act, a bill that is designed to codify due process protections in campus Title IX proceedings. In introducing the bill, Kennedy charged the Biden White House is seeking to “roll back fair proceedings on school campuses by making students guilty until proven innocent.” (1)

The bill would provide for a number of due process protections, such as assure that both parties are provided written notice of the allegations, require objective evaluation of the evidence, uphold the presumption of innocence, eliminate conflict of interest, and allow cross-examination.

Just three days after the Kennedy bill was introduced, a news account revealed the deplorable state of Title IX procedures on many campuses (2). The report highlighted the case of a former University of Maryland student who had been accused of sexual misconduct. Even after he was cleared of the charge, two students undertook a campaign to accuse him of being a rapist, causing him to be kicked off the university’s lacrosse team. Saying the university Title IX office failed to intervene to stop the defamation campaign, the lawsuit is seeking over $1 million in damages.

A recent national survey conducted by FIRE found that (3):

  1. 72% of universities failed to provide timely notice of allegations to students accused of wrongdoing.
  2. 60% of schools do not assure the presumption of innocence.
  3. Only 15% of institutions guarantee that accusers and the accused could see the evidence being presented to fact-finders.

SAVE commends Senator Kennedy for introducing the bill, and encourages other members of Congress to take steps to support the bill’s prompt enactment into law.

The Ensuring Fairness for Students Act can be viewed online (4).

Links:

  1. kennedy.senate.gov
  2. https://wtop.com/maryland/2023/03/first-on-wtop-former-u-md-student-cleared-of-sex-assault-claims-sues-school-2-ex-members-of-campus-advocacy-group/
  3. https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2022/11/due-process-report-2022-rev-1.pdf
  4. https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/6/f6d164a4-7449-4ba5-be39-3199894696c4/F428B98345D9FE8A4E7F174E71295D90.aeg22708.pdf
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Republican Lawmakers Lead National Movement to Thwart the ‘Gender Agenda’

PRESS RELEASE

R. Stewart: 301-801-0608

Email: info@savesevices.org

Republican Lawmakers Lead National Movement to Thwart the ‘Gender Agenda’

WASHINGTON / March 8, 2023 – The “Gender Agenda” refers to the movement to promote gender transitioning, curtail parental rights, allow biological males to compete in women’s sports, curtail free speech, and diminish due process on college campuses. A major goal of the Gender Agenda is to overhaul the Title IX law to redefine sex to include “gender identity.”

Republican lawmakers across the country have been at the forefront of efforts to stop the Gender Agenda. Following is a listing of measures introduced thus far in Congress in 2023:

  1. Greg Steube: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act (H.R. 734) [1]
  2. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Protect Children’s Innocence Act (H.R. 8731) [2]
  3. Jeff Van Drew: My Choice, My Child Act of 2023 (H.R. 216) [3]
  4. Julia Letlow: Parents Bill of Rights (H.R.5) [4]
  5. Debbie Lesko: Parental Rights Amendment (H. J. Res 38) [5]
  6. Jim Banks: Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act (H.R. 1276) [6]
  7. Tim Scott: PROTECT Kids Act (S. 200) [7]
  8. Tommy Tuberville: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023 (S. 613) [8]

In addition, Congressman Jim Banks is spearheading a new group called the House Anti-Woke Caucus, now with over 25 members [9.

The following state-level bills already have been enacted into law in 2023:

  1. Tennessee: SB 0001 – Prohibits minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and transgender surgeries [10]
  2. Tennessee: HB 0009 – Outlaws drag shows in public spaces and restricts them to age-appropriate venues [11]
  3. South Dakota: Help Not Harm Act (HB 1080) – Prohibits certain medical and surgical interventions on minor patients [12]
  4. Mississippi: Regulate Experimental Adolescent Procedures (REAP) Act (H.B. 1125) – Forbids any person to “knowingly provide gender transition procedures to any person under eighteen years of age” or “engage in conduct that aids or abets” such procedures. [13]

To date, SAVE has identified 82 bills in 28 states, including proposals that address Parental Rights (36 bills), Gender Transitioning (29 bills), and Women’s Sports (16 bills).

At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference held near Washington DC, SAVE sponsored a booth titled, “Stop the Gender Agenda.” [14] At the booth, 377 individuals signed a petition to Stop the Gender Agenda. Signers included the Lieutenant Governor of a southern state, a woman who transitioned to the male sex and later de-transitioned to being female, and other persons from Spain, Peru, Austria, Norway, Sweden, and Japan.

Links:

  1. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/734?s=2&r=7
  2. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8731/cosponsors
  3. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/216? q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Parents%22%5D%7D&s=2&r=6
  4. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5
  5. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/38?s=1&r=67
  6. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1276?s=3&r=1
  7. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/200
  8. https://www.hydesmith.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/S613%20Protection%20of%20Women%20and%20Girls%20in%20Sports%20Act.pdf
  9. https://www.johnlocke.org/banks-emerges-as-leader-in-fight-against-the-woke/
  10. https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Amend/SA0008.pdf
  11. https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Amend/SA0002.pdf
  12. https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/24100/249156
  13. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2023/pdf/history/HB/HB1125.xml

14. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/