Category: Due Process

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 19, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 15, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 26, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@endtodv.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 18, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

Due Process Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Over 140 Organizations Opposed to Biden Title IX Plan Launch Advocacy Network

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 10, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Over 140 Organizations Opposed to Biden Title IX Plan Launch Advocacy Network

WASHINGTON / August 10, 2022 – In the wake of growing criticisms of Joe Biden’s Title IX proposal by over 140 organizations, a “Title IX Network” has been established (1). The Network will advocate for a variety of changes at the national, state, and local levels to reverse the harmful effects of flawed Title IX policies that have been implemented in recent years.

These far-reaching policies relate to the areas of due process, free speech, women’s sports, bathroom privacy, parental rights, and gender experimentation. More information on each of these topics is available on the SAVE website (2).

Bipartisan criticisms of the Biden proposal have ballooned in recent weeks. The disapprovals have been issued by lawmakers, attorneys general, and others (3). To date, 62 editorials critical of the proposal have been published (4).

Most recently, three feminist professors published an editorial claiming the Title IX regulation’s mandatory reporting provision “will only make things worse.” (5) Then, 15 Republican governors issued a Joint Letter that charges, “your Administration proposed changes that misunderstand the purpose of Title IX, which was to prevent discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ in education programs.” (6)

To date, 147 organizations have come out in opposition to the Title IX plan (7). A rally is being held in Washington, DC on August 11 to call on the Department of Education to disavow its plan to move forward with its Title IX proposal (8).

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 1, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 26, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 25, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

Free Speech

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

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

Women’s Sports

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

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

Due Process

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

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

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

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

Citations:

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 18, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

Due Process

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

Free Speech

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

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

Women’s Sports

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

Bathrooms and Locker Room Privacy

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

Parental Rights

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

Gender Experimentation

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

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

Citations:

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

ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO TITLE IX PLAN

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

Campus 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: