Category: Free Speech

29 Recent Judicial Decisions Thwart Biden ‘Gender Agenda’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 18, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

29 Recent Judicial Decisions Thwart Biden ‘Gender Agenda’

WASHINGTON / January 18, 2023 – The Biden Administration has issued several policy documents that are designed to promote the so-called “gender agenda” (1). In particular, on June 23, 2022 the Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex,” limit free speech, and hobble due process protections (2).

In response, over 200 organizations (3), numerous state Attorneys General (4), and dozens of federal and state lawmakers (4) have spoken out in strong opposition to the draft regulation.

Since June 23, 2022, seven judicial decisions have been issued that thwart the Biden Administration’s attempts to expand the definition of “sex,” curtail free speech, and promote gender transitioning:

State of Tennessee v. Department of Education, July 15, 2022: In response to a lawsuit by the Attorneys General of 20 states, the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Department of Education, blocking the DOE from implementing Biden’s Executive Order No. 13988, “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.” (5)
Franciscan Alliance and Christian Medical and Dental Society v. Becerra, August 26, 2022: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, unanimously ruled that doctors must be free to practice medicine without compulsion to perform gender-transition procedures. (6)
Speech First v. Alexander Cartwright, September 23, 2022: The District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled against the University of Central Florida for three campus policies that served to suppress student speech. (7)
Neese v. Bercerra, October 14, 2022: The Northern District of Texas Court ruled that Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The court set aside the contrary enforcement position taken by the Department of Health and Human Services. (8)
Religious Sisters of Mercy et al v. Becerra, December 9, 2022: The Eighth Circuit Court in North Dakota overturned a rule under the Affordable Care Act, Section 1557, that would require “gender-transition procedures” be covered by health insurance plans. (9)
Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, December 30, 2022: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court, and upheld the policy of the St. Johns County School District in Florida, which denied transgender students access to the bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. (10)
B.P.J. et al v. West Virginia State Board of Education, January 5, 2023: The Southern District Court of West Virginia ruled in favor of the “Save Women’s Sports Bill,” which defines “girl” and “woman” as biologically female for the purpose of secondary school sports. (11)

Since June 23, 2022, wrongfully accused students also have triumphed in 22 due process lawsuits against the following universities: University of California, University of Idaho Law School, Dartmouth College, Dordt University, SUNY-Purchase, Brown University (two lawsuits), Purdue University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Southern Florida, Western Michigan University, Prairie View A & M University, UC-Davis, Marshall University, University of Chicago, University of Connecticut, Emory University, Texas Christian University, Stonehill College, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Siena College. (12)

SAVE urges Congress to take necessary actions to discourage attempts by the Executive Branch to advance the gender agenda.

Links:

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

A ‘Naked Assault on Civil Rights:’ Congress Must Stop Attempts to Hijack Title IX and Subvert the Constitution

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 12, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

A ‘Naked Assault on Civil Rights:’ Congress Must Stop Attempts to Hijack Title IX and Subvert the Constitution

WASHINGTON / January 12, 2023 – Title IX is the 50-year-old law that was enacted to stop sex discrimination in schools. But now, groups are attempting to use Title IX to promote a sweeping unconstitutional agenda with harmful effects on students, families, and on society.

Recent months have witnessed three attempts to make far-reaching changes to Title IX:

In June, the Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex,” muzzle free speech, and decimate due process (1).
In September, 19 Democratic senators denounced the presumption of innocence in Title IX proceedings (2). The senators also called for an end to cross-examination, facilely ignoring a landmark Supreme Court decision that described cross-examination as the “‘greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” (3)
In December, the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act was introduced in both chambers of Congress (4). The bill proposed to make sweeping changes to campus Title IX adjudication procedures — changes that are reminiscent of practices seen in the former Soviet Union (5).

The proposals would curtail constitutionally protected free speech and due process protections, eliminate fairness in women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among under-age students, marginalize the role of parents, and exact other harmful effects. Numerous lawmakers have spoken out in opposition to these proposed changes (6).

These changes recently were described by a leading policy organization as a “naked assault on civil rights.” (7)

In response to these and other worrisome developments, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy proposed a multi-point Commitment to America (8). Five of the principles pertain to the recent attempts to reinvent Title IX:

Conduct rigorous oversight to rein in governmental abuse of power, such as an executive branch agency exceeding its legal authority by seeking to redefine the meaning of “sex” (9).
Curb wasteful spending by government agencies, such as the Department of Education (10).
Advance the Parents’ Bill of Rights (11).
Defend fairness by ensuring that only women can compete in women’s sports (12).
Uphold free speech guarantees and assure religious freedom (13).

SAVE urges members of Congress to move quickly to implement provisions of the Commitment to America and stop the Title IX take-over.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Investigations Legal Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

Mass Opposition to Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 20, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Mass Opposition to Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act

WASHINGTON / December 20, 2022 – The Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act, recently introduced in the Senate (S. 5158) and House of Representatives (H.R. 9387), has ignited a wave of opposition.

The SAFER bill would dramatically broaden the meaning of “sexual harassment” to include virtually all conduct that is viewed as “unwelcome.” The bill would expand the definition of “sex,” thereby allowing for the participation of biological males in women’s sporting events. The Act would also remove key due process protections for the accused, such as the right to an impartial investigation, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence (1).

A SAVE public opinion survey, conducted in June by YouGov, revealed the following (2):

57% of Americans oppose revamping the Supreme Court’s definition of “sexual harassment.”
63% of Americans oppose changing the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity.”
71% of Americans oppose transgender participation in women’s sports.
87% of Americans want to retain the presumption of innocence in college disciplinary proceedings.

Accordingly, two statements were issued by groups during the past week that expressed strong opposition to the SAFER Act:

One Call to Action highlighted the fact that in recent months, two federal courts have issued decisions that nixed expanded definitions of “sex.” (3)
The Heritage Foundation charged, “There is no scientific or legal basis that supports changing ‘sex’ to ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ in Title IX. Such a change threatens everyone’s freedoms, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm.” (4)

In addition, an editorial revealed that 83% of college students currently report self-censoring their speech to avoid criticism. By expanding the definition of sexual harassment, the SAFER bill would dramatically worsen campus restrictions on free speech (5).

Co-sponsors of the SAFER Act are urged to withdraw their support for the SAFER Act bill and reaffirm their oath of office to “uphold and defend” the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Links:

Bills Campus Department of Education Discrimination Domestic Violence False Allegations Free Speech Sexual Harassment Title IX

SAFER Act Seeks Sweeping Changes to Redefine ‘Sex’ and ‘Sexual Harassment’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 12, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAFER Act Seeks to Make Sweeping Changes to Redefine ‘Sex’ and ‘Sexual Harassment’

WASHINGTON / December 12, 2022 – Lawmakers recently introduced the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act in both the Senate and House (1). The bill proposes to codify sweeping changes to the definitions of “sex” and “sexual harassment.”

Definition of Sex

The existing Title IX law, enacted in 1972, was designed to eliminate discrimination based on a student’s “sex.” But the SAFER bill seeks to expand this fundamental term to include sex stereotypes, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Gender identity is defined as “a person’s internal sense of gender, which could be female, male, or another gender.” (Section 101)

To date, two circuit courts have ruled against changing the Title IX definition of sex:

On July 15, 2022 a Tennessee District Court issued a Preliminary Injunction overturning the Department of Education’s Interpretation of Title IX to include “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” (2)
In a November 11, 2022 decision, a Texas District Court ruled in Neese v. Becerra that Title IX does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. (3)

Over 200 organizations have gone on record in opposition (4) to proposed changes to Title IX that would expand the definition of “sex,” which would impose devastating consequences on women’s sports (5), promote life-altering sex changes on underage children (6), and have long-term effects on parental rights (7).

Definition of Sexual Harassment

In Davis v. Monroe, the U.S. Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as harassment that 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.’’ (8)

But the SAFER bill proposes a broader definition of sexual harassment that would encompass virtually all sex-related conduct that is perceived as “unwelcome:”

“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, regardless of whether it is direct or indirect, or verbal or nonverbal (including conduct that is undertaken in whole or in part, through the use of electronic messaging services, commercial mobile services, electronic communications, or other technology), that unreasonably alters an individual’s terms, benefits, or privileges of an education program or activity, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.” (Section 203(i))

Such changes would exact harmful consequences on free speech (9) and open the door for a wave of false allegations of sexual misconduct and domestic violence (10). A former Washington State prosecutor explains the false allegations problem this way (11):

“The Department of Education has put immense pressure on higher education institutions to handle cases to their liking….As a result of this unfair treatment, innocent accused students, staff, and faculty find themselves expelled, fired or facing criminal charges.”

In Orwellian fashion, the bill sponsors make the remarkable claim that the SAFER Act will protect “all” students from discrimination (12).

SAVE urges lawmakers to strongly oppose the SAFER Act.

Links:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 19, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 15, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

Campus Free Speech Gender Identity Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 22, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deadline to submit Comments is September 12.

Citations:

Campus Department of Education Due Process 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 Free Speech Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Biden Sees Two-Point Approval Drop Following Release of Controversial Title IX Plan

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 11, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Biden Sees Two-Point Approval Drop Following Release of Controversial Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / July 11, 2022 – On June 23, President Biden’s Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulation (1). Two weeks later, Biden’s approval rating had fallen by two full points. The many controversies surrounding the Title IX proposal likely contributed to the approval decline.

According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll of American adults, Biden’s approval rating from June 21- 22 stood at 38%. Two weeks later, July 5-6, his approval had fallen to 36%, a two-point decline. Likewise, the Economist/YouGov poll of registered voters recorded a 43% job approval from June 18-21. Two weeks later, July 2-5, his approval had declined to 41%, a two-point fall (2).

Title IX is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools. Biden’s recently introduced Title IX regulation features three highly controversial changes:

Expands the definition to “sex” to include “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”
Encroaches on free speech by broadening the definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sex-based conduct” that can be evaluated “subjectively and objectively.”
Eliminates a series of due process protections for accused students, marking a return of the notorious “Kangaroo Courts” to college campuses.

These changes are predicted to have harmful ripple effects in six areas: Due process, free speech, pronoun mandates, women’s sports, parental rights, and student privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms (3).

As a result, the Biden education policy has been beset by numerous challenges (4):

Over 100 organizations have gone on record opposing the proposal.
48 editorials have criticized the plan.
The Attorneys General from 20 states have filed a lawsuit against the proposed rule (5).

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are expressing opposition to the proposal. In a recent TV interview, former Democratic member of Congress Tulsi Gabbard complained that Biden’s Title IX plan is “rejecting the objective reality that there are biological differences between a man and a woman” and is “essentially pointing to the erasure of women.” (6)

Biden’s recent decline in approval ratings can be attributed to a number of factors, including his controversial Title IX plan. According to the Washington Post, education is one of the top five concerns of Americans as they approach the November elections (7).

Citations: