Category: Office for Civil Rights

DC Rally Reveals Deceptive and Coercive Agenda Behind Biden Title IX Plan

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 15, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

DC Rally Reveals Deceptive and Coercive Agenda Behind Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / August 15, 2022 – A rally held in Washington, DC on August 11 featured impassioned calls for the Department of Education to abandon plans to move ahead with its proposed Title IX regulation. The rally addressed six major concerns with the draft Title IX policy that was released on June 23: Due process, free speech, women’s sports, parental rights, bathroom privacy, and gender transitioning (1).

Although the draft policy is titled, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs,” in reality the policy would worsen sex discrimination against two groups: Males falsely accused of sexual misconduct (2), and biological females involved in sports activities (3).

Many of the rally presenters highlighted the coercive and controlling nature of current gender-identity policies, which would be expanded and strengthened by the proposed regulation:

Due Process: Teresa Manning of the National Association of Scholars charged that Biden’s proposed rule “would return to the bad old days of the ‘single investigator’ INQUISITION, where one school official holds ‘individual meetings’ to decide guilt or innocence.”

Free Speech: Stuart Taylor of Princetonians for Free Speech quoted one observer who believes the proposed Biden rule “could officially destroy a life by expulsion from college on the basis of being inadequately woke that one’s utterance offends someone.”

Women’s Sports: Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation warned the Biden administration’s proposal will fundamentally harm female sports and “eviscerates everything our mothers and grandmothers worked to achieve.”

Parental Rights: Ryan Bomberger of The Radiance Foundation noted that parents “can be harassed by school administrations because you’re speaking biological truths….that’s a problem.”

Bathroom Privacy: Referring to threats of the USDA to withhold school lunch funds for non-compliance with transgender bathroom policies, Maya Noronha of the First Liberty Institute compared government officials to “school-yard bullies” who are ”threatening to defund schools.”

Gender Transitioning: Jon Schweppe of the American Principles Project revealed, “You put [students] on these puberty blockers, you put them on these cross-sex hormones, it’s permanent.”

Edward Bartlett of SAVE summarized these concerns by noting that Biden’s gender identity experiment “is not a good-faith attempt to achieve acceptance and affirmation. It is really an agenda of coercion, conformity, and control.”

The newly established Title IX Network will seek to counter the harmful effects of flawed Title IX policies at the national, state, and local levels (4). More information about the August 11 rally is available online (5).

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:

Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release

DHHS’ Rachel Levine Must Retract Dishonest Claims About ‘Safe’ Puberty-Blockers, Or Face Calls for Resignation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 3, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

DHHS’ Rachel Levine Must Retract Dishonest Claims About ‘Safe’ Puberty-Blockers, Or Face Calls for Resignation

WASHINGTON / August 3, 2022 – The FDA issued a warning on July 1 regarding puberty blockers, alerting doctors to the serious risks of GnRH drugs that can cause brain swelling, loss of vision, and other serious disorders (1). Despite this fact, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine has continued to tout the benefits of “gender-affirming care,” which includes the administration of puberty blockers to children and youth.

In a July 19 tweet, Levine claimed that some medical groups assert that “gender-affirming care is medically necessary, safe, and effective for transgender and non-binary children and adolescents.” (2) Each of these assertions is false:

Medically Necessary: The vast majority of youth who question their gender identity eventually come to accept their biological sex (3).

Safe: The FDA warns that doctors need to monitor patients taking puberty-blockers for “signs and symptoms of pseudotumor cerebri, including headache, papilledema, blurred or loss of vision, diplopia, pain behind the eye or pain with eye movement, tinnitus, dizziness, and nausea.” (1)

Effective: Dr. Michelle Cretella has written in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, “There is not a single large, randomized, controlled study that documents the alleged benefits and potential harms to gender-dysphoric children from pubertal suppression.” (4)

In a second statement posted on July 27, Levine stated emphatically that “gender-affirming care is lifesaving, medically necessary, age appropriate, and a critical tool for health care providers.” (5)

In response, former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard charged the Biden Administration with promoting “child abuse” by endorsing gender-affirming care (6).

A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 calling on President Biden to disavow his gender identity campaign (7).

According to a recent UCLA report, 1.4% of all youth ages 13-17 self-identify as transgender (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 Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Dept. of Education Uses Tricky Maneuver to Undermine Long-Standing Religious Exemption

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 7, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Dept. of Education Uses Tricky Maneuver to Undermine Long-Standing Religious Exemption

WASHINGTON / July 6, 2022 – Since its enactment in 1972, the federal Title IX law has provided an exemption for religious schools (1). But in stealthy manner, the recently released draft Title IX regulation (2) seeks to remove the regulatory basis for the long-standing religious exemption, without revealing the existence of that plan.

According to the original 1972 law, Title IX “does not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization.” This exemption applies only to the extent that its “religious tenets” conflict with Title IX (3).

In 2010, the Obama administration issued guidance that included LGBTQ people within Title IX’s purview (4). As a result, many schools began to seek the religious exemption (5), and over the years, the Office for Civil Rights has never denied a religious exemption claim (6).

In 2019, two students married to same-sex partners sued Fuller Theological Seminary, which had expelled them for violating its sexual standards policy. Although the federal court agreed in principle that Title IX covered LGBTQ persons, it sustained the religious exemption claim and dismissed the complaint (7).

The long-standing religious exemption was re-affirmed in the 2020 Title IX regulation that states in part, “Assurance of exemption. An educational institution that seeks assurance of the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section may do so by submitting in writing to the Assistant Secretary a statement by the highest ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of this part that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.” (8)

So Title IX’s religious exemption is firmly grounded in statutory law and has been affirmed in both case law and regulatory law.

But in secretive manner, the recent draft Title IX regulation removes the 2020 regulatory provision without alerting the regulated community to the action, or providing justification for the proposed change.

Citations:

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

New Title IX Proposal Will Obstruct Free Speech, Worsen Declines in College Enrollments

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 5, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Title IX Proposal Will Obstruct Free Speech, Worsen Declines in College Enrollments

WASHINGTON / July 5, 2022 – The Title IX policy recently proposed by the U.S. Department of Education (1) seeks to dramatically expand the definition of sexual harassment, thereby curtailing free speech on campus. If enacted into law, the change is likely to exacerbate the worrisome 10-year decline in college enrollments.

On June 23, the Department of Education released a proposal to expand the definition of sexual harassment to be “conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, that, based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively, denies or limits a person’s ability to participate” in their education.

This broad definition means that any comment, gesture, or joke that is “subjectively” offensive could trigger a Title IX complaint, and is certain to curtail campus free speech. Several observers have issued statements strongly critical of the proposed definition:

Hans Bader: “The Biden administration’s proposed definition of sexual harassment disregards the Supreme Court’s Davis decision. It adopts a definition of harassment that is even broader in some respects than the broad harassment definition used in workplaces, which the Supreme Court rejected as impractical for schools.” (2)

Robby Soave: “legitimate classroom speech that was subjectively offensive and occurred repeatedly could now become a matter for the campus Title IX cop.” (3)

Independent Women’s Law Center: “Under the proposed rules, schools that do not crack down on ‘misgendering’ or the refusal to use preferred pronouns can have their federal funding revoked or be sued for monetary damages.” (4)

If the proposed changes go into effect, they will likely impact college enrollments, which have declined 13% over the past decade (5), with male students the hardest hit (6). The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center recently reported the alarming fact that “postsecondary institutions have lost nearly 1.3 million students since spring 2020.” (7)

To date, nine Congressional lawmakers, 61 organizations, and 41 commentators have gone on record in opposition to the Title IX proposal (8). SAVE urges college administrators who are concerned about falling student enrollments to speak out against the Title IX proposal.

Citations:

Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

SAVE Commends Attorneys General for Lawsuit to Block Dud Title IX Proposal

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 30, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Commends Attorneys General for Lawsuit to Block Dud Title IX Proposal

WASHINGTON / June 30, 2022 – Last Thursday the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulation (1). Within days, the Attorneys General from 20 states amended a prior lawsuit (2) against the Department of Education to also obtain a Preliminary Injunction to block implementation of the draft Title IX rule (3).

The June 27 amended lawsuit explains that the Department of Education issued a Notice of Interpretation in 2021 that stated, “Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Then the Department of Education used its own sub-regulatory statement as a legal basis for its recent Title IX policy.

This sidesteps the well-recognized administrative procedure to first issue a regulation, and then release guidance that interprets the regulation.

The newly released draft regulation has triggered a strong negative response. Within seven days, the new policy has resulted in (4):

Criticisms by Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
Statements of opposition by over 50 national and state-level organizations
Scathing commentaries by the Editorial Boards of the Wall Street Journal (5) and Washington Examiner (6).
Over 30 editorials, including ones that compare the policy to Soviet Show-Trials (7) and to the Spanish Inquisition (8).

An earlier Attorney General letter to the Department of Education warned, “we will fight your proposed changes to Title IX with every available tool in our arsenal.” (9) Areas of concern include campus due process, free speech, women’s sports, and parental rights (10).

Eleven states have enacted laws designed to assure fairness in campus Title IX proceedings (11). Many of these statutes mandate investigator impartiality, parties’ access to evidence, a formal hearing, cross-examination, and/or the presumption of innocence. All five of these procedures are substantially weakened or eliminated by the draft Title IX policy.

SAVE commends the 20 Attorneys General for taking bold action. SAVE calls on the Attorneys General in the remaining 30 states to take proactive steps to assure campus fairness and due process in all institutions of higher education in their states.

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 27, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

In contrast, the Department of Education is proposing to dramatically expand the definition of sexual harassment to be “conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, that, based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively, denies or limits a person’s ability to participate” in their education. This broad definition means that any comment or gesture that is “subjectively” offensive could trigger a Title IX complaint, and is certain to curtail campus free speech.

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

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

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

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

Citations: