Category: Office for Civil Rights

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

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

  1. https://www.scribd.com/document/562611176/Complaint-List-2022
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  3. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/431/324.html
  4. https://www.thecollegefix.com/nearly-three-dozen-stanford-programs-discriminate-against-males-complaint-alleges/
  5. https://www.intellectualconservative.com/articles/experts-say-it-s-time-to-address-colleges-neglect-of-male-students-by-attacking-masculinity
  6. https://www.highereddive.com/news/idaho-lawmakers-cut-25m-in-funding-for-social-justice-education-at-3-publ/599613/
  7. https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/596131-wyoming-senate-votes-to-end-funding-for
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Penn State the Worst Offender Among Pennsylvania ‘Kangaroo Courts’

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Penn State the Worst Offender Among Pennsylvania ‘Kangaroo Courts’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Citations

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

 

 

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

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

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Citations

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

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kangaroo%20court
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/11/new-york-national-champion-of-campus-kangaroo-courts/
  3. https://opdv.ny.gov/enough-enough
  4. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/
Categories
Campus Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Newspapers, Commentators, and Organizations Give the ‘Thumbs Down’ to Catherine Lhamon

PRESS RELEASE

Email: info@saveservices.org

Newspapers, Commentators, and Organizations Give the ‘Thumbs Down’ to Catherine Lhamon

WASHINGTON / October 13, 2021 – A YouGov survey of the American public found that 68-80% of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — support campus due process. https://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/opinion-polls/ Accordingly, a growing number of newspapers, commentators, and organizations has come out in opposition to the nomination of Catherine Lhamon to lead the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

During the July 13 HELP Committee hearing, Lhamon repeatedly side-stepped direct questions whether she believed in basic due process protections. She also admitted that she rejects the presumption of innocence, instead saying that Title IX adjudicators “should be open to the possibility” that the accused student is not guilty (https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/ocr-nominee-catherine-lhamon-repeatedly-side-steps-questions-about-campus-due-process/). As a result, Lhamon failed to win approval from a majority of HELP Committee members. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/08/04/lhamon-nomination-ocr-stalled-tie-vote-committee

Three media outlets, 35 commentators, and 12 non-profit groups — both liberal and conservative – have come out in opposition to the Lhamon nomination, often expressing their concerns in strong language:

Media Outlets

Commentators

Over 35 editorials by liberal and conservative commentators have been written in opposition to the nomination. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/08/pr-growing-opposition-both-liberal-and-conservative-to-the-nomination-of-catherine-lhamon/ and https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/

Organizations

  1. American Enterprise Institute (https://www.aei.org/education/bidens-office-for-civil-rights-nominee-refuses-to-condemn-racial-discrimination/ )
  2. Center for Urban Renewal and Education (https://curepolicy.org/press/cure-policy-calls-for-senators-to-vote-against-nomination-of-catherine-lhamon/)
  3. Equality for Boys and Men (https://equalityforboysandmen.org/ )
  4. Families Advocating for Campus Equality (https://www.facecampusequality.org/s/FACE-OPPOSITION-TO-LHAMON-5-20-21-FINAL.pdf)
  5. Family Research Council (https://www.frcblog.com/2021/08/will-schumer-go-all-way-bidens-ed-nominee-catherine-lhamon/ )
  6. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (https://www.thefire.org/catherine-lhamon-still-believes-the-title-ix-regs-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity/)
  7. Independent Women’s Law Center and Independent Women’s Voice (https://www.iwv.org/2021/10/bidens-pick-for-title-ix-czar-catherine-lhamon-poses-serious-threat-to-civil-liberties/ )
  8. National Association for Scholars (https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/lhamon-wobbles-on-presumption-of-innocence-undermining-confidence-that-she-can-be-fair)
  9. National Coalition For Men Carolinas (https://www.ncfmcarolinas.com/ )
  10. Palm Beach Freedom Institute (https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/01/catherine-lhamon-and-the-coming-title-ix-nightmare/ )
  11. SAVE (https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/)
  12. Title IX for All (https://titleixforall.com/today-and-tomorrow-email-u-s-senators-to-oppose-catherine-lhamons-nomination/)

“Should Catherine Lhamon be confirmed, we are likely to see the resurrection of college sex tribunals with all the procedural fairness of the Salem Witch Trials,“ according to Independent Women’s Law Center director Jennifer Braceras.

SAVE urges all senators to vigorously oppose the nomination of Catherine Lhamon.

Categories
Campus Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Continued Wave of Judicial Decisions Reveals Absurdity of Catherine Lhamon ‘Civil Rights’ Nomination

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Continued Wave of Judicial Decisions Reveals Absurdity of Catherine Lhamon ‘Civil Rights’ Nomination

WASHINGTON / September 13, 2021 – Judges have handed down over 200 Title IX decisions against colleges and universities in recent years (1). Ironically, the civil rights abuses that led to these lawsuits occurred as a direct result of the policies that were promoted by the federal Office for Civil Rights, which Catherine Lhamon directed from 2013 to 2016.

On May 13, 2021, the White House announced its intention to nominate Lhamon to head up the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2). During the four months following the White House announcement, the wave of judicial decisions against schools continued apace, with eight additional decisions handed down that are adverse to schools:

  1. May 28: Doe v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ruled that the college failed to conduct an impartial investigation. and was biased against Doe because the college failed to investigate his counterclaims of sexual assault (3).
  2. June 1: Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota held the district court erred in dismissing Doe’s Title IX claim because Doe plausibly stated the college was biased against him because of his sex (4).
  3. June 15: Doe v. University of Denver found that the district court failed to apply the correct summary judgment standard, the accused plausibly stated that the college was biased against the accused because of his sex, and the college failed to take into account the accuser’s materially false statements (5).
  4. June 23: Munoz v. Strong held that Michigan State University failed to afford the accused the due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment (6).
  5. June 25: Doe v. Hobart and William Smith Colleges found that the accused student plausibly claimed the college was biased against him because of his sex, and the college failed to review relevant evidence (7).
  6. August 1: Doe v. Columbia University ruled that the accused student plausibly stated the college was biased against him because of his sex, and the college failed to conduct an impartial investigation and review relevant evidence (8).
  7. August 23: Moe v. Grinnell College held that the college failed to provide adequate notice, conduct an impartial investigation, and review relevant evidence (9).
  8. August 28: Doe v. Lincoln-Sudbury Region et al concluded that the school failed to fulfill notice requirements and acted in an arbitrary manner in issuing a retraction letter “clarifying” the results of a sexual assault investigation (10).

These eight rulings turned not on nuanced or arcane legal precepts, but rather on egregious civil rights violations of students’ due process rights:

  • In half of the cases, the judicial rulings confirmed illegal sex discrimination against the male student: Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, Doe v. University of Denver, Doe v. Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Doe v. Columbia University,
  • In Doe v. Lincoln-Sudbury Region et al, the due process violations were so severe that Judge Dennis Saylor removed the qualified immunity protections of school officials.
  • Two rulings — Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota and Doe v. University of Denver — were issued by appellate judges, thereby establishing legal requirements in the Eighth and Tenth circuits.

The average settlement value for a Title IX lawsuit against a university ranges in the mid-to-high six figures (11). The average settlement value for a lawsuit against a school official is currently unknown.

During her August 3 committee hearing, Catherine Lhamon did not express regret, or even acknowledge, that the policies enforced during her previous OCR stint had created a spate of civil rights abuses. Under direct questioning, Lhamon declined to affirm her belief in a single due process protection. Indeed, Lhamon revealed her opposition to the presumption of innocence, saying that Title IX adjudicators “should be open to the possibility” that the accused party is not guilty (12).

Lhamon’s actions and statements reveal that she would be an “anti-civil rights” director of the Office for Civil Rights. SAVE calls on senators to reject the inexplicable nomination of Catherine Lhamon.

Citations:

  1. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/
  2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/13/president-biden-announces-his-intent-to-nominate-catherine-lhamon-for-assistant-secretary-for-civil-rights-at-the-department-of-education/
  3. 6:20-cv-01220-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla.)
  4. 19-2552 (8th Cir.)
  5. 19-1359 (10th Cir.)
  6. 1:20-CV-984 (W.D. Mich.)
  7. 6:20-cv-06338 EAW (W.D.N.Y.)
  8. 1:20-cv-06770-GHW (S.D.N.Y.)
  9. 4:20-cv-00058-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa)
  10. 20-11564-FDS (Dist. Mass.)
  11. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/universities-pay-for-costly-title-ix-settlement-agreements/
  12. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/ocr-nominee-catherine-lhamon-repeatedly-side-steps-questions-about-campus-due-process/
Categories
Campus Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

PR: Growing Opposition, Both Liberal and Conservative, to the Nomination of Catherine Lhamon

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Growing Opposition, Both Liberal and Conservative, to the Nomination of Catherine Lhamon

WASHINGTON / August 2, 2021 – In May, the White House announced its nomination of Catherine Lhamon to lead the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (1).  The announcement triggered a wave of critical editorials. During the ensuing two months, 20 articles, written by liberal and conservative commentators, were published in opposition to the move (2).

During the recent July 13 hearing, Lhamon declined to respond to the criticisms. Indeed, her statements served to confirm the critics’ worst fears. Lhamon repeatedly side-stepped direct questions whether she believes in basic due process protections. She also admitted that she does not endorse the presumption of innocence, only saying that Title IX adjudicators “should be open to the possibility” that the accused student is not guilty (3).

Following the hearing, three media outlets, five non-profit groups, and seven individual commentators — reflecting both liberal and conservative perspectives — came out in opposition to the Lhamon nomination. Their statements are listed below:

Media Outlets

  1. Detroit News: Due Process under Threat on Campus, Thanks to Biden Administration (4)
  2. National Review: Biden’s Troubling Department of Education Nominee (5)
  3. Wall Street Journal: The Senate’s Lhamon Test (6)

Non-Profit Organizations

  1. SAVE: Presumed Guilty: Catherine Lhamon Cannot be Entrusted with the Job of Enforcing Anti-Discrimination Rules in Colleges (7)
  2. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: Catherine Lhamon Still Believes the Title IX Regs Allow Students to ‘Rape with Impunity’ (8)
  3. National Association for Scholars: Lhamon Wobbles on Presumption of Innocence, Undermining Confidence that She Can be Fair (9)
  4. Title IX for All (10)
  5. Families Advocating for Campus Equality: FACE Strongly Opposes Catherine Lhamon’s Return to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (11)

Individuals

  1. Charles C.W. Cooke: Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Lhamon and Biden Undermine Due Process for College Students (12)
  2. Robert Franklin: Congress Must Reject Lhamon Nomination (13)
  3. Thomas Gallatin: Biden’s DOE Nominee Threatens Student Due Process Rights (14)
  4. Buddy Ullman: Falsely Accused Former Professor Says ‘No’ to Lhamon Nomination (15)
  5. Mike LaChance: Biden Ed Dept. Nominee: Trump-Era Protections of Due Process Allow Students to ‘Rape With Impunity’ (16)
  6. Robby Soave: Catherine Lhamon, Once and Future Title IX Czar, Says Campus Rules Don’t Require ‘Presumption of Innocence’ (17)
  7. Ashe Schow: Biden Nominee For Civil Rights Position Rejects Presumption Of Innocence, Defends Tweet Claiming Trump-Era Regs Allow Students To ‘Rape’ With ‘Impunity’ (18)

Combined with the 20 editorials issued prior to the July 13 hearing, the 15 statements listed above bring the total number of opposition statements to 35.

Over 200 judicial decisions have rejected the “Kangaroo Court” procedures that Lhamon embraced during her earlier tenure at the Office for Civil Rights (19). And public opinion polls reveal that campus due process enjoys wide support from the American public, both Democrats and Republicans (20).

SAVE urges senators to oppose the Catherine Lhamon nomination.

Citations:

  1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/13/president-biden-announces-his-intent-to-nominate-catherine-lhamon-for-assistant-secretary-for-civil-rights-at-the-department-of-education/
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/ocr-nominee-catherine-lhamon-repeatedly-side-steps-questions-about-campus-due-process/
  4. https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-jacques-due-process-under-041200938.html
  5. https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/bidens-troubling-department-of-education-nominee/
  6. https://www.wsj.com/articles/catherine-lhamon-title-ix-college-due-process-11626720890
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/
  8. https://www.thefire.org/catherine-lhamon-still-believes-the-title-ix-regs-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity/
  9. https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/lhamon-wobbles-on-presumption-of-innocence-undermining-confidence-that-she-can-be-fair
  10. https://titleixforall.com/today-and-tomorrow-email-u-s-senators-to-oppose-catherine-lhamons-nomination/
  11. https://www.facecampusequality.org/s/FACE-OPPOSITION-TO-LHAMON-5-20-21-FINAL.pdf
  12. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/07/30/bidens-attack-on-due-process-violates-core-american-principles/5406426001/
  13. https://www.thewordofdamocles.com/post/congress-must-reject-lhamon-nomination
  14. https://patriotpost.us/articles/81498-bidens-doe-nominee-threatens-student-due-process-rights-2021-07-22
  15. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/falsely-accused-former-professor-says-no-to-lhamon-nomination/
  16. https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/biden-ed-dept-nominee-trump-era-protections-of-due-process-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity/
  17. https://reason.com/2021/07/14/catherine-lhamon-title-ix-ocr-senate-help-innocent/
  18. https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-nominee-for-civil-rights-position-rejects-presumption-of-innocence-defends-tweet-claiming-trump-era-regs-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity
  19. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/
  20. https://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/opinion-polls/
Categories
Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Editorialists Speak Out in Opposition to Catherine Lhamon Nomination

Editorialists Speak Out in Opposition to Catherine Lhamon Nomination

SAVE

July 31, 2021

Following Catherine Lhamon’s disastrous July 13 Senate HELP Committee hearing, a number of news organizations, non-profits, and individual commentators have come out in opposition to her nomination.

Following are the key quotes by six editorialists:

  1. Charles C.W. Cooke: Guilty until proven innocent: Lhamon and Biden undermine due process for college students – “Under questioning, Lhamon declined to alter her previously held positions on the lack of need for hearings and cross-examination or on the desirability of the single-investigator model, and she confirmed that America’s traditional approach to presumption of innocence is not relevant to college-based adjudications.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/07/30/bidens-attack-on-due-process-violates-core-american-principles/5406426001/ (July 30)
  2. Robert Franklin: Congress Must Reject Lhamon Nomination – Lhamon was “partly responsible for the infamous ‘Dear Colleague’ letter that, at a single stroke, demolished the due process rights of every college student accused of sexual impropriety.” https://www.thewordofdamocles.com/post/congress-must-reject-lhamon-nomination (July 23)
  3. Thomas Gallatin: Biden’s DOE Nominee Threatens Student Due Process Rights – “Lhamon argued that the judicial standard of innocent until proven guilty should not apply within the college and university setting, as trials there are not criminal proceedings. The results of this dubious and dangerous directive were several instances of falsely accused students successfully suing schools for violating their civil right to due process.” https://patriotpost.us/articles/81498-bidens-doe-nominee-threatens-student-due-process-rights-2021-07-22  (July 22)
  4. Mike LaChance: Biden Ed Dept. Nominee: Trump-Era Protections of Due Process Allow Students to ‘Rape With Impunity’ – “Is it a good idea to put someone who believes students will “rape with impunity” in charge of civil rights in education? Lhamon is a radical.” https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/biden-ed-dept-nominee-trump-era-protections-of-due-process-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity/ (July 15)
  5. Robby Soave: Catherine Lhamon, Once and Future Title IX Czar, Says Campus Rules Don’t Require ‘Presumption of Innocence’ – “Her response to questions from the Senate HELP committee were disqualifying.” https://reason.com/2021/07/14/catherine-lhamon-title-ix-ocr-senate-help-innocent/ (July 14)
  6. Ashe Schow: Biden Nominee For Civil Rights Position Rejects Presumption Of Innocence, Defends Tweet Claiming Trump-Era Regs Allow Students To ‘Rape’ With ‘Impunity’ – “Due process may not be as sexy a constitutional right as the First or Second Amendments, but it’s one that all Americans need to defend.” https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-nominee-for-civil-rights-position-rejects-presumption-of-innocence-defends-tweet-claiming-trump-era-regs-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity  (July 14)
Categories
Campus Due Process Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

PR: New Analysis of Judicial Decisions Reveals Widespread Legal Support for Campus Due Process

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Analysis of Judicial Decisions Reveals Widespread Legal Support for Campus Due Process

WASHINGTON / July 7, 2021 – A new analysis of 206 trial and appellate court decisions reveals widespread judicial support for the new Title IX regulation that went into effect last year. The document reveals particularly strong judicial support for some of its most controversial provisions, such as cross examination. The “Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation” is designed for use by judges, attorneys, policy-makers, Title IX administrators, and others.

The document reviews all 27 regulatory provisions in the 2020 regulation and concludes that each of them is consistent with at least one judicial decision. The following seven regulatory provisions were affirmed by 20 or more court decisions:

  1. Pro-Complainant Bias: 34 decisions
  2. Impartial Investigations: 33 decisions
  3. Cross Examination: 31 decisions
  4. Institutional Sex Bias: 27 decisions
  5. Notice to Respondent: 27 decisions
  6. Access to Evidence: 23 decisions
  7. Evidence Evaluation: 20 decisions

Judges now view constitutionally based due process protections as requisite to sexual misconduct proceedings in public schools. As Judge Robert Jonker recently noted in Munoz v. Michigan State University, “Everyone agrees that procedural due process is implicated when a public university imposes a suspension of this magnitude.” (1)

Overall, the decisions did not turn on subtle interpretations of nuanced legal precepts. Rather, they were based on judicial recognition that colleges are failing to observe the most fundamental notions of fairness, often so gross as to suggest that sex bias was the motivating factor. A sample section from the Analysis on Institutional Sex Bias is available for viewing online (2).

For each of the 27 pertinent regulatory provisions in the Title IX regulation, the Analysis enumerates:

  • Regulatory language
  • Supreme Court decisions, if available
  • Appellate Court decisions, if available
  • Trial Court decisions
  • Summary

The 104-page “Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation” is available for $100. Checks should be made payable to “SAVE” and sent to P.O. Box 1221, Rockville, MD 20849. Or send payment via PayPal with the notation, “Analysis of Judicial Decisions:” https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=JELDTQDKAQB6A

More information about the Analysis is available online (3).

Citations:

  1. D. Mich. June 23, 2021.
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/06/27-judicial-decisions-have-documented-the-problem-of-campus-sex-bias/
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

 

Categories
Campus Discrimination Legal Office for Civil Rights

Complaint: MIT discriminates against males and white people through nearly 30 different programs

JOHN RIGOLIZZO – RUTGERS UNIVERSITY •JUNE 10, 2021

‘MIT is apparently either unaware of federal civil rights laws, or it thinks it’s above the law’

A complaint has been leveled against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for 27 alleged violations of Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

The complaint, authored by University of Michigan-Flint economics Professor Mark Perry, was filed with the Boston-based Office of Civil Rights in late May.

Of the 27 MIT programs cited in the complaint, 24 are alleged to be in violation of Title IX, which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex in schools.

Two other MIT programs are alleged to be in violation of Title VI, which protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.

And one program is accused by Perry of violating both laws.

Perry has made a habit of filing Civil Rights complaints against public universities, and has filed 326 of this nature since 2016.

But he noted in an email to The College Fix that MIT’s 27 alleged violations “sets a new record for the greatest number of violations I’ve found at a single college or university.”

The complaint came in at 2,300 words and six pages and Perry said there may even be “additional violations that weren’t uncovered.”

“MIT is apparently either unaware of federal civil rights laws, or it thinks it’s above the law,” Perry told The Fix. “Either way [it’s] a pretty sad indictment of MIT.”

Most of the alleged complaints targeted programs that benefited only women and excluded men, such as scholarships, study groups, career networking, graduate-level groups, educational seminars and similar efforts. Several of the programs cited in Perry’s complaint are for middle and high school female students only.

For the Title VI complaints, one benefitted entrepreneurs who are Black, Indigenous and People of Color, or BIPOC, and another is a professional fund for LGBTQ students of color.

The complaint that listed both Title IX and Title VI is MIT’s Women of Color Professional Fund.

The College Fix reached out to MIT’s media relations department for a response to the complaint, but the department, as well as Director Kimberly Allen and Deputy Director Sarah McDonnell, did not reply to requests for comment.

As for Perry, he told The College Fix that as of this week, he has filed complaints against 326 colleges and universities for more than 1,200 Title IX and Title VI violations, and 158 of those complaints have been opened so for federal civil rights investigations, and about 50 investigations have been resolved in his favor.

Perry’s first victory came in 2016 when he successfully got a women-only study lounge changed to an all-student lounge at Michigan State.

As for MIT, Perry said he expected that MIT would “stubbornly fight” to keep its single-sex, female-only programs.

But instead, he added, MIT should either discontinue their discriminatory practices, convert them to co-educational programs for males and females, or introduce equivalent male-only programs to ensure equal access to the same opportunities and funding.

Complaint: MIT discriminates against males and white people through nearly 30 different programs | The College Fix