Category: Press Release

Growing Numbers of Falsely Accused Persons Sue Colleges for High-Dollar Monetary Damages

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 18, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Growing Numbers of Falsely Accused Persons Sue Colleges for High-Dollar Monetary Damages

WASHINGTON / September 19, 2024 – In the past, accused students who sued their colleges only sought to have their transcripts cleared so they could transfer and not suffer adverse consequences. But inspired by Johnny Depp’s successful 2022 defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard (1), falsely accused persons are now suing their former schools for large dollar awards.

Following are five high-dollar lawsuits that were resolved or filed in just the past year:

Pacific University, OR: A jury awarded $3.9 million to Peter Steele, falsely accused of sexual assault. The jury agreed that “Pacific University’s conduct constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct or exceeded any reasonable limits of social toleration.” (2)

Thomas Jefferson University, PA: During a 2018 party, surgical resident Jessica Phillips forced whiskey into faculty member John Abraham’s mouth and began to aggressively kiss him. She pulled him to the floor, where they had sex. But inexplicably, the university failed to investigate his complaint of sexual assault. Last December, a jury decided in favor of Abraham, awarding him $15 million for the university’s “outrageous conduct.” (3)

University of Detroit-Mercy, MI: A college counselor at University of Detroit-Mercy initiated an unauthorized investigation against a student who had been falsely accused at another school. In April the student filed a lawsuit, charging “the University’s egregious lack of any semblance of fair process whatsoever in connection with same.” The lawsuit seeks actual, compensatory, and punitive damages (4).

Yale University, CT: The Associated Press recently reported on a defamation lawsuit that was filed in May against 15 women’s advocacy groups. Saif Khan, acquitted of sex assault charges during a trial in 2018, was called a “rapist” in a court brief that the groups filed in 2022. The lawsuit seeks financial damages. “We would like for them to understand that there is harm to someone when you just label them,” explained Khan’s attorney (5).

Hofstra University, NY: Two weeks ago, John Doe filed a lawsuit against Hofstra University, after the institution allegedly failed to address the harassment and retaliation he suffered after his former romantic partner defamed him for being a “rapist.” The lawsuit accuses the institution of “condoning and/or failing to adequately address severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive gender-based harassment and retaliation, which resulted in Plaintiff being compelled to withdraw from the University.” (6)

To date, over 800 lawsuits have been filed by students against colleges alleging Title IX and related violations (7). Thus far, 280 cases have been resolved in favor of the falsely accused student (8), with hundreds of other cases resolved via confidential settlements (9.10,11).

Many of these campus adjudications appear to have been driven by an aggrieved sense of “mob justice,” which bears little resemblance to democratic ideals of impartiality, fairness, and the presumption of innocence. College administrators should work to remove the perception of Kangaroo Court procedures, or face legislative consequences.

Links:

Department of Education Due Process Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Unanimous: Supreme Court Justices Voice Opposition to Three Major Title IX Provisions

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 21, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Unanimous: Supreme Court Justices Voice Opposition to Three Major Title IX Provisions

WASHINGTON / August 22, 2024 – In a stunning move, all nine Supreme Court justices expressed their opposition to three key provisions in the new Title IX regulation (1). In its August 16 decision in support of the appellate court rulings to block enforcement of the new rule, the nine Justices expressed their unanimous disapproval of the new regulation’s plan to:

Redefine sex to include “gender identity.”
Allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms designated for members of the opposite sex.
Create a new, overly broad definition of “hostile environment harassment” (the Title IX regulation brazenly seeks to negate the Supreme Court’s definition of “sexual harassment,” as delineated in its landmark Davis v. Monroe decision (2)).

The SCOTUS decision affirmatively states, “Every Member of the Court agrees respondents are entitled to interim relief as to three provisions of that Rule: 34 CFR §106.10 (2023) (defining sex discrimination), §106.31(a)(2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity), and §106.2’s definition of hostile environment harassment.”

The opinion comes on the heels of a string of defeats for the Biden Administration’s effort to revamp the Title IX law, enacted in 1972 to ban sex discrimination in schools. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the Biden Administration had lost in 7 out of 8 district court decisions, and lost in 3 out of 3 appellate court opinions (3).

As a result, the Title IX policy has been blocked in the states of LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX, AR, MO, OA, NE, ND, SD, AL, FL, GA, SC, and OK, as well as in thousands of schools in 45 states attended by children of Moms for Liberty members and by members of the Young America’s Foundation (4). As a result, the 2020 Title IX regulation still remains in effect for those states and schools.

In recent months, the tide has turned against Marxist-inspired transgender ideology. These developments include growing scientific skepticism, opposition in public opinion polls, state-level laws (5), and hostility expressed by political candidates (6).

In addition, SAVE recently established a Citizen Watchdog program to monitor school compliance with the recent judicial Title IX decisions (7).

The Supreme Court decision applies only to the preliminary injunctions against the Title IX regulations, so its August 16 ruling will not be the last word on the subject. But the unanimity of opposition to three key regulatory provisions lends credence to critics of the controversial policy.

In the words of commentator Aaron Flanigan, “Whether or not they realize it now, American parents are standing on the precipice of one of the most far-reaching, extremist, and dangerous transformations of the education system in American history.” (8)

Links:

Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Schools Urged to Delay Implementation of Title IX Rule Until Legal Challenges are Resolved

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 28, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Schools Urged to Delay Implementation of Title IX Rule Until Legal Challenges are Resolved

WASHINGTON / July 29, 2024 – The Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX rule on April 19, with an effective date of August 1. (1) The regulation was immediately challenged by numerous groups. Given that the lawsuits and other challenges will not be resolved by August 1, SAVE urges all schools receiving federal assistance to defer implementation of the sweeping policy.

Following is a summary of the lawsuits against the Title IX regulation:

Litigation: To date, 10 lawsuits have been filed by state Attorneys General and other groups. In six of those complaints, judges have issued decisions. In every case, the judge imposed a temporary injunction on the rule, citing the “arbitrary and capricious” nature of the regulation. Currently, bans on the regulation are in place in 21 states: LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX. AR, MO, IA, NE, ND, and SD (2).

Appellate Decisions: Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for both the Fifth Circuit (3) and the Sixth Circuit (4) denied appeals of the Department of Education to stay the decisions of the trial courts.

Nationwide Injunction: In his July 11 ruling for Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk noted he is considering extending his injunction to cover all 50 states in the nation (5).

Other state-level efforts are underway to overturn the regulation:

Candidate Opposition: Over 100 state political candidates around the country have signed a pledge to oppose the changes contemplated under the new Title IX regulation (6).

Statutes: To date, numerous states have enacted legislation that contradict key provisions of the Title IX regulation (7). For example, 13 states have passed laws designed to assure due process on college campuses (8).

Directives: Numerous governors and state superintendents of education have instructed their schools to disregard the rule (9).

Other efforts to eliminate the Title IX regulation include:

Title IX Network: A coalition of 232 organizations has been working for two years to oppose the regulation at the local, state, and national levels (10).

Congressional Review Act: Resolutions to block the regulation have been introduced in both the U.S. Senate (11) and House (12). On July 11, the Resolution passed in the House of Representatives.

New Presidential Administration: On January 20, 2025 a new person will be sworn in as the 46^th president of the United States. Donald Trump is currently leading Kamala Harris in the Electoral College, 312 to 226. (13) If elected, Trump has promised that “on day one,” he will terminate the Biden mandate (14).

Never before in history has the Judicial Branch, Legislative Branch, and the American public coalesced in such a coordinated and sustained manner to oppose a controversial federal regulation. Schools that receive federal education monies are urged to postpone all implementation of the regulation until the legal issues are resolved.

If the Department of Education attempts to enforce the new policy, the affected school or individual should seek an injunction which, based on the many judicial decisions issued to date, likely would be granted. Schools should not waste resources on the futility of implementing a deeply unpopular Title IX regulation.

Links:

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

As Second Judge Strikes Down Title IX Regulation, Dept. of Education Resorts to Orwellian Clichés

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 21, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

As Second Judge Strikes Down Title IX Regulation, Department of Education Resorts to Orwellian Logic

WASHINGTON / June 24, 2024 – Federal Judge Danny Reeves handed down a preliminary injunction last Monday against the controversial Title IX regulation for the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (1). Reeves’ decision follows a similar ruling issued on June 13 by District Judge Doughty, who struck down the controversial regulation in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho (2).

Using the phrase “arbitrary and capricious” eight times, Judge Reeves addressed the regulation’s subjective definitions of “gender identity,” women’s sports, student privacy and safety, free speech, parental rights, and more (3). The judge’s 93-page decision did not mince words (4) – the following is just a sampling:

“The Department’s new definition of ‘discrimination on the basis of sex wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended.” – Page 25
“The likely consequences of the Final Rule are virtually limitless…. the Final Rule creates myriad inconsistencies with Title IX’s text and its longstanding regulations.” – Page 27
“the Final Rule authorizes, if not encourages, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement pursuant to definitions of harassment that are almost entirely fact-dependent.” – Page 55
“officials seemingly failed to seriously account for the possibility that abolishing sex-separated facilities would likely increase the incidence of crime and deter large swaths of the public from using public accommodations altogether.” – Page 75
“Rather than address the evidence provided by the plaintiff-States and others during the commenting period, the Department throws its figurative hands in the air and says, ‘too bad.’” – Page 76

Judge Reeves’ decision also highlighted the plight of a 15-year-old West Virginia biological girl referred to as “A.C.” Alluding to transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, a biological male, the judge wrote, “A.C. asserts that it is apparent that B.P.J.’s status as a biological male gives B.P.J. an advantage over A.C. and other female athletes.”

But A.C. is not the only person to have been harmed by the Department of Education’s Marxist-inspired Title IX mandate (5):

Three middle school boys in Wisconsin were charged with a Title IX harassment complaint when they refused to refer to a female classmate as “they/them.” (6)
John Abraham of Thomas Jefferson University was seduced and raped by Jessica Phillips at an alcohol-fueled party. When Abraham reported the assault to university Title IX officials, his complaint was ignored because, according to the favored narrative, “women never abuse.” (7)
When Prisha Mosley developed mental health problems, doctors persuaded her undergo “gender-affirming” treatments, including removal of her breasts, at the age of 17. Last month, a North Carolina judge ruled that her lawsuit can move forward (8).

Rather than expressing compassion or remorse, the Department of Education responded to the judges’ recent decisions with a bureaucratic retort (9): “Title IX guarantees that no person experience sex discrimination in a federally-funded educational environment…we will continue to fight for every student.”

“Fight for every student”?

The Department’s tone-deaf dismissal recalls the infamous pronouncement of George Orwell: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was the final, most essential command.”

Links:

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 16, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

WASHINGTON / June 17, 2024 – This past Thursday federal Judge Terry Doughty handed down a temporary injunction against the new Title IX regulation (1). The sweeping federal regulation, issued on April 19, makes numerous changes to the original Title IX law, including expanding the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (2).

Noting that Title IX “was written and intended to protect biological women from discrimination,” Louisiana District Judge Doughty reasoned, “Such purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics. Enacting the changes in the Final Rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX: protecting biological females from discrimination.”

The judge also ruled the new regulation violates the free speech clause of the Constitution, the Spending Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Doughty’s ruling applies to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

The transformative Title IX regulation is encountering strong opposition across the country (3). To date, a total of nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (5)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)

States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
State of Oklahoma (11)
Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

Decisions on many of these complaints are expected during the upcoming month.

In addition, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have co-sponsored H.J. Resolution 165 that seeks to block the controversial regulation (14).

Advocates for LGBTQ rights were furious over the judge’s decision. Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson charged, “Today’s decision prioritizes anti-LGBTQ+ hate over the safety and well-being of students in the state. This is MAGA theatrics with the dangerous goal of weaving discrimination into law.” (15)

Earlier this month the Pew Research Center reported on the results of a national survey that shows 65% of registered voters believe whether a person is a man or woman is based on their biological sex at birth. In 2017, only 53% of voters believed that sex was biologically based (16).

Links:

Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 12, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / June 12, 2024 – The Department of Education recently issued a new Title IX regulation that redefines sex to include “gender identity” (1). In response, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are co-sponsoring a resolution that seeks to block the new regulation. H.J. Resolution 165 states simply:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance’ (89 Fed. Reg. 33474; published April 29, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.” (2)

In support of the Resolution, Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx charged, “The Biden administration’s final rule hacks Title IX into pieces and expunges decades of progress for women and girls across the nation. This is a clear and present threat, and one that cannot go unaddressed.” (3)

To date, nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (5)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)

States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
State of Oklahoma (11)
Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

The most comprehensive lawsuit, from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (5), charges the new regulation not only promotes harmful gender transitioning among underage students, but also impairs free speech, parental rights, bathroom privacy, women’s sports, and due process for the falsely accused.

The new Title IX policy affirms the Marxist vision to bring about a “sexless” society. In the words of Shulamith Firestone, the end goal of feminist revolution must be the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken” (14).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE – strongly supports H.J. Resolution 165.

Links:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Press Release Title IX

Blockbuster Lawsuit Filed Against 15 Women’s Rights Organizations for Defamation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 30, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Lawrence DeMarco, LLM

Telephone: +1 215-901-1930

Email: ldemarco@boysandmen.net

Blockbuster Lawsuit Filed Against 15 Women’s Rights Organizations for Defamation

WASHINGTON / May 31, 2024 — Saifullah Khan, a former Yale University student who was acquitted of rape charges in 2018, has filed a defamation lawsuit against 15 prominent women’s rights organizations. (1) The lawsuit alleges that despite Khan’s acquittal in a court of law, the defendants falsely labeled him a “rapist” in a legal filing, causing severe damage to his reputation. (2)

Khan, an Afghan refugee who came to the United States as a child, was a full scholarship student at Yale University. In 2015, he was accused of sexual assault by a female classmate following a Halloween party. Following a highly publicized trial in 2018, the jury found Khan not guilty on all charges. (3)

Despite the acquittal, Yale University launched an internal disciplinary proceeding, found him responsible for sexual misconduct, and expelled him. Khan then sued Yale in 2019 for $110 million, claiming the university had denied him due process. (4)

Normally, accusers are granted immunity by courts when they testify in a legal proceeding. But in this case, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled last June that Yale’s disciplinary procedures lacked adequate due process protections to provide the accuser immunity for her testimony, allowing Khan’s accuser to be potentially held liable for defamation (5).

Two weeks ago, Khan expanded his legal battle, filing a new defamation suit against 15 women’s rights organizations, including the National Women’s Law Center, Legal Momentum, Jewish Women International, and others. (6) The complaint alleges these groups falsely characterized Khan as a “rapist” and made other defamatory statements in a legal filing, which caused him substantial reputational harm.

“I was acquitted in a court of law, yet trusted and powerful organizations continued to defame me,” stated Khan. He further explained that he doesn’t have a national agenda, but just wants to clear his name. (1)

The defendants, with combined assets exceeding $200 million, have not yet publicly responded to the suit. However, the case is likely to raise important questions about the boundaries of protected speech versus defamation in the context of sexual misconduct allegations during school hearings.

Links:

Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Letter to House Speaker Johnson

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 12, 2024

May 16, 2024

RE: Establishment of a House Task Force to End the Weaponization of the Department of Education

Speaker Mike Johnson

H-232, The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Johnson:

On April 19, the Department of Education released its new Title IX regulation that changes the definition of “sex.” This new policy will cause harmful, systemic effects on children, schools, families, and ultimately to our entire society.

Response to the new regulation has been extremely negative.[1],[2],[3], [4],

In particular:

Seven lawsuits from 22 states have been filed in federal courts to block the regulation. [5]
Impressively, one of the lawsuits features 17 school districts in Louisiana as plaintiffs. [6]
Numerous states already have declared they will not follow the new policy, including AR, FL, LA, NE, OK, and SC. [7]

The excesses of Title IX have become a bi-partisan concern. A recent poll of 1,600 registered voters revealed a majority of persons now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%, Democrats: 61%.[8]

On May 9, representatives from several member-organizations of the Title IX Network [9] held meetings with staffers of 18 Members of the House of Representatives. The purpose of the meetings was to recommend the establishment of a Task Force of key House Members to confer on strategies to end the weaponization of the Department of Education.

During these meetings, we recommended that the Task Force consider these three broad options:

Major appropriations reductions
Major reorganization of the Department of Education
Complete abolition of the Department of Education

Staffer response to this recommendation was uniformly and strongly positive.

During the meetings, we urged that the Task Force be established now, before the November elections.

We also highlighted that the House Appropriations Committee had succeeded in approving important budget reductions in its FY24 Labor-HHS-Education bill:

Section 244: Prohibits the implementation of Biden’s Executive Order on “Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.”
Section 311: Prohibits the Department of Education from implementing the proposed Title IX regulations that were issued in July 2022 and in April 2023.
Section 312: Protects religious liberty in schools.
Section 534: Prohibits the use of federal funds for hormone therapy or surgical treatment for “gender-affirming care.”
Section 535: Prohibits the implementation of any other “diversity, equity, inclusion office, program, or training.”

Although these cuts did not survive to the final approved version of the Labor-HHS-Education bill, they represent an important first step of the process of restoring accountability to the Department of Education.

You may be aware that the Heritage Foundation already has developed a roadmap for this process.[10] This document may be a good starting point for the Task Force’s deliberations.

Based on the positive responses during our May 9 meetings, the following member-organizations of the Title IX Network hereby request that you promptly establish a Task Force to end the weaponization of the Department of Education.

We look forward to working with you. If you have further questions, feel free to contact Bob Thompson at rthompson@saveservices.org

Sincerely,

National Groups (31)

SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments)

AFA Action

Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization

AMAC Action

American Association of Evangelicals

American Association of Senior Citizens

American Life & Liberty PAC

America Values

Awake Americans

Catholics Count

Center for Equal Opportunity

Center for Military Readiness

Conservatives of Faith

ConservativeHQ.com

Eagle Forum

Global Strategic Alliance

Katartismos Global

Law Offices of Philip A. Byler

Less Government

Men and Women for a Representative Democracy in America

Mission America

National Association of Scholars

No Left Turn in Education

Palm Beach Freedom Institute

Project 21 Black Leadership Network

Radiance Foundation

60 Plus Association

Strategic Coalitions and Initiatives, LLC

Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

United Against Racism in Education

Women for Democracy in America

State Groups (21):

American Life & Liberty PAC, Virginia

Awake Illinois

Child Protection League Action

Eagle Forum of Alabama

Eagle Forum of Michigan

Independent Women’s Network, Bismarck Chapter

Louisiana Save Our Schools

Middle Resolution

Moms for Liberty Howard County, Maryland

Moms for Liberty Talbot County, Maryland

Ohio Value Voters

Parents on the Level

Protect Ohio Children Coalition

Roughrider Policy Center

Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity

Texas Eagle Forum

Texas Freedom Coalition

Utah Citizens for the Constitution

Utah Eagle Forum

Virginia Association of Scholars

Wisconsin Family Action

Cc: Virginia Foxx, Chairperson, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Cc: Other Republican Members of the House of Representatives

Links:

[1] https://nypost.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bidens-new-title-ix-rules-prove-its-time-for-the-doe-to-be-doa/

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/biden-admin-weaponizing-title-ix-promote-fringe-sexual-politics-opinion-1894635

[3] https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/14/from-title-ix-to-title-none-biden-kills-womens-sports-and-safety/

[4] https://thewordofdamocles.substack.com/p/another-biden-administration-attack

[5] https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

[6] https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/file-stamped-louisiana-v-u-s-dep-t-of-education-title-ix-662fda6716ff7.pdf

[7] https://www.saveservices.org/2024/05/naked-attempt-to-strong-arm-our-schools-five-lawsuits-seek-to-block-sweeping-title-ix-rule/

[8] https://www.dailywire.com/news/majority-of-voters-support-state-laws-protecting-children-from-trans-procedures-poll

[9] https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/

[10] https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-11.pdf

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

‘Naked attempt to strong-arm our schools:’ Five Lawsuits Seek to Block Sweeping Title IX Rule

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 5, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘Naked attempt to strong-arm our schools:’ Five Lawsuits Seek to Block Sweeping Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / May 6, 2024 – It’s not often that a new federal regulation triggers such revulsion that five lawsuits are filed within days of its release. On April 19 the Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX regulation, which redefines sex to include “gender identity” (1). Within 11 days, five complaints against the new policy had been filed in federal courts by the following groups:

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (2)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (3)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho (4)
State of Texas (5)
Rapides Parish (Louisiana) School Board (6)

All of the lawsuits contend the new regulation exceeds the Department of Education’s legal authority, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act because its provisions are arbitrary and capricious.

The lawsuit from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, the most comprehensive of the five, charges the new regulation not only promotes harmful gender transitioning among underage students, but also impairs free speech, parental rights, bathroom privacy, women’s sports, and due process for the falsely accused.

The lawsuit from the Attorneys General of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho charges the Title IX rule is a “naked attempt to strong-arm our schools into molding our children … in the government’s preferred image of how a child should think, act, and speak” (3) — an accusation that recalls the Communist Party’s earlier crusade to mold an obedient “New Soviet Man” (7).

The lawsuit from the Rapides Parish School Board documents the myriad policy changes that schools would be required to make. The complaint states defiantly, “The school board does not have and does not intend to adopt a policy mandating that staff or students use pronouns that reflect students’ perceived gender identity when doing so is inconsistent with a student’s sex.”

Indeed, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill commented, “This is all for a political agenda, ignoring significant safety concerns for young women students in preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges and universities across Louisiana and the entire country” (8).

The new – some would say, revolutionary – Title IX policy accords with the Marxist vision to bring about a “sexless” society. In the words of Shulamith Firestone, the end goal of feminist revolution must be the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken” (9).

In addition, the governors of Arkansas (10) and Nebraska (11) ordered their schools to ignore the new Title IX policy. The previous week, similar directives had been issued in Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina (12).

The new regulation will impose sweeping changes on our nation’s schools. Brett Sokolow, head of the Association for Title IX Administrators, predicts that “60-70% of what we have in place now will need to change in some way to comply with the new Rule” (13).

Which means dramatically increased budgets and institutional clout for the highly politicized Title IX offices across the nation.

Links:

Department of Justice Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Press Release

DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Stabbed Her Husband, Then Engaged in a Five-Year Cover-Up

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 1, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Stabbed Her Husband, Then Engaged in a Five-Year Cover-Up

WASHINGTON / May 2, 2024 – The Centers for Disease Control reports that more men than women are victims of domestic violence. Each year, 6.5 million men, compared to 5.7 million women, fall prey to intimate partner aggression (1).

Consistent with these findings, a new report reveals a high-level female official at the U.S. Department of Justice attacked her husband, evaded prosecution, and sought to remove the incident from the public record.

A recent Daily Signal exposé reveals the following (2):

On July 4, 2006, Kristen Clarke attacked her husband, Reginald Avery, slicing his finger to the bone. Maryland police arrested Clarke that night. A criminal case against Clarke was initiated in the District Court of Maryland.
On Oct. 17, 2006, a Maryland state attorney entered a request of “nolle prosequi,” effectively dismissing the charge without a trial.
On January 10, 2008, Clarke obtained an “Order for Expungement of Police and Court Records” for the arrest, thereby obscuring the incident from the public record.
On January 7, 2021, President-elect Joe Biden nominated Clarke to serve as the head of the Department of Justice’s high-profile Civil Rights Division.
During her April 21 confirmation hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton asked nominee Clarke, “Since becoming a legal adult, have you ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person?” Clarke dishonestly answered, “No.”

The weakening and dissolution of the nuclear family has long been a central objective of Marxist activists (3). Accordingly, feminists have created numerous domestic violence myths that are designed to divert attention from the reality of female-initiated violence (4).

For example, Gloria Steinem famously claimed that “Patriarchy requires violence, or the subliminal threat of violence, in order to maintain itself” (5). Such falsehoods have served to frighten women and vilify men, eventually undermining the institution of marriage.

Basic notions of fairness and justice have been compromised, as well. Even though a majority of abuse perpetrators are female, the Department of Justice reports that inexplicably, 81% of intimate partner violence arrestees are male (6).

Indeed, female-perpetrated violence is a hidden epidemic in our society (7). Last week, the media reported on a Kansas mother who cut off the head of her 6-year-old son (8). One week before that, an Arizona woman pled guilty to poisoning her husband by pouring bleach into his coffee (9).

SAVE urges lawmakers to undertake a thorough re-evaluation of the domestic violence laws within their jurisdiction, to assure these policies are based on principles of science and justice, not Marxist ideology. And chivalrous judges and law enforcement personnel need to stop giving female abusers a free pass.

Links: