Category: Sexual Harassment

The Waxman Cometh: London’s Commissioner for Which Victims, Exactly?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 25, 2023

The Waxman Cometh: London’s Commissioner for Which Victims, Exactly?

Sean Parker

January 25, 2023

Claire Waxman is London’s first Victims Commissioner. In 2011, she won a case to overturn the decision not to prosecute her stalker, university friend Elliot Fogel.

Fogel was first convicted in 2003 over repeated phone calls. The former Sky Sports producer denied he had done anything wrong, but was convicted by a jury of stalking and breaching a restraining order.

Waxman was a contributor to a successful campaign for change in stalking laws, and in 2013 founded campaign group Voice4Victims to continue lobbying for legislation. V4V proposed victims’ rights amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill, passed in the House of Lords in 2016.

Also in 2016 V4V launched the Abuse of Process campaign, which aimed to tackle the problem of alleged victims being abused by alleged perpetrators through legal platforms. Whether this would be following verdict, when a complainant legally becomes a victim, is unclear. V4V also drafted the Sexual Offences Bill, to improve protection for alleged victims of rape and sexual assault. What, if any, connection Waxman has to Betsy Stanko (Operation Soteria grande fromage, charged with increasing UK sexual assault convictions) is as yet undeclared.

Waxman was subsequently reappointed by Sadiq Khan in May 2021. She claims to have undertaken work to transform the criminal justice system to provide a better experience for victims of crime, working alongside victims to amplify their voices, and promoting their interests throughout the ‘criminal justice journey’. Does this also include victims of false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, wrongful conviction or incarceration, or men and boys in general?

In December 2022 Waxman issued a series of social media posts that appeared to erase the existence of male victims of domestic abuse, and vilified men. Here are some examples:

December 7: “Our campaign is making a real difference in our fight to end the epidemic of male violence against women and girls for good.”
December 9: “We should reflect on Violence Against Women and Girls in the 21^st Century, and the huge proportion of abuse that takes place online and using technology.”
December 12: “Much more must be done to tackle the harmful behaviors of men.”
December 14: “Zara’s future was stolen by a man with no regard for her life or the law.”
December 18: “We are in an epidemic of violence against women and girls.” December 19: “Everyone has a responsibility to challenge misogynistic views and attitudes.”

Also in 2022, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab declined to renew national Victims Commissioner Dame Vera Baird’s contract. Baird is a well-known radical feminist of the ages. See False Allegations Watch‘s annotated notes on a statement given during her tenure.

According to sources Claire Waxman has been used by the legal-dominance feminist lobby to campaign against the recognition of Parental Alienation in the Domestic Abuse Bill. She allegedly went to the President of the Family Division with a list of names of professionals working on Parental Alienation cases. The source suspected that this was why he referred to people having their professional reputation destroyed in a key speech on Parental Alienation in October 2021. The President didn’t take any action.

So the Victims Industry rolls on unquestioned, due to nobody in power wanting to be seen as denying alleged victims justice. But there are many kinds of victims, and in a world where good is bad, right is wrong, left is right and male can be female, there are also potentially 8 billion victims.

Subjectivity ultimately goes in only one direction – inwards; and let it not be forgotten that prisons also are full of ‘victims’. Those who are charged with creating alleged victims are by and large victims themselves, and even if they claim not to have been, have possibly not yet been correctly coerced into seeing themselves that way.

As is increasingly the case, it’s the terminology that’s the problem: If victimhood is seen as a monetisable virtue, then the image of wrongdoing, pain and suffering must be maintained at all costs, and for as long as possible. Otherwise any possible pretence or change of state might be seen through, and fatal doubt sown. Using negative experience as an emotional crutch is a very dangerous business, as crying wolf is a one-way street; once done, rarely recovered from. And don’t even start on the potential false memories in historical cases, or the social contagion of a million believed stories becoming the industrialised wheels before the new culture-wars ambulance-chasers (MeToo lawyers and their ilk).

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

29 Recent Judicial Decisions Thwart Biden ‘Gender Agenda’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 18, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

29 Recent Judicial Decisions Thwart Biden ‘Gender Agenda’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 12, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 20, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Investigations Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Trauma Informed

Rigged: SAFER Act Bears Eerie Resemblance to Soviet-Era Legal System

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 15, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Rigged: SAFER Act Bears Eerie Resemblance to Soviet-Era Legal System

WASHINGTON / December 15, 2022 — The Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act (1) was recently introduced in the Senate (S. 5158) and House of Representatives (H.R. 9387). The bill proposes to make numerous changes to campus Title IX adjudication procedures that would tilt the process in favor of the complainant. The changes are reminiscent of practices often seen in the former Soviet Union.

In the Soviet Union, Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin’s secret police, often boasted, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Similarly, the SAFER Act would provide complainants a broad array of supports and protections, leaving accused persons to their own devices. (Section 205)

In the Soviet Union, “all aspects of the Soviet legal system were effectively subordinate to the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party,” according to University of Illinois law professor Peter Maggs (2). On college campuses, ideologically committed Title IX coordinators wield enormous control over the processing of complaints. Under SAFER, their power would further expand to have a say over “teaching practices, textbooks, and curricula.” (Section 206)

In the Soviet Union, false allegations were rampant. Similarly, 40-50% of sexual assault allegations on American college campuses are known to be unfounded (3). Ironically, the SAFER Act would discourage a school from disciplining a person who makes a false allegation. (Section 205)

In the Soviet Union, investigators would slant their methods in order to reach a predetermined conclusion of guilt. Under the SAFER Act, campus investigators would be mandated to use “trauma-informed interview techniques” — methods that would further tilt what already is a biased Title IX process (4). (Section 205)

In the Soviet Union, “there was severe pressure from the party hierarchy to secure a 100 percent conviction rate, with the result that thereafter there were almost no acquittals.” (2) In the United States, Oberlin College once boasted it had a 100% conviction rate for Title IX cases (5).

As if to underscore the irrelevance of the SAFER bill, in three separate decisions this past week, federal judges issued rulings that illustrate the due process deficiencies of campus “kangaroo courts:”

The First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision, and ruled against Stonehill College of Massachusetts for its deeply flawed adjudication methods (6).
Judge Reed O’Connor issued a ruling against Texas Christian University, finding that TCU had instructed that exculpatory evidence for the man was “not to [be] consider[ed],” “discussed or referenced” by the Title IX panel (7).
The District Court of Western Wisconsin ruled against the University of Wisconsin-Madison for various procedural errors against a male student that constituted sex discrimination (8).

SAVE urges lawmakers to oppose the SAFER Act.

Links:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 12, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

Definition of Sex

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

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

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

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

Definition of Sexual Harassment

In Davis v. Monroe, the U.S. Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as harassment that is ‘‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.’’ (8)

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

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

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

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

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

SAVE urges lawmakers to strongly oppose the SAFER Act.

Links:

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

Ignoring Wave of Attacks on Campus Due Process, Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Help ‘Survivors.’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 10, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Ignoring Wave of Attacks on Campus Due Process, Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Help ‘Survivors,’ For the Fifth Time

WASHINGTON / October 10, 2022 – Basic principles of “due process” on campus are being challenged by a growing number of frivolous and false Title IX complaints. Despite these developments, Congressional lawmakers introduced last week the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a bill that does nothing to shore up due process protections.

Due process, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, serves to protect innocent citizens from false accusations. But a review of recent Title IX complaints reveals that female students increasingly are resorting to Title IX as a weapon to settle old scores.

For example, Clemson University student Erin Wingo initiated a sexual encounter with a male acquaintance. But worried that her boyfriend might learn of the tryst, Wingo fabricated an allegation of sexual assault. A South Carolina jury later awarded the male student $5.3 million for defamation (1).

In another case, the male student was taking a medication that precluded his ability to have intercourse— but that did not deter an accusation of “rape” from being filed by the female student. In other recent complaints, there is no allegation of intimate sexual contact. Rather, the complaint centers around vague and unverifiable claims of “harassment.”

In addition, recent developments reveal that certain groups are seeking to roll back fundamental due process protections:

The Department of Education released a draft Title IX regulation in June that was widely criticized for its removal of key due process protections. One letter from 19 state Attorneys General charged, “The Proposed Rule threatens to destroy Title IX.” (2)
The presumption of innocence has long been seen as the bedrock to due process (3). Nonetheless, 12 Democratic Senators submitted a letter calling on the Department of Education to remove any ”presumption that the respondent is not responsible for sex discrimination until a determination is made.” (4) This extreme position provoked the ire of leading liberal commentators (5).

Ignoring these worrisome threats to due process, last week federal lawmakers introduced the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (6). The bill had been introduced, unsuccessfully, in four previous sessions of Congress (7).

The House bill was co-sponsored by Representatives Carolyn Maloney and John Katko, neither of whom will be serving in Congress next year. Announced five weeks before the highly contested November 8 elections, the bill has little chance of being passed into law in the current session of Congress.

“The truth is that there is no crisis in sexual assault on campus,” notes a leading Title IX attorney. “Title IX teaches women to blame the guy instead of accepting her share of responsibility for the failed relationship.”

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 19, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 15, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 26, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@endtodv.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations: