Category: Title IX Equity Project

Categories
Campus Title IX Title IX Equity Project

Budget Cuts Urged for Colleges that Persist in Discriminating on the Basis of Sex

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Budget Cuts Urged for Colleges that Persist in Discriminating on the Basis of Sex

WASHINGTON / February 18, 2021 – The federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has announced that it currently has [number] open investigations of [name of state] universities for allegedly discriminating against male students (1). SAVE urges state lawmakers to impose a 5-10% budget cut on institutions that fail to promptly comply with the long-standing Title IX law designed to end sex discrimination.

Following is a screen shot from the OCR website that lists the [name of state] universities currently under investigation for discriminatory single-sex programs or scholarships (2):

[Screen shot here]

The Investigation Date column reveals that some colleges are resisting implementation of needed changes, even months after the federal investigation was opened. In contrast, numerous other universities promptly eliminated their sex-discriminatory programs upon notification (3).

The federal Title IX law states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” (4)

Female students now represent 56% of all undergraduate students, compared to 44% male students (5). Male students are under-represented in numerous fields such as the health professions, public administration, education, and others (6).

“In the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion…universities have often chosen inequity and exclusion,” commentator Adam Kissel ironically reveals (7). State lawmakers should not allow sex discriminatory policies to continue on college campuses.

Citations:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/tix.html In the Type of Discrimination box, select “Title IX – Single Sex Campus Programs” or “Title IX – Single Sex Scholarships”
  2. Institution Type “PSE” signifies “Post Secondary Education”
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/case-resolutions/
  4. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-single-sex-20210114.pdf
  5. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp#:~:text=In%20fall%202018%2C%20female%20students,trends%20between%202000%20and%202018
  6. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/table-of-the-day-bachelors-degrees-by-field-and-gender-for-the-class-of-2015/
  7. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/12/pervasive-sex-discrimination-at-north-carolina-universities/
Categories
Campus Title IX Title IX Equity Project

233 Investigations of Colleges for Sex-Discriminatory Programs and Scholarships

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

233 Investigations of Colleges for Sex-Discriminatory Programs and Scholarships

WASHINGTON / February 15, 2021 – The federal Office for Civil Rights has announced that it currently has 233 open investigations of programs and scholarships that allegedly discriminate against male students (1). The sex-bias complaints have been submitted by a variety of individuals and groups, including the SAVE Title IX Equity Project.

The sex-discriminating universities are located in 47 states across the country. These states are listed at the bottom of this press release, along with the number of institutions in each state under investigation. The states with the largest number of colleges under investigation are Pennsylvania (22 institutions), California (19), New York (16), and Ohio (10).

Last week, for example, it was reported that OCR has opened an investigation of the BOLD Leadership program at Ithaca College, which “requires that applicants identify as women.” (2) The University of Missouri – Columbia offers 70 scholarships for female students, and one for male students. The scholarship for male students, the Eric G. Rowe Scholarship Fund, is reserved for “deserving farm boys,” according to a description on the university website (3).

Sex-discrimination in higher education appears to be widespread. A review of North Carolina’s largest colleges concluded that discrimination on the basis of sex is “rampant.”  “In the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion, North Carolina universities have often chosen inequity and exclusion,” author Adam Kissel ironically comments (4).

A number of the institutions have eliminated their sex-discriminatory programs (5). But many of the OCR investigations were opened over six months ago, revealing that some universities may be resisting efforts to assure equal opportunity for all students.

The federal Title IX law states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” On January 14, the Department of Education released a guidance that re-affirms the ban on sex discrimination, stating, “a school may not administer scholarships, fellowships or other forms of financial assistance that impose a preference or restriction on the basis of sex, with limited exceptions.” (6)

Female students now represent 56% of all undergraduate students, compared to 44% male students (7). Male students are under-represented in numerous fields such as the health professions, public administration, education, and others (8).

To avoid government sanctions, SAVE urges university officials to take steps to assure sex-discriminatory programs and scholarships are promptly removed.

Listing of States with Universities Under Investigation for Sex-Discriminatory Programs

  • AL – 5 universities
  • AR – 3
  • AZ – 4
  • CA – 19
  • CO – 3
  • CT – 3
  • DC – 2
  • DE – 1
  • FL – 9
  • GA – 4
  • HI – 1
  • IA – 4
  • ID – 5
  • KS – 6
  • KY – 7
  • LA – 2
  • MA – 4
  • MD – 5
  • ME – 1
  • MI – 1
  • MN – 8
  • MO – 4
  • MT – 4
  • NC – 3
  • ND – 1
  • NE – 3
  • NH – 2
  • NJ – 5
  • NV – 3
  • NY – 16
  • OH – 10
  • OK – 2
  • OR – 4
  • PA – 22
  • SC – 2
  • SD – 2
  • TN – 3
  • TX – 3
  • UT – 5
  • VA – 9
  • VT – 1
  • WA – 4
  • WI – 9
  • WV – 2
  • WY – 2

 

Citations:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/tix.html In the Type of Discrimination box, select “Title IX – Single Sex Campus Programs” or “Title IX – Single Sex Scholarships”
  2. https://theithacan.org/news/bold-program-under-investigation-for-title-ix-complaint/
  3. https://endowedscholarships.missouri.edu/EndowmentPublicInfo.aspx?id=2344
  4. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/12/pervasive-sex-discrimination-at-north-carolina-universities/
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/case-resolutions/
  6. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-single-sex-20210114.pdf
  7. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp#:~:text=In%20fall%202018%2C%20female%20students,trends%20between%202000%20and%202018
  8. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/table-of-the-day-bachelors-degrees-by-field-and-gender-for-the-class-of-2015/
Categories
Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: New ED Directive Says Universities Must End Sex-Discriminatory Scholarships and Programs

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New ED Directive Says Universities Must End Sex-Discriminatory Scholarships and Programs

WASHINGTON / January 18, 2021 – The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has just released a new guidance that clarifies the Title IX ban on school scholarships and programs that discriminate on the basis of sex (1). The document, titled, “Questions and Answers Regarding OCR’s Interpretation of Title IX and Single Sex Scholarships, Clubs, and other Programs,” was released on Thursday.

The directive affirms the general principle that colleges should not impose sex-based preferences or restrictions, stating “a school may not administer scholarships, fellowships or other forms of financial assistance that impose a preference or restriction on the basis of sex, with limited exceptions.” (Question 3)

The document goes on to clarify that colleges generally may not:

  • Use a program title or description that implies a preference or restriction based on sex, such as the “Center for Women and Gender Equity Non-Traditional Scholarship” (Question 5)
  • Advertise or promote third-party scholarships, fellowships, or other forms of financial assistance that impose a sex-based preference or restriction (Question 6)
  • Separate or exclude individuals on the basis of sex from academic or extracurricular activities, with the exceptions of programs involving contact sports, ability grouping in physical education classes, and choruses. (Question 10)
  • Allow a school-recognized club or other program use a name that implies a sex-based preference or restriction, such as a student chapter of the Society of Women Engineers (Question 11)

The guidance states that a university may offer sex-specific financial assistance as part of a remedial action effort, but only if the school is able to “clearly articulate why the particular sex-based scholarship or program was necessary to overcome the conditions in its own education program or activity which resulted in limited participation.” (Question 4)

In anticipation of the new directive, George Washington University ordered 23 student groups to amend their constitutions to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy. These groups include Girls Who Code and female-only service groups (2).

Over the past two years, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has reviewed the websites of 346 universities and colleges in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to identify illegal sex-specific scholarships. Overall, the review found that 68.5% of universities offered scholarships that discriminate against male students (3).

The Office for Civil Rights currently has 228 investigations underway to remedy these Title IX violations (4). A number of the institutions already have removed their discriminatory programs and scholarships (5).

Links:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-single-sex-20210114.pdf
  2. https://www.gwhatchet.com/2020/10/07/student-groups-required-to-update-bylaws-to-meet-gw-inclusion-policy/
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  4. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/ocr-investigations/
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/case-resolutions/
Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Title IX Equity Project

Biden is President-Elect. Can We Just Ignore the Title IX Regulations Now?

November 9, 2020

TNG Consulting and Brett Sokolow

It has been a week! We now know that Joe Biden is the President-Elect of the United States of America. There will still be some legal wrangling, and nothing is set in stone until the electors vote in December. But, assuming this outcome is maintained, you’ll likely be able to ignore Executive Order 13950 (“Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”). But, what about the Title IX Regulations?

You’ve always had the option to ignore them. The question is whether you’re willing to accept the consequences of that decision. If so, compliance is a choice. If not, you need to comply. So, to make an informed decision, you need to know what the consequences are.

In just 70 days (plus or minus) there will be a new administration. The Office for Civil Rights needs to be directed to come after you for failing to comply with the regulations, and their new Biden-appointed supervisors aren’t likely to do that. Even if OCR were to enforce, you could drag it out and appeal. There is no way for OCR to issue a 305 notice of adverse enforcement action within 70 days, and even then that would have to be referred to the courts, so you’re probably pretty safe on that front.

The problem is the courts. Deprive respondents of their regs-based rights, and they will sue. Trump-appointed judges and others who value due process over victim’s rights will use the regulations as the basis of enforcement through litigation, though exactly how that will work remains to be tested. Do you want to be the test case? Maybe you’ll face a TRO. It’s temporary. Could President Biden’s ED act to rescind the regulations before a permanent injunction would be implemented? That would stop judges from enforcing the regs. Litigating to trial could take two years. By that time, Biden’s administration will have acted to at least rescind the regs, if not replace them, right? That would moot the lawsuit. So, you have to decide whether fending off some lawsuits is a reasonable price to pay for liberating your campus or school from the regulations.

Of course, President Biden won’t rescind the regs personally. That will be done by the Secretary of Education. How long will it take the Biden transition team to vet and select a nominee for Secretary of Education? How long might it be until a Secretary of Education is in place (must be confirmed by the Senate), builds a new team, and works through his/her/their priorities until Title IX hits the top of the list? It could be a year. ATIXA expects many colleges and schools will maintain their compliance with the regulations until then, but we also expect some loosening over time, as signals are issued from the Biden administration and the Department of Education about how they’re going to play this. What will change?

An informal poll of the ATIXA Title IX experts came up with these top ten targets:

  • Relief from direct cross examination by an advisor (cross-examination is not going anywhere, but we expect a lessening of the rigid regs requirements)
  • Removal of the nonsensical exclusionary/hearsay rule regarding “statements”
  • Revocation of the confusing rules on relevance v. directly related evidence
  • Two ten-day review periods likely collapsed into one period
  • Formal complaint requirement will be reversed
  • Hearing requirements for at-will employees will be limited
  • Hearings will only be required when some form of separation is on the table, and the definition of hearing will be broader and less formal
  • Mandated dismissal of Title IX complaints removed
  • Broad retaliation protections rolled back, especially as applied to respondents
  • Removal of any necessity for two processes

We do expect there will be some legal counsels who evaluate the risk and advise their schools and districts to move away from the regs to a best practices model (ATIXA’s Process B?) immediately. We can’t and won’t advise you to do so yet (and some circuit courts of appeals won’t allow it), and we don’t advise you to ignore the regs without first consulting your attorneys. Doing the right thing by implementing a best practice model may wind up being a very defensible position going forward. ATIXA will have its eyes on ways to effectively balance the rights of complainants and respondents, and how we can help you to do so as the rules for Title IX likely shift again in the coming years.

If we had to prognosticate, we’d guess that fairly early on, the Biden administration will rescind the 2020 regulations, and implement another new Dear Colleague Letter/Q&A style approach, like what ED did in 2017, to fill the gap. Simultaneously or soon thereafter, ED will announce a process to issue new regulations under the APA (which will then take 1 year to 18 months). The DCL won’t bring back 2011 but will likely use a framework that modifies the current regulations per our above laundry list. This is the mostly likely scenario, but don’t write off a Title IX Restoration Act in Congress, especially if the Senate goes blue after the Georgia runoff elections in January.

Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/biden-is-president-elect-can-we-just-63134/

Categories
Campus Office for Civil Rights Sex Stereotyping Title IX Title IX Equity Project Victims

PR: Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / October 26, 2020 – A federal judge has ruled against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for utilizing its old Title IX policy for a case that was adjudicated after the August 14 effective date of the new regulation. The decision is widely seen as a rebuke to RPI, both because it reversed a decision by college administrators, and because of the strong language used in the opinion (1).

In this case, John Doe and Jane Roe had a sexual encounter while under the strong influence of alcohol. Echoing the familiar he-said, she-said pattern, Doe alleged that Roe pressured him to put his hands around her neck and engage in unprotected sex. In contrast, Roe claimed that his hands were placed on her neck in a non-sexual way, and that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

Doe and Roe filed Title IX complaints against each other with school officials.

During the campus adjudication, RPI applied different standards against the two parties, deciding that “Doe’s complaint against Roe was insufficiently substantiated because he failed to prove that he did not voluntarily consume alcohol and did not initiate sexual contact with Roe.” As a result, the college made a determination in favor of Roe.

Doe then filed a lawsuit in the New York Northern District Court. In his October 16 ruling, Judge David Hurd suggested that sex bias was at work: “[T]he female’s complaint proceeded without issue, the male’s was struck down in part on grounds not contemplated anywhere in the policy’s definition of consent. That inequitable treatment provides not inconsiderable evidence that gender was a motivating factor in RPI’s treatment of Doe.”

Relying on unusually strong language, the court commented that “whatever answer may come to the question of how to secure the rights of an accusing woman and an accused man, that answer cannot be that all men are guilty. Neither can it be that all women are victims.” Doe had presented strong evidence that “RPI has come down on the opposite side of that truth,” the court concluded.

Sex discrimination against male students appears to be widespread on college campuses. Recently, George Washington University ordered 23 student groups to amend their constitutions to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy. These groups include Girls Who Code, Queens Movement, and female-only service groups (2).

Other forms of sex discrimination include female-only services (3), female-specific scholarships (4), one-sided gender studies courses (5), and sex stereotyping (6).

This appears to be the first judicial ruling regarding the applicability of the new Title IX regulation. Judge Hurd’s decision can be viewed online (7).

Links:

  1. https://www.thefire.org/judge-benchslaps-rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-for-its-treatment-of-accused-student/
  2. https://www.gwhatchet.com/2020/10/07/student-groups-required-to-update-bylaws-to-meet-gw-inclusion-policy/
  3. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/another-victory-from-my-efforts-to-advance-civil-rights-and-challenge-systemic-sexism-in-higher-education/
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  5. https://www.haaretz.com/1.5119341
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/2020/10/pr-noting-the-seriousness-of-penalties-college-administrators-suspend-trainings-that-promote-sex-stereotypes/
  7. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.125951/gov.uscourts.nynd.125951.16.0.pdf
Categories
Campus Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Executive Order Office for Civil Rights Race Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

WASHINGTON / October 19, 2020 – In response to new federal requirements, college administrators have begun to stop school trainings and curricular offerings that promote stereotypes based on sex or race. For example, the University of Iowa recently announced a decision to suspend all such trainings, workshops, and programs. Noting “the seriousness of penalties for non-compliance with the order,” the pause applies to all harassment and discrimination trainings offered by the institution (1). Other institutions of higher education reportedly have made similar decisions (2).

Two federal policies are driving the re-evaluation. First, the new Department of Education sexual harassment regulation states that Title IX training activities “must not rely on sex stereotypes.” (3) Second, Executive Order 13950 directs federal agencies to suspend funding for any institution that promotes concepts that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” (4)

SAVE is urging administrators at colleges and universities across the country to take immediate steps to end trainings and other activities that may promote sex stereotypes. Title IX and other training programs are known to be promoting sex stereotypes in at least seven ways:

  1. Domestic violence: Each year there are 4.2 million male victims of physical domestic violence, and 3.5 female victims, according to the Centers for Disease Control (5). University training programs need to clearly and accurately state these numbers.
  2. Sexual assault: Nearly identical numbers of men and women are victims of sexual assault, according to the federal National Intimate Partner and Violence Survey. Each year, 1.267 million men report they were “made to sexually penetrate,” compared to 1.270 million women who report they were raped (6). But many university training programs utilize data from surveys relying on methodologies that undercount the number of male victims who were made to penetrate.
  3. Annual vs. lifetime incidence: Due to well-known problems with recall and memory retrieval, lifetime incidence numbers significantly undercount domestic violence and sexual harassment incidents, especially less serious incidents that occurred in previous years. University trainings should use annual, “in the past 12 months” numbers, not “lifetime” numbers.
  4. Sex-specific pronouns: In referring to domestic violence or sexual assault perpetrators and victims, many training materials misleadingly refer to the perpetrator as “he” and the victim as “she.”
  5. Examples: Training materials often provide hypothetical examples to illustrate key concepts. Such examples need to highlight approximately equal number of male and female victims.
  6. Imagery: Some university websites feature domestic violence incidents that portray a threatening male standing over a fearful, often cowering female. Such one-sided portrayals are misleading.
  7. Negative stereotyping of men as a group: Some universities offer campus-wide programs that seek to redefine, reform, and/or stigmatize masculinity. University-sponsored courses that promote theories of “toxic masculinity,” “rape culture,” and “patriarchal privilege” are likely to be in violation of the federal ban on sex stereotyping. Such stereotypes serve to undermine principles of fairness and equity for male students.

For example, the University of Texas offers a program titled “MasculinUT.” The program’s website states that concerns about sexual assault and interpersonal violence justify the “need to engage men in discussions about masculinity as one tool to prevent violence.” (7) The university does not offer a similar program directed at females, thereby creating an unlawful stereotype of male perpetrators and female victims.

Some universities teach courses that feature the American Psychological Association report, “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.”  (8) The accompanying APA article made the stereotyping claim that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

To date, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has submitted 20 complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights for non-compliance with regulatory requirements for Title IX training materials (10).

Links:

  1. https://diversity.uiowa.edu/regarding-executive-order-13950?utm
  2. https://blog.aspb.org/policy-update-uneven-implementation-of-executive-order-on-race-and-sex-stereotyping/
  3. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf 45(b)(1)(iii)
  4. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/
  5. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf Tables 9 and 11.
  6. Lara Stemple and Ilan Meyer. The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
  7. https://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/masculinut.php
  8. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf
  9. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner
  10. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/
Categories
Discrimination Title IX Title IX Equity Project

Yale SOM under DOE investigation for alleged sex discrimination

Yale University is being investigated by the Office for Civil Rights within the United States Department of Education for allegedly violating Title IX by running women-only programs at the Yale School of Management.

According to a complaint filed by Mark J. Perry, an economics professor at University of Michigan, Flint, the Yale SOM discriminates against men on the basis of sex by excluding them from applying for several executive education programs created solely for women. In an Oct. 13 letter from the DOE obtained by the News, the department’s Boston office for civil rights notified Perry that they would open an investigation into his complaint. University officials said that the University recently received the complaint and declined to comment.

Officials from the DOE confirmed to the News that the OCR opened an investigation into the University on Tuesday for possible discrimination but declined to provide additional information about the case, citing its ongoing status.

“OCR is opening the following legal issues for investigation: Whether the University discriminates against men by excluding them from applying for the (1) ‘Women’s Leadership Program,’ (2) ‘Women’s Leadership Program Live Online,’ (3) ‘Women’s Leadership Program Online’ and (4) ‘Women on Boards’ executive education programs within the University’s School of Management, which are only available to women, in violation of Title IX,” the letter stated.

The letter said since Yale receives federal financial assistance from the Department, the OCR can investigate it pursuant to Title IX, which establishes that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

SOM spokespeople declined to comment on the school’s use of federal funding.

This is not the first time Yale has come under investigation from the DOE. In February, the department opened an investigation into the University’s alleged failure to report foreign funding.

Perry told the News that he has filed 237 complaints alleging Title IX violations in higher education. He stated that around 100 of his complaints have resulted in civil rights investigations, and, out of those, 30 had resolutions in his favor.

“My goal is to advance civil rights and Title IX for all (and not just some) in higher education expose the systemic sexism that is tolerated and promoted at hundreds of colleges and universities in the US,” Perry wrote in an email to the News.

Perry said that most “sex-specific, single-sex, female-only” programs violate Title IX unless a university offers equivalent male-only programs. He alleges that since Yale SOM excludes men and denies them from these program and their benefits, Yale is discriminating against men based on their sex as they deny men the same educational opportunities offered to women.

There are three ways to resolve Title IX violations for sex-specific programs, Perry told the News. If the OCR finds that SOM’s programs do violate Title IX regulations, SOM will have to discontinue its single-sex programs, open the programs up to all genders or create equivalent male-only programs.

After spending more than 25 years in higher education as a professor, Perry said, he became increasingly aware of what he calls systemic sexism in higher education. Starting around 2016, he claims to have started “a one-man mission to expose what are not just illegal violations of civil rights laws, but are what [he thinks] are violations of basic principles of social justice, fairness and equity.”

“Title IX enforcement has been applied selectively for decades,” Perry wrote, “and it is my goal to end the double-standard for enforcement and protect the civil rights of all students, faculty and staff in higher education, not just some students, faculty and staff.”

A total of 549 men and 399 women enrolled in SOM for the 2019-2020 academic year, according to the University’s Office of Institutional Research.

Julia Brown | julia.k.brown@yale.edu

Julia Bialek | julia.bialek@yale.edu

Categories
Campus Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Sexual Harassment Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Recent Central Oklahoma Resolution Agreement Highlights Problem of Widespread Title IX Non-Compliance

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Recent Central Oklahoma Resolution Agreement Highlights Problem of Widespread Title IX Non-Compliance

WASHINGTON / October 13, 2020 – A recent Resolution Agreement between the federal Office for Civil Rights and the University of Central Oklahoma reveals continuing problems with Title IX compliance on college campuses. In this case, the University offered a “Computer Forensics Summer Academy and STEM CareerBuilder for Girls” that stated the program was “unavailable for male students.” The Resolution Agreement was signed by UCO president Patti Neuhold-Ravikumar on September 30 (1).

The UCO Resolution Agreement highlights the problem of widespread sex bias at colleges across the country in the areas of sex-specific programs, female-only scholarships, Title IX regulatory compliance, and sex stereotyping:

Sex-Specific Programs: Professor Mark Perry has filed 231 complaints to date with the Office for Civil Rights alleging Title IX violations, among which the Office for Civil Rights has already opened 80 investigations. His complaints address a broad gamut of sex-specific programs, including female-only STEM academies, leadership development efforts, gym exercise hours, study lounges, and more (1).

Female-Only Scholarships: Over the past two years, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has identified hundreds of scholarships that are reserved for female students. For example, the University of Missouri-Columbia offers 70 female-specific scholarships, and only one male-specific scholarship. To date, the Office for Civil Rights has opened 121 investigations into these sex-discriminatory scholarships (2). These biased offerings have attracted extensive media attention (3).

Title IX Regulatory Compliance: The new Title IX regulation, which became effective on August 14, was designed to end sex bias against students accused of sexual harassment. One recent review concluded that some colleges have sought to evade the new Title IX requirements, such as cross-examination by an advisor. But at the University of St. Thomas, for example, investigators are instructed to make credibility determinations before the accused student has a meaningful chance to defend himself (4). To date, SAVE has filed OCR complaints against 15 colleges alleging failure to post their Title IX training materials.

Sex Stereotyping: Title IX has long been understood to address the problem of sex-based stereotyping (5). For example, the new Department of Education regulation advises that any Title IX training materials “must not rely on sex stereotypes.” (6)

Many universities offer courses that examine topics such as “patriarchy,” which has been defined as an “unjust social system that subordinates, discriminates or is oppressive to women.” (7) According to one widely used college textbook, patriarchy causes “women everywhere [to] suffer restrictions, oppression and discrimination.” (8) The fashioners of such “unjust social systems” are purported to be males. Such depictions serve to stereotype male students.

Following are examples of such negative stereotypes:

  • Georgetown University professor Christine Fair recently published a guidebook titled “Wanted: Smash Patriarchy.” The front cover of the book depicts the silhouette of a man (9).
  • Five University of Massachusetts professors have blamed patriarchy for women’s mental “fragmentation.” (10)
  • Michael Olenick enrolled in a Women’s Studies course at the University of Minnesota, where he reportedly was lectured on “theories about world conspiracies dedicated to repressing and exploiting women.”

A recent Executive Order authorizes the Department of Education and other federal agencies to suspend funding to any institution that promotes concepts that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” (11)

College presidents and other administrators need to assure Title IX compliance and to assure curricular offerings avoid sex stereotypes.

Links:

  1. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/another-victory-from-my-efforts-to-advance-civil-rights-and-challenge-systemic-sexism-in-higher-education/
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  3. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/
  4. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/09/18/comply-evade-violate-three-responses-to-the-new-title-ix/
  5. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/lgbt.html
  6. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf 45(b)(1)(iii)
  7. http://learnwhr.org/wp-content/uploads/D-Facio-What-is-Patriarchy.pdf
  8. Feminist Frontiers IV https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Frontiers-IV-Verta-Taylor/dp/0070523797 , page 1.
  9. https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/metoo-movement-men-allies-fighting-misogyny-patriarchy
  10. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gendered-subjects-%3A-the-dynamics-of-feminist-Culley-Portuges/a209c3a1c235f21cc18ea0df9811e9093d8e8e95
  11. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/
Categories
#MeToo Civil Rights Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Title IX Title IX Equity Project Training

Public University Stops Banning Males From Federally Funded Program to Resolve Federal Investigation

Allowed to avoid admitting guilt for violating Title IX

 

The University of Central Oklahoma received nearly $831,000 in federal taxpayer dollars to run a computer and STEM camp for high schoolers that violated Title IX.

Following a complaint by University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark Perry, whose side gig is challenging educational programs that exclude disfavored groups (usually males and whites), the program is nominally accepting all students, not just girls.

Also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Perry wrote on his blog Monday that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights informed him of the resolution at UCO.

By his count, 27 of his 231 complaints have been resolved “in my favor,” with more than 80 still under investigation by OCR. He expects all of them to end in his favor too, “given the clarity” of Title IX “and the clear violations” by colleges.

Originally described as a “Computer Forensics Program & an Education-Career Pathway for Girls,” according to its National Science Foundation grant page, the program repeatedly emphasized that it was only for girls. Perry said the university’s website for the program just recently removed application language that explicitly said the program is “unavailable for male students.”

An image of the original page with the word “Girls” in the title and description is still available from its website, though the application page that explicitly excludes male students does not appear to be cached anywhere The College Fix could find. The illegal program was funded by corporate sponsors and partners including Apple, IBM, Inciter, CGI and Stelar.

Perry said he learned about the program through the parents of a high school boy who wanted to apply but saw the no-males language on the application page. The economist filed the complaint under his own name – as he always does – to protect their anonymity.

The taxpayer-funded university has removed all sex-specific language from the content of the website, though it still only shows girls and its domain is still ComputerAcademyforGirls.com. Perry said OCR told him the federal office is “still in the monitoring stage” for the university to comply with the “Voluntary Resolution Agreement,” which requires UCO to “eliminate any suggestion” that the program is “for a single sex.”

Perry noted that UCO President Patti Neuhold-Ravikumar herself signed the agreement, which “seems to be an indication of the seriousness of violating federal civil rights laws.” (He posted images of the two-page print agreement, dated Sept. 30.)

As with other OCR resolutions, however, UCO was allowed to avoid admitting guilt and it won’t face any financial penalties, he continued:

Perhaps that’s why so many universities knowingly violate Title IX — the worst-case scenario is that they get caught like UCO, make the necessary corrections to their Title IX violations so that they don’t jeopardize their federal funding, but without any serious consequences and without actually even having to admit to the violation!??

The economist also denounced the National Science Foundation for funding “hundreds” of programs that exclude males at colleges, including the College of William and Mary and University of Wisconsin System:

And most of the time, hundreds of violations of Title IX like UCO’s go undetected and unreported, often because those who are aware of the violations are unwilling to complain or report the violation, out of fear of retaliation, to the university’s Title IX office or the Office for Civil Rights.

Perry said OCR has notified him of five more investigations opened into his complaints in the past month, against the University of Virginia, Florida Gulf Coast University, University of South Alabama, Youngstown State University and University of Maryland. All are offering programs reserved for females.

UVA’s program is one of “several dozen” programs for “female leadership/entrepreneurship/negotiation” that illegally exclude men, he said, naming 20 other colleges with such programs against which he has filed complaints.

Source: https://www.thecollegefix.com/public-university-stops-banning-males-from-federally-funded-program-to-resolve-federal-investigation/

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Equity Project Training

PR: Many Universities Not Compliant with New Title IX Requirement to Post Training Materials

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Many Universities Not Compliant with New Title IX Requirement to Post Training Materials 

WASHINGTON / September 8, 2020 – A review of the websites of 50 colleges and universities across the nation reveals that 65% are out of compliance with the Title IX regulation’s requirement to post all Title IX training materials. This past week, SAVE filed complaints with Office for Civil Rights against several of these non-compliant schools.

The Title IX implementing regulation, 34 CFR 106, has new provisions, which went into effect on August 14, 2020, that require the posting of Title IX training materials. The regulation calls on schools to post on their websites, “All materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process.” §106.45(b)(10)(D)

On May 18, the Office for Civil Rights issued detailed guidance on the topic: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/blog/20200518.html. The guidance states, “All materials used to train Title IX personnel…Must be publicly available on the school’s website.” [emphasis in the original].

The guidance goes on to explain:

“Section 106.45(b)(10)(D) does not permit a school to choose whether to post the training materials or offer a public inspection option. Rather, if a school has a website, the school must post the training materials on its website.

  • A school must post on its website: “All materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process.” Posting anything less than “all materials” on the website in insufficient. Accordingly, merely listing topics covered by the school’s training of Title IX personnel, or merely summarizing such training materials is not the same as posting “all materials.” [emphasis in the original]

Many institutions, such as Princeton University (1), posted training materials geared toward students and faculty, or webinars provided by the Department of Education, but did not post the training materials used for Title IX staff. The federal regulation states that all materials used to train Title IX personnel must be posted. Training materials that are protected by a student ID number or password are also out of compliance, as the federal regulation states the material must be made publicly available.

In contrast, many schools are in compliance with the federal regulation’s posting requirement. Examples of such schools are Amherst College (2) and the University of Colorado-Boulder (3). The University of Vermont even posted a YouTube video of the actual training program that their staff attended (4).

SAVE has filed complaints with the Office for Civil Rights against 10 schools that are out of compliance with the federal regulation. More OCR complaints will be filed as SAVE continues its review of school websites.

The SAVE Title IX Equity Project has found that Title IX violations are widespread at schools across the country. These violations pertain to sex-specific scholarships, sex-specific programs, and due process procedures in campus adjudications. The number of open OCR investigations of such violations currently exceeds 200 cases, and continues to increase (5).

Citations:

  1. https://sexualmisconduct.princeton.edu/reports
  2. https://www.amherst.edu/offices/title-ix/title-ix-policy
  3. https://www.colorado.edu/oiec/policies
  4. https://www.uvm.edu/aaeo/title-9-sexual-misconduct
  5. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/ocr-investigations/