CURRENT News

WARNING TO Male Students. Avoid North Carolina. NC Supreme Court Ruled Against Your Rights.

, , , /

WARNING TO Male Students. Avoid North Carolina. NC Supreme Court Ruled Against Your Rights.

UNC will be required to release the names of individuals found responsible for rape, sexual assault or related acts of sexual misconduct, according to a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling. The 4-3 decision ends a nearly four-year fight for records of the University’s sexual assault disciplinary proceedings. According to records the University released recently 15 students have been found in violation of UNC’s sexual assault policy since 2007. 

The Supreme Court ordered that the University was required to “release, as public records, disciplinary records of its students who have been found to have violated UNC-CH’s sexual assault policy,” Justice Michael Morgan wrote in the majority opinion.  

dailytarheel.com-Hannah Lang dailytarheel.com-Maddie Ellis 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
TO CRIPPLE The Abusive Campus ‘Sex Bureaucracy,’ Rein In Title IX Coordinators

, , /

TO CRIPPLE The Abusive Campus ‘Sex Bureaucracy,’ Rein In Title IX Coordinators

If you want to entrench a government policy, make sure someone’s job depends on enforcing it. Even if that person isn’t a true believer in the program initially, she will be by the time her first paycheck arrives – and increasingly after that. That’s certainly the case with the education system’s Title IX coordinators, who are charged with overseeing schools’ compliance with federal sex discrimination statutes and questionable regulatory dictates. 

What do Title IX coordinators do? Their core job duty, at least in theory, is to monitor their institution’s compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which helps ensure that institutions receiving federal money do not tolerate sexual harassment that effectively bars the accuser’s access to educational opportunity.

However, under Obama/Biden’s Dept. of Education, regulators’ zeal for stamping out sexual harassment has warped enforcement in ways that violate students’ free speech and due process rights. Fortunately, the Trump administration has withdrawn some of the worst guidance documents and issued binding regulations that should discourage schools from curtailing students’ fundamental rights. However, there is at least one more problematic Obama-era Title IX guidance remaining on the books. In 2015, Catherine E. Lhamon describes at length, the procedures that federal funding recipients must follow in employing Title IX coordinators. 

The term “coordinator” appears nowhere in Title IX itself. Yet onto this slender bureaucratic reed, the Obama administration engrafted a complex regulatory regime that essentially created privately administered “sex bureaucracies” within every funding recipient’s management.

Under pressure from this guidance, many colleges and universities expanded their Title IX offices. Harvard University has by my count 58 compliance staff members. Yale University has 22. Even tiny liberal arts colleges have significant Title IX offices: Middlebury has one main Title IX coordinator and six deputies; Amherst has one coordinator and six deputies; Haverford has one and eight deputies. As these offices have grown, staff duties have expanded to include work going beyond ensuring compliance with the law and instead promoting the “spirit” of Title IX. One Swarthmore coordinator noted to the media that these “jobs are really not just about compliance anymore, but also about campus climate.”

The Trump administration has made a priority of restoring the rule of law and stopping agency abuse of guidance documents: a 2019 executive order lays out procedures for transparency in issuance of guidance documents and restricts executive agencies’ unlawful issuance of guidance documents. In 2018, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand issued a memo prohibiting Department of Justice components from issuing guidance documents that effectively bind the public. 

The Trump administration should follow through on its commitment to pull back overreaching guidance and repeal this problematic document, in order to rein in the Title IX coordinators and their abusive sex bureaucracy.

thehill.com/opinion-Alison Somin

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
WIN AT 9th Circuit On TitleIX Gender Bias. ‘Entirely Plausible’ ASU Male Faced Discrimination Due To His Sex

, , /

WIN AT 9th Circuit On TitleIX Gender Bias. ‘Entirely Plausible’ ASU Male Faced Discrimination Due To His Sex

A federal appeals court said it is ‘entirely plausible’ a male student was discriminated against on the basis of sex. David Schwake, the plaintiff in the case and ASU alumnus with a master’s degree in microbiology, was accused by a classmate for inappropriately touching her without her consent. Three weeks after Schwake received notice of the initial complaint, the University ruled that Schwake was “responsible for disciplinary charges.”

Schwake later took the case to a federal court in Arizona on the claim that he was discriminated against based on sex because of the University’s handling of the case against him. A judge at the lower court immediately dismissed the case, saying that Schwake did not have a plausible claim for violation of his rights under Title IX. But the 9th circuit’s opinion reverses the lower court’s decision, saying that Schwake did provide enough evidence to assume gender bias from the University.

According to the opinion, Schwake said the University did not allow him to read written information about the complaint, did not allow him to appeal the decision at the University and “conducted a one-sided investigation.” Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who wrote the opinion for the unanimous three judge panel, said “the district court dismissed Schwake’s Title IX claim with prejudice by reasoning that a university’s aggressive response to sexual misconduct ‘is (not) evidence of gender discrimination.’ In doing so, the court ignored many of the allegations in Schwake’s complaint that we think are relevant to the sufficiency of the Title IX claim.” “Although Schwake graduated, the disciplinary case has disrupted his dissertation, interfered with his research, caused him to lose funding and employment opportunities, and damaged his personal reputation,” the opinion says.

In April 2015, Schwake sought $20 million in damages and injunctive relief. It sued the Arizona Board of Regents, President Michael Crow, the contact from the Office of Student Rights and Responsibility, the associate dean and an associate professor, who “loudly discussed” classified case details with students, for alleged due process violations and discrimination under Title IX. The associate professor also made confidential information public and then used the case to prompt a classroom of students about how to handle sexual assault cases, reflecting an atmosphere of bias against Schwake. This act “layered criminal overtones onto what was essentially a preliminary finding made by University officials in a school disciplinary case,” court documents said. The ninth circuit disagreed with previous court and said, while not a decision maker in discipline, the professor knew privileged information only known by officials involved in the case.

The court writes Schwake was convincing in an argument that the University faced pressure concerning “gender-based decision making against men in sexual misconduct disciplinary cases” due to an Obama/Biden “Dear Colleague” letter the U.S. Department of Education sent to every university in 2011 about their handling of sexual misconduct among students. Read 9th Circuit Ruling:  SCHWAKE V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS  statepress.com-P. Hansen collegefix.com-H. Kokkeler

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
BLACK Immigrant Chaplain Says Christian College Used Bogus TIX Investigation To Fire Him

, , /

BLACK Immigrant Chaplain Says Christian College Used Bogus TIX Investigation To Fire Him

A professor’s race heavily factored into his firing on the grounds of making racially and sexually insensitive comments, according to his attorney. Wheaton College, known informally as the Harvard of evangelical colleges,  dismissed Chaplain Tim Blackmon. The 50-year-old black immigrant from the Netherlands has vigorously disputed the allegations against him, stating that “they are a complete misconstrual of the comments” he made.

“To be clear, I was completely blind-sided by this Title IX investigation,” Blackmon said via his attorney, Andrew Miltenberg. “I recently learned this was the second time this individual filed a Title IX against me,” the first one occurring in 2017 after Blackmon had “shared five theological articles that the complainant [accuser] deemed ideologically problematic.” Wheaton’s Title IX office didn’t investigate at the time, “as it was a clear misuse of the Title IX investigative process,” the chaplain continued. But in the most recent complaint, he said that “several of my comments have been taken completely out of their factual and, in some cases, religious context.”

Blackmon emphasized that no one accused him of “flirtation, inappropriate relationships, sexual misconduct or any sexual action towards anyone,” and neither the accuser nor “any witness, communicated offense or discomfort.”

Miltenberg also suspects that “Wheaton may have overreacted out of fear of public pressure given the #MeToo movement and other Title IX related controversies as of late”:  Wheaton has repeatedly shifted the landscape in Chaplain Blackmon’s case, at times claiming it was Title IX issue, and other times, suggesting that the situation did not fall under Title IX. 

This shifting has impeded Blackmon’s ability to appropriately respond to the allegations as well as “denying him the right to counsel,” Miltenberg said. The college has also ignored its own “employee conflict resolution procedures.”  Its actions “have put Chaplain Blackmon’s future very much at risk.”

thecollegefix.com-Henry Kokkeler

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JUDGE Asked To Block Overhaul Of Campus Title IX Sex Assault Rules

, , /

JUDGE Asked To Block Overhaul Of Campus Title IX Sex Assault Rules

Saying the impending regulations will be costly and make it harder to discipline sexual misconduct, a group of blue states urged a federal judge recently to block the Trump administration’s changes to how schools must adjudicate sexual harassment and assault claims.U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols did not rule from the bench following a two-hour hearing held  remotely, but said he will issue a ruling on whether to block the new regulations in “relatively due course.”

In 2018, the Trump administration announced plans to roll back a series of Obama-era guidance documents detailing how colleges adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct under Title IX. The Obama rules were hailed by advocates.. but some experts warned the regulations did not include sufficient due process protections for the accused and many accused students won lawsuits challenging their discipline under the rules. The Trump administration rules, which were formalized in May, were aimed at that critique of the regulations. The new rules require schools to hold a live hearing when adjudicating harassment and assault claims, allowing representatives for the accuser and accused to conduct cross-examination.

Jennifer Dickey, a Justice Department attorney who argued for the Trump administration, said pausing the implementation of the regulations over schools’ claims that they will have a hard time complying overlooks that the administration views the change as an important correction implicating constitutional and statutory concerns.

“This is the culmination of a nearly three-year process to identify and respond to a serious issue of sexual harassment across the country,” Dickey said. “The department is well aware that schools have adopted a series of approaches to respond to sexual harassment, not all of which have fairly treated the accuser and the accused, and Title IX obligations are not suspended during a pandemic.”

courthousenews.com-Tim Ryan

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: SAVE Calls on College Admin. to Assure Due Process Protections For Black Students In Title IX Proceedings

, , /

DOUBLE JEOPARDY: SAVE Calls on College Admin. to Assure Due Process Protections For Black Students In Title IX Proceedings

SAVE recently released a study that shows black male students face a type of “double jeopardy” by virtue of being male and black. Analyses show although black male students are far outnumbered on college campuses, they are four times more likely than white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in Title IX proceedings, and at one university OCR investigated for racial discrimination, black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violence reported to the university yet they comprised only 4.2% of the student population.

In 2015, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley raised an alarm to the U.S. Senate HELP committee that, “the rate of complaints and sanctions against male students of color is unreasonably high.” She advised school administrators to, “not only to secure sex equality but also to be on the lookout for racial bias and racially disproportionate impact and for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity – not only against complainants but also against the accused.”

Her powerful words were ignored. Over the past 5 years numerous black males have been caught up in campus Title IX proceedings. Their lawsuits often claim a lack of due process in the procedures.

The new Title IX regulation offers necessary due process protections that black students need. By complying with the regulation, college administrators will protect the rights of all students and address the serious problem that black men are accused and punished at unreasonably high rates. At a time when activists on college campuses are clamoring that Black Lives Matter, college administrators should assure they are doing everything they can to help their black students.

saveservices.org-Press Release

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
REPUBLICAN Attorneys General Argue Trump’s Title IX Rules Follow The Law Better Than Obama’s

, , , /

REPUBLICAN Attorneys General Argue Trump’s Title IX Rules Follow The Law Better Than Obama’s

Responding to a lawsuit by several state Democratic attorneys general, nearly as many of their Republican counterparts are coming to the defense of the Department of Education’s new Title IX rules. Fourteen top law enforcement officials, from Alaska to Florida, argued that the final regulation on sexual misconduct creates “reasonable standards for fighting gender discrimination in education,” while also providing a safeguard for free speech and due process. “The need for procedural due process only increases in the context of sexual harassment and misconduct,” says their friend-of-the-court brief. “A finding of guilt attaches a special stigma to the accused party that will stay with them well after they exit campus.”

Brooklyn College Prof. KC Johnson, who chronicles Title IX litigation, noted their brief “represents the highest-profile *political* support that the movement for campus due process has received,” he tweeted, calling it “a ringing indictment of unfair procedures” used by some of their own state universities.

The public support for the new Title IX rules come on the heels of monthslong opposition and litigation attempts from Democrats, who still favor the Obama-era rules on sexual misconduct proceedings. The ACLU sued to block implementation of the regulation saying it created a “second-class standard for reports of sexual harassment and assault.” The Republicans disputed that. The regulation promotes the “anti-discrimination purposes of Title IX without infringing on the free exchange of ideas,” they argued:

And as such, it rejects the notion that public universities can punish students for speech—no matter how offensive, disparaging, or unpopular it may be—unless it has been established that the speech prevents another student from participating in or enjoying the benefits of a recipient’s education program.

The due process rights of both accuser and accused are protected under the final regulation by mitigating against “arbitrary decision making,” the officials assert. Prior regulations and guidance contained “constitutional and statutory deficiencies,” such as authorizing “single investigator” models that deprive accused students of “impartial decision makers.” They tolerated efforts to inhibit live hearings and cross-examination, “even when witness credibility was at issue,” and “effectively eliminated” presumption of innocence.

Courts identified “numerous safeguards vital to fair process and the context in which a student accused of sexual harassment is entitled to receive them” following the Obama administration’s 2011 guidance on sexual misconduct proceedings, which the new regulation supersedes. “Plaintiffs and the academic institutions they claim to represent could have heeded the text and spirit of these rulings at any time,” the brief continues: “Instead, schools, colleges, and universities across the country divested students of due process and waited for the courts to intervene.”

“Numerous courts have recognized the constitutional deficiencies of such procedures,” the brief continued. The new rules step in “where academic institutions have failed,” knowing full well “for years that many of their disciplinary policies fall short of constitutional minimums.” Universities have instead waited for students “to force the issue through litigation,” the Republican AGs say.

thecollegefix.com-Christian Lubke

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
UNDERSTANDING The Lawsuits Against New IX Regulations

, , /

UNDERSTANDING The Lawsuits Against New IX Regulations

Four lawsuits have been filed against new Department of Education regulations for how colleges must respond to sexual misconduct on campus. The lawsuits question the merits of the regulations and seek to block their implementation. Although the regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education completely overhaul current policies and procedures for handling sexual misconduct complaints, the significance of those changes has been largely overshadowed by the coronavirus. The American Council on Education and more than 24 other higher education associations have asked the Education Department for more time to restructure campus policies and procedures. The associations have also asked a federal court to halt the implementation of the changes.

Supporters of the new requirements argue that students will be harmed if the new regulations are not implemented by August.

Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said, “Going into yet another school year without these protections in place is not acceptable.” FIRE and other civil liberties groups are planning legal action to ensure the new regulations are implemented by the deadline. READ FULL Article: insidehighered.com-Greta Anderson

A coalition of Red State AGs filed a brief defending the new regulations.

The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.” READ FULL Articles: Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students Due Process Rights- Red State AGs Are Fighting Back

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
PURDUE’S ‘Sorority Goal’ Girls Have Sex, Then Accuse. Two White Girls Accuse Three Black Males. One Just Settled.

, , /

PURDUE’S ‘Sorority Goal’ Girls Have Sex, Then Accuse. Two White Girls Accuse Three Black Males. One Just Settled.

One aspect that is often overlooked in matters of campus sexual assault is the prevalence of white women accusing black men. As America battles with allegations of systemic racism, somehow these campus cases are ignored, even though the men involved receive almost no due process to defend themselves. A recent example of this comes from Purdue University, which recently settled with a black football player who had been accused of sexual assault and denied an opportunity to defend himself. 

John Doe filed a lawsuit against Purdue in early 2019, two years after he was expelled from the university after an adjudication process that he says didn’t even follow the school’s outlined policies. Further, John argued racial and gender bias played a role in his expulsion. John’s lawsuit alleges that  Jane sat on one of the football player’s laps stated her intent for a threesome. Jane, according to John’s lawsuit, made this statement in front of five students who were present. Later, after the sexual assault allegations were made, all remaining witnesses stated that Jane made such a comment and Jane did not deny it, according to John’s lawsuit.

…John was told that Jane wanted to have sex with him. John entered the bedroom to find Jane and Rachel sitting on the bed. Jane, according to the lawsuit, “immediately” approached John and said, “come here,” before pulling down his shorts and underwear. She began performing oral sex on John. During this time, another girl, Rachel and one of John’s friends engaged in sexual activity. The two women, according to the lawsuit, made comments that they were enjoying themselves and that “this is the best thing we’ve ever done.” After John ejaculated from the oral sex, he says, Jane took off her pants and underwear and told him to have sex with her. John wrote in his lawsuit that he “had become uneasy and did not wish to further engage in any sexual contact” with either of the women, so he left the room to clean himself and return to the main room to watch television. After he left, he alleges, the two women had sexual intercourse with his friend. John’s other friend eventually entered the bedroom to engage in some kind of sexual activity with the women. John says he did not return to the bedroom.At some point, everyone returned to the main room and talked about the events of that evening, with the women allegedly claiming it was  a “sorority goal” and again saying it was “the best thing we have ever done.” At that time, John alleges, neither woman expressed any concern about the group sex.

The next day, however, on October 14, 2016, both women contacted the West Lafayette Police Department to claim they had been sexually assaulted. Jane told a detective that she was not intoxicated and was capable of giving consent. She also stated she consented to sex with men at the house but said she did not consent to all of the sexual contact. Jane even stated to police that she had talked about having group sex and voluntarily engaged in it. She did not elaborate on which sexual contact to which she did not consent. Rachel’s statement to the police was similar. John was contacted by the detective to give a statement. He explained what happened and the detective said the women gave similar statements. The detective presented the information he had to the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor’s office, which declined to charge any of the men involved.

Four days later, however, on October 18, 2016, John received a letter from Purdue’s dean of students informing him he had been accused of sexually assaulting Jane. John was informed that he would be immediately suspended from Purdue. On October 26, John met with the dean of students to appeal his suspension, which was granted. On November 4, John attended a meeting with two investigators for the school who, according to John’s lawsuit, “had no relevant experience in investigating allegations of this nature nor had they received adequate training on the due process rights of the accused.”…It wasn’t until February 8, 2017, that John was told a hearing would be held the following week. John was also told he could not present any evidence at the hearing. On February 28, 2017, John was found responsible for sexual assault. He was told the dean of students found Jane “more credible,” but did not explain why. John says that he was not allowed to present any evidence that would undermine Jane’s credibility. John was expelled but appealed. His appeal could not contain new evidence and had to rely only on the evidence presented in the school’s investigative report, which was so heavily redacted “as to render the document nearly illegible.”  John was also not allowed to review transcripts of interviews or anything else that informed the report.

John was expelled, removed from the football team, and lost his scholarship. John couldn’t join another football team because Purdue refused to release him. So, John sued, and on July 17, 2020, Purdue filed a notice of settlement to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The details of the settlement are not public, but students in similar situations have received monetary payments that range from a few thousand dollars to nearly one million dollars. 

dailywire.com-Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
RED PILL Cassie Jaye Writes, My Dear Friend Marc Angelucci, Was Murdered.

, , /

RED PILL Cassie Jaye Writes, My Dear Friend Marc Angelucci, Was Murdered.

From Cassie Jaye, One of my dearest friends and the most brilliant and good-hearted person to dedicate his life to justice for men and boys, Marc Angelucci, was murdered yesterday in front of his home in California.

I first met Marc in 2013. He was one of the first people I interviewed for The Red Pill. He had an undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley, a law degree from UCLA Law and when he saw one of his closest friends being physically abused by his wife and then denied access to resources because he was a man, Marc began investigating. He never initially planned on being a “men’s rights attorney” (as I labeled him in my film), but his big heart wouldn’t let him turn his back on good, innocent people needing legal counsel. The more he worked on these cases, the more he learned how unjust the system was. 

The more I got to know him, the more I realized he was truly an angel on Earth who only had goodness in his heart, was always honorable in the work he did, and he was really the one person that could truly enact legal change on state and federal levels on behalf of men and boys. He won so many cases that few would be willing to touch and fewer would be willing to do pro bono, but he did it because it was the right thing to do. 

I honestly don’t know anyone else like him and that scares me. Who will carry on his legacy? His death is tragic, it wasn’t his time, he was in the prime of his life. He’s been working on so many important legal cases lately and I’m sure he had even bigger work on the horizon. I don’t know who could do this to him – and to us, because we have lost a real life hero.     

From the National Coalition for Men, Marc Etienne Angelucci, Vice-President and Board Member of the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) and longtime President and Founder of the Los Angeles Chapter of NCFM, was tragically murdered early just before four p.m. on July 11, 2020, in front of his home.

Marc compiled a truly legendary set of legal achievements, including recently winning an equal protection case against the Selective Service Administration overturning male-only draft registration. In 2008 Marc won a landmark appellate case against the State of California (Woods v. Horton) which held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from state funding for victim services. Marc also helped draft and enact legislation to stop paternity fraud, served on the California DCSS Paternity Committee, served on the Training Committee of the L.A. County Domestic Violence Council, and testified before the California Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees. In a remarkable tribute to Marc’s skill at building bridges and remedying discrimination, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which some might think would be opposed to much of his work, invited him to be an Honoree on their Wall of Tolerance.

Marc was extremely well-spoken and a skilled publicist for men’s issues, appearing on the Phil Donahue show, on Dr. Phil, and in countless other television, radio, and newspaper outlets. Marc published op-ed opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times and numerous other press outlets, tirelessly speaking out for a fairer, kinder world.

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
< 1 2 3 4 5 >»