How the Education Department Warped Title IX

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-10-26 03:51

Article here. Excerpt:

'When Congress passed the Title IX section of the Education Amendments of 1972, it aimed simply to offer women more opportunities to participate in on-campus athletics. Over the years, however, Title IX has become the legal foundation for the Education Department to insinuate itself into sexual assault cases.

The key passage of Title IX reads, “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.” In 1977, a Yale law student named Catherine McKinnon [link added], tired of suffering on-campus sexual harassment that went unaddressed by the school, interpreted Title IX to argue that sexual harassment (and by extension, sexual assault) constituted a sex-based limitation of educational opportunity. McKinnon and several other students filed in the lawsuit Alexander v. Yale in federal, which, although dismissed on the basis of the plaintiffs having no standing, goaded Yale into establishing a grievance process for sexual harassment cases.
...
With tougher guidelines now in place, schools can expect a higher level of scrutiny from the Education Department in sexual assault cases. Any real challenge to the new 2011 guidelines would have to come from schools themselves, since they are the only entity with legal standing to challenge the standards. But schools are reluctant to challenge Title IX guidelines. Electing a Republican administration that could rewrite the standards might solve the problem, but such a move is politically impractical. If history is any guide, then, the Education Department’s involvement in adjudicating on-campus sexual assaults will only continue to grow.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

One thing about the endless discussion of "sexual harassment" as portrayed in the mainstream media is that it's almost always portraying men as undesirable lechers making unwanted sexual advances/comments to women who don't want them.

There is another side to this issue though. That is, men are also given a "societal expectation" to form relationships with women (it's part of "manning up and being mature etc.") AND that they are expected to take the initiative. The fact that it's often difficult to gauge women's level of interest as to whether a man's attention is wanted or unwanted adds to the difficulty for men

Can you see the conflict here?

Young men - indeed men in general - are caught between a rock and a hard place in that if they don't show an interest in women and take any initiative with them (beyond the business at hand), then they're unable to form relationships with such women, and are ridiculed as "lacking maturity", "being gay", and so on.

But if they do decide to pursue women and misinterpret their level of interest (which is quite easy to do), then they're committing "sexual harassment" or "stalking" and so on. Then they can lose their job, be sued or arrested, and generally alienate themselves from their peers.

Yet I've seen little to no discussion of the "reasonable man's" perspective in the mainstream media regarding this. But I think it's quite relevant to men.

Note: I'm not talking about more serious forms of sexual harassment, or denying/condoning it's occurrence between men and women. For example, the boss who says to his secretary "Sleep with me if you want to keep your job" or the employee that continues to show a romantic/sexual interest in a woman long after she made it clear she isn't interested. Such examples would indeed be sexual harassment (without quotes), which I'm not condoning. And yes, as we've discussed on MANN numerous times, in can be done by women to men in a workplace/educational setting (though the mainstream media tends to overlook of excuse that, as we've also discussed).

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mens_issues on Sun, 2014-10-26 19:30

I imagine a cartoon regarding the dilemma men face regarding dating. It would show a young man and woman in the middle. The young man is trying to figure out if he should ask the young woman out. On the "conservative right" side would be a bunch of voices saying "be a man", "take the initiative", "be mature" and so on. On the "liberal left" side would be a bunch of voices saying "don't harass or stalk her" and "she doesn't owe you her attention" and so on. And hanging over the young man's head would be "The Sword of Damocles".

Because whatever he does, it's "wrong" from either the traditional conservative or liberal point of view. Indeed, the young man risks the disapproval of both sides if he misjudges the situation.

I'd make up such a cartoon, but I'm lousy at drawing.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mens_issues on Sun, 2014-10-26 19:49

I remember about title ix which helped 'bump up the numbers' of those women benefiting from it, as in athletic scholarships.

1. cheerleaders are not usually/ever considered athletes when counting toward the ratio required. that was news years ago. haven't heard of it changing.

so, cheerleading isn't considered a sport? good to know next time I talk to one.

2. when schools award title ix scholarships, they are assigned by the number of each gender attending. iow, now that 60% of college degrees are going to women, it follows that about 60% of the jock scholarships awarded are going to women, + the cheerleaders, + who knows ...? that's the reason men's sports programs are constantly being cut/eliminated.

there are only so many scholarships to be had. wonder how many other ways the system has been manipulated by feminists through the years? now that it is overbalanced (60% female grad's), anybody want to bet there will be no correction required toward males? such fairness in society, huh? all this corruption started and ends in the corrupted laws, thus no equality required. there is not a flaw there in the design of our legal system, just in the corrupted application$$$$$$.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Fri, 2014-10-31 20:03