The Biden administration on Thursday proposed sweeping changes to the Education Department’s interpretation of Title IX that critics contend will allow biological males to have access to biological females’ locker and restrooms and also drastically rolls back students’ due process rights established under President Donald Trump.<\/p>\n
The controversial proposal<\/a> was announced on the 50th anniversary of Title IX, which 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.”<\/p>\n “The proposed regulations reflect the [Education] Department’s commitment to give full effect to Title IX, ensuring that no person experiences sex discrimination in education, and that school procedures for addressing complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual violence and other forms of sex-based harassment, are clear, effective, and fair to all involved,” Catherine Lhamon, the department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, said<\/a> in a news release.<\/p>\n The Biden administration seeks to expand the definition of sex to include gender identity.<\/p>\n “You can see this playing out in everything from using accurate pronouns to maintaining separate locker room showers on the basis of sex,” Matt Sharp, an attorney at Alliance Defending Freedom, told<\/a> Fox News. “They think that telling a man you’re not eligible for the women’s team is harmful and violates Title IX, and that’s simply not consistent with Title IX, its original meaning or what it’s been interpreted to mean for the past 50 years.”<\/p>\n The Washington Free Beacon<\/em> reported<\/a> that the Education Department cited the Supreme Court case Bostock<\/em>\u00a0v.\u00a0Clayton County<\/em> “to justify its interpretation of Title IX, claiming schools may not discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”<\/p>\n “The department withheld a likely more controversial proposal that would allow transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports, saying it will provide the rule at a later date.”<\/p>\n The current proposal also seeks to reduce due process protections established under Trump and former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.<\/p>\n “The Biden administration … is urging schools to use a lower standard of evidence to determine guilt for accused individuals, returning to the recommended standard first made by former President Barack Obama,” The Wall Street Journal<\/em> reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression decried the proposal, arguing<\/a> that, if implemented, it “would gut essential free speech and due process rights for college students facing sexual misconduct allegations on campus.”<\/p>\n “Unlike the current regulations, adopted in 2020 after 18 months of review, the new regulations would roll back student rights by: eliminating students\u2019 right to a live hearing; eliminating the right to cross-examination; weakening students\u2019 right to active legal representation; allowing a single campus bureaucrat to serve as judge and jury; [… and] requiring colleges and universities to use the weak ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard to determine guilt, unless they use a higher standard for other alleged misconduct.”<\/p>\n FIRE pointed out that the prior Title IX regulations used under Obama “led to more than 600 lawsuits \u2014 many successful \u2014 against colleges for conducting allegedly unfair disciplinary processes.”<\/p>\n Robby Soave of Reason<\/em> noted<\/a> that one “of the most fundamental improvements of the DeVos rules was the establishment of cross-examination. A representative for the accused student\u2014such as an attorney\u2014had the right to scrutinize an accuser’s claim during an actual hearing to adjudicate the dispute. Under the new rules, this is no longer the case.”<\/p>\n “… Under the DeVos rules, both the accused and the accusers were entitled to ‘inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation.’ Not so under the new rules: parties will only be guaranteed access to a ‘description of the relevant evidence.’ This description need not be written down; administrators can provide it ‘orally or in writing.'”<\/p>\n