We’ve written about how Title IX – a law passed with the best intentions – has become warped and used to repress speech and impose quotas on schools’ athletic programs.
Title IX was supposed to prevent discrimination based on sex on college campuses. For a long time, Title IX was pretty much only used to advance the interests of women, and was even used as a justification to create a heavily tilted system for adjudicating sexual assault cases. Rather than relying on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" principle used in our criminal justice system, the Department of Education has required that schools employ a "preponderance of evidence" standard—which means that even if there is only a 50.01% likelihood that a crime took place, then the accused must be found guilty, or risk being found out of compliance.
Ironically though, Title IX may end up being a tool that takes down the worst excesses that have been advanced in its name. One male student has challenged these procedures in Court, turning to Title IX itself—which bars gender discrimination—to assert that he has been a victim of anti-male discrimination. Here’s the latest from the Washington Post:
Reversing a U.S. District Court decision, the panel ruled Friday that a former athlete’s suit against Columbia University, which suspended him for a year for “sexual assault: nonconsensual sexual intercourse,” may go forward based on his claim that university officials acted with anti-male bias, in violation of Title IX, the federal education law that bars discrimination by schools receiving federal funds.
It’s not a decision on the merits — the court did not say the student was a victim of gender bias. It simply ruled that he made a sufficiently plausible case that he may now go forward with a claim the district court judge in the case called “overwrought” and tossed out.
This surprising ruling could have major repercussions in other cases, most prominently the suit brought by former Yale University basketball player Jack Montague, who was expelled from Yale just shy of graduation for sexual misconduct. Montague is making the same argument, among others, in the same circuit.
“The courts are beginning to realize that they should not give the back of their hands to these kinds of cases,” Montague’s lawyer, Max Stern, told the Post. Will the ruling help his client’s claim? “Yes.”
IWF’s Charlotte Allen writes:
So it's good to know that two sexes can now play the Title IX game. If John Doe can prove his allegations at a trial, Columbia could end up owing him hefty damages plus attorney's fees.
You can read Charlotte’s blog post here. Then, please click on the social media icons below to share this important development with your friends and family.