Due Process or Transgender Protection on Campus?

College campuses have long been battlegrounds between due process for those accused of sexual misconduct (innocent until proven guilty) and legal privileges for alleged victims who many automatically believe (guilty until proven innocent).

The front line is Title IX, the 1972 federal law designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. President Joe Biden’s Department of Education (DOE) wants to add gender identity to the mix. The players in this renewed conflict are Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who has introduced a bill to champion due process rights on campus, and Biden’s DOE, who is expanding the definition of discrimination.

The specific issue addressed by the DOE is athletic eligibility. The issue is a political flash point that revolves around the question, “Should transgendered male-to-females compete in women’s sports or is their strength advantage unfair to biological females?” This article examines the competing and overlapping provisions of the draft Title IX regulation, the 2023 draft sports regulation, and Kennedy’s bill.

The Biden executive order 14021 (March 8, 2021) that sparked the current conflict is entitled “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.” It is a statement of intent. On April 6, 2023, the DOE rolled out an implementation mechanism for the executive order “Proposed Change to its Title IX Regulations on Students’ Eligibility for Athletic Teams.”

The language in the 116-page document is confusing and vague, but the core of it redefines terms such as “discrimination” and favorably includes gender identity into the framework for athletic eligibility. The opening summary states that the DOE will “set out a standard that would govern a recipient’s adoption or application of sex-related criteria” that might “limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity.” This regulation presumes transgendered athletes are able participate in their chosen categories unless the school identifies safety reasons to not allow this.

Backlash from progressives has been swift. The “Proposed Change” is insufficiently protrans, they claim. “These regulations specify methods schools may employ to determine a student’s sex, including invasive physical examinations,” complains the transgender journalist Erin Reed.

Moreover, the DOE document would give school districts the final say on whether injecting gender identity into athletics is problematic. Progressives react with horror. Actually, this is no issue at all. As with past DOE recommendations, schools are likely to over comply not only due to the extreme liberal bias on most campuses but also to avoid a catastrophic loss of federal funds. The “Proposed Change” makes this threat explicitly.

And, on the other side, there is a renewed push for due process rights. On March 28, Kennedy introduced the Ensuring Fairness for Students Act that would codify due process protections for an accused into campus Title IX proceedings. It may be the finest due process legislation in decades. And it is timely. Donald Trump’s secretary of education Elizabeth DeVos (2017 to 2021) worked with some success to install traditional legal protections into campus hearings.

Now Kennedy accuses the Biden administration of trying to “roll back fair proceedings on school campuses by making students guilty until proven innocent.” The bill would provide other traditional due process protections, such as written notice of the allegations, objective evaluation of evidence, and cross-examination.

Kennedy’s bill is timely for at least two reasons. First, a few days after the bill was introduced, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released its report “Spotlight on Campus Due Process 2022,” which is based on a national survey. Among the findings: 72 percent of universities did not provide timely notice of allegations to those accused of wrongdoing; 60 percent do not assure the presumption of innocence; only 15 percent of institutions guarantee that both accusers and the accused could see the evidence on hand. To the extent DeVos was successful, that progress is being eroded.

Second, the DOE’s “Proposed Change” focuses on transgender eligibility for sports, but this is almost guaranteed to expand into areas like harassment. The inevitability of the expansion is based on several factors, including the wording of Biden’s executive order “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.” Title IX is a broad antidiscrimination measure, not limited to sports. Moreover, the history of Title IX is one of constant redefinition and expansion. Even before the “Proposed Change” is enacted, progressives are pushing hard for more protections.

If gender harassment is included in Title IX, then it will be as subjective and legally vague as past sexual harassment standards which hinged on whether the complainant felt offended. The “Proposed Change” repeatedly prohibits causing “embarrassment” to those who gender identify but nowhere does it define or describe what causes or constitutes embarrassment.

Does it include a refusal to use a complicated and evolving set of self-declared pronouns from “xemself” and “zirself” to “ney” and “zie”? What if a student simply gets them wrong? If the mistake embarrasses a trans person, is it punishable? This provision violates what is called the vagueness doctrine. In constitutional law, a statute is void when it is so vague as to be either unenforceable or incomprehensible to the average person.

One thing is clear: if sexual misconduct expands to gender misconduct, many more people—almost always men—will be accused of abuse. This would further chill free speech on already cold campuses. It would also destroy innocent human beings. Accused violators will be punished, tried, and even expelled with scarlet Ts (transphobic) branded on their academic records. Without due process, Title IX proceedings are kangaroo courts.

People who oppose due process are opposing common decency in the legal treatment of others. With bitter irony, they do so in the name of protecting the vulnerable—in this case, the gender identified. Anyone who needs protection against common decency and truth is not pursuing justice. They want privilege and power. If the voice of reason can still be heard, people need to hear it now.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14496&omhide=true&trk=title

*********************************************

Is it Wise to Fire-Proof Education Bureaucrats?

California Senate Bill 494, authored by Fullerton Democrat Josh Newman, stipulates that “The governing board of a school district shall not take action to terminate a superintendent or assistant superintendent of the school district, or both, without cause, at a special or emergency meeting of the governing board.” In similar style, the board shall not terminate a superintendent or assistant superintendent, “within 30 days after the first convening of the governing board after a general election.” Californians might wonder what this is about.

At a January 5 meeting, Orange Unified School District board members Rick Ledesma, John Ortega, Angie Rumsey, and Madison Miner fired superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen and suspended assistant superintendent Cathleen Corella, both out of the country at the time. The move came without explanation and left many in the district confused.

Some wondered whether the majority had violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state’s open-meetings law. Taxpayers might question whether SB-494 is the proper remedy as the district works this out.

In California’s K-12 government school system, superintendents occupy a special place. They don’t teach, but they cost taxpayers a lot of money.

For example, Gunn Marie Hansen’s salary was $336,157–much higher than Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 224,020–with total pay and benefits of $426,978. Assistant superintendent Cathleen Corella is paid $203,086 in base salary, with a total pay and benefits package of $259,071. The beginning teacher’s salary in a small district is $46,844.

Before taxpayer dollars reach the classroom, they must trickle down through four layers of bureaucratic sediment: federal, state, county, and local. California’s county offices of education tend to be holding tanks for bureaucrats.

Prior to her employment in the Orange District, Cathleen Corella was a regional director for the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Superintendent Debra Duardo is paid a base salary of $361,280 with total pay and benefits of $440,604. If taxpayers thought such bureaucrats were grossly overpaid, it would be hard to blame them.

These exorbitant salaries are not conditional on student achievement. The taxpayer dollars keep coming, regardless of performance. In these conditions, taxpayers might question the wisdom of making superintendents fireproof.

A better strategy would be to empower parents to send their children to the school of their choice. Instead of funding a bloated bureaucratic system, let the dollars follow the scholars to the government or independent school of their choice, as in the G.I. Bill.

Meanwhile, SB-494 passed out of committee but needs full Senate approval before moving to the Assembly. How much difference it would make is debatable. Less than two months after her firing, the Westminster School District hired Dr. Gunn Marie Hansen at an annual salary of $335,000 plus benefits. In the government K-12 system, what goes around comes around.

https://blog.independent.org/2023/05/04/is-it-wise-to-fire-proof-education-bureaucrats/

****************************************************

School shootings nationwide near 20 this year as communities struggle with safety measures

School shootings are on the rise. Last year was the highest number of shootings since EdWeek began tracking the issue in 2018. So far this year, there have been 19 shootings in K-12 schools resulting in 30 people killed or injured and communities are grappling with how to stop the violence.

At a school safety town hall in Virginia Monday night, parents told FOX mental health and communication should be among the top concerns for school districts.

"We do need to have information, concrete information, so I can make a solid risk decision about whether or not the school is safe enough for my daughter," said Dan Verton, parent of a student in Fairfax County Public Schools.

"I think that more emphasis on counseling and sort of the emotional support in the school, really make me feel better about sending my daughters here," said Paul Thomas, also an FCPS parent.

Some see arming educators as a way to fight back in the event of a shooting at school. FOX spoke with a group in Texas called the Cinco Peso Training Group, which has made it their mission to equip educators with the resources to protect themselves and their students against an armed intruder.

"The term we use for that is immediate responder," said Mike Lane, a co-founder of the group. Lane is a retired police captain and current police chief at a Texas public school.

Authorities investigate a home possibly connected to the school shooting in Nashville, Monday, March 27, 2023, in Nashville, Tenn. Nashville police identified the victims in the private Christian school shooting Monday as three 9-year-old students and three adults in their 60s, including the head of the school. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)

Over 40 districts in Texas have educators who have completed the training, but Lane said that there are a lot of conversations before anyone picks up a firearm.

"We took the basic model that a police officer will get in the academy and expanded on that by a long, long shot along a lot more detail training on it," he said.

First, the superintendent and school board decide whether they want to allow armed faculty. Then they ask for community response. If the community supports the idea, the district goes to the faculty to see if anyone wants to volunteer. All "defenders" -- the term Lane and his team use to talk about those who complete the training -- are volunteers. No one is required to take this training.

For those interested, Lane said his group does extensive psychological evaluations and background checks before they admit someone in their training. All defenders also need to work in their district for about two years so colleagues can attest to how they handle pressure and stress. Lane said he narrows the pool of applicants based on these evaluations. The training goes beyond firearms and includes the national Stop the Bleed program, which teaches people how to respond to victims in life-threatening situations. After they complete the multi-day training, defenders are back on the range monthly to maintain their skills.

All of this training, said Lane, will save lives.

"If you equip people, and you empower them with training, and provide them with the tools to react in an emergency, it will without doubt make a difference in the number of casualties, injuries or any other problems, regardless of the type of event," he said.

Lane added that defenders are not a substitute for first responders, and they're not trained to take down an attacker. The purpose is to give educators the ability to defend themselves and their students.

"We just want to prepare and protect those children and staff members best as we can to fill in that gap between the time of the incident until the first responders have the ability to arrive," he said.

One superintendent, who self identified as a defender, said he thinks the program is even more crucial after recent shootings in rural areas like his.

"The tragedy in Uvalde really was a wakeup call to small rural communities all across our state that school safety and security has to be our top priority," said Brad Burnett, superintendent of Jacksboro Independent School District located about two hours outside Dallas.

Burnett said the defender program was already in place when he became superintendent, but as someone who went through the training, he supports giving his staff the option to be armed.

"We've seen a lot of support in our community and also just in our region to train educators to carry a firearm to protect students. So, I see it as a positive thing as a school leader," he said.

Critics say more guns in the classroom is not the answer to school safety.

"Let's just be very clear about the situation we're talking about here," said Kris Brown, president of the gun safety group Brady United. "An educator teaching a class with 20, 30, 40 students in the room, being expected to have access easily to a firearm, want to use it, and then successfully shoot the shooter without having any carnage of any other students."

Brown said she was also concerned students could get access to the firearm.

"There is a real risk that that gun will be found by a student when the teacher is going to the bathroom," she said. "Are they supposed to strap fully loaded all of the time as they're teaching? And how the kids feel about a teacher who's carrying a loaded weapon?"

Brown said her group supports the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed by Congress last year. The legislation allocated money for crisis intervention, barred those convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm, and increased funding for school security.

Parents in Fairfax County said firearms in schools makes them uncomfortable even with adequate training.

"I've been a Homeland Security professional for decades, and former Marine, so arming teachers is the worst idea you could possibly come up with," said Verton. "You cannot put a teacher who's never handled a firearm, or in a stressful situation like that, give them a gun, and have them be able to make that split decision."

Sixteen states – including Virginia – currently prohibit staff from having firearms in school. Over 30 states, however, do allow educators to carry a weapon, but many have restrictions and stipulations

https://www.foxnews.com/us/school-shootings-nationwide-20-communities-struggle-safety-measures

******************************************************

My other blogs: Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

******************************************************