Thank you to everyone who fought the good fight. Yesterday, Catherine Lhamon – who as head of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights oversaw the rampant abuse of students accused of Title IX-related offenses – was confirmed to her old position, this time under the Biden administration. The vote was split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, with VP Kamala Harris – who herself has a woeful record toward the accused as the former San Francisco district attorney – casting the tiebreaking vote.

You can be sure that Lhamon will decline to enforce the Title IX regulations established under the previous administration that afford accused students due process protections. You can also expect that gender-biased and activism-driven university administrators will regard their prejudices as tacitly greenlit, that rampant abuses will again ensue, and that a crescendo of lawsuits will again be filed.

I could write at length about Lhamon’s failure to acknowledge due process or her history of imposing subregulatory guidance as if it were an imperial decree. Organizations like FIRE have done so already here; please read their announcement if you are unfamiliar with Lhamon’s history or could use a refresher.

Instead, I’ll ask what few appear to be asking at length: how did we get here? Two things come to mind.

We have now reached the point where the Democratic Party – ostensibly the party of liberal values – is now opposed to due process, in addition to (as we have seen elsewhere) freedom of speech and equal treatment.

Some disclaimers are, of course, in order. This is not to say that Republicans who uniformly opposed Lhamon’s confirmation yesterday have all banded together to embrace those values. No doubt political contrarianism was the greater motivator, as it often is. This is also not to say that what happens among “elite” Dems is reflective of your everyday Dem supporter. Some of the strongest support for due process has come from those who may be aptly called disaffected liberals. This includes attorneys who have historically championed women’s rights and became fierce champions of due process. Some of them have proudly said so in oral arguments.

But Lhamon’s confirmation should be yet another wakeup call that those who now lead the party are increasingly about as much in line with liberal values as the medieval Vatican was in line with Christian ones. A reformation – cultural and institutional – is clearly needed.

This brings me to another point regarding how we got here: at some point, our society must address the needs and vulnerabilities of men and boys as men and boys, advocate equal treatment and civil liberties in their behalf, and elect politicians who are willing to do the same. Litigation – while potent – only goes so far in changing the culture, and it is ultimately our culture that elects our leaders.

Some in the past have argued that the issue is exclusively a matter of due process, while gender bias is a tertiary issue at best. This is no longer a tenable position, if it ever was. After documenting and reviewing 700+ lawsuits by accused students – 98% of whom are male – it is clear that Title IX is the most frequently-asserted cause of action, followed by due process and breach of contract. Title IX is also one of the most successful causes of action. In other words, it is well-established that gender bias against male students is a significant problem in higher education.

Over the past several decades, advocacy for men and boys – no matter how well-evidenced or well-presented – has often been met with severe mischaracterizations and animosity. Institutions and even some supporters of due process would bow and scrape to narrow-minded ideologues who acted as though we owed deference to their authority regarding these matters.

We do not.

Nor do we – as should now be clear – owe them the benefit of the doubt that their opposition to due process and equal treatment is based on liberal values.

It’s time to start saying so – louder and more often than ever before. Because the lack of enough people saying so is how we got here.

Thank You for Reading

If you like what you have read, feel free to sign up for our newsletter here:

Support Our Work

If you like our work, consider supporting it via a donation or signing up for a database.

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor is Title IX for All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer.

Related Posts

More from Title IX for All

Accused Students Database

Research due process and similar lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations (sexual assault, harassment, dating violence, stalking, etc.) in higher education.

OCR Resolutions Database

Research resolved Title IX investigations of K-12 and postsecondary institutions by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Attorneys Directory

A basic directory for looking up Title IX attorneys, most of whom have represented parties in litigation by accused students.

Thank you to everyone who fought the good fight. Yesterday, Catherine Lhamon – who as head of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights oversaw the rampant abuse of students accused of Title IX-related offenses – was confirmed to her old position, this time under the Biden administration. The vote was split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, with VP Kamala Harris – who herself has a woeful record toward the accused as the former San Francisco district attorney – casting the tiebreaking vote.

You can be sure that Lhamon will decline to enforce the Title IX regulations established under the previous administration that afford accused students due process protections. You can also expect that gender-biased and activism-driven university administrators will regard their prejudices as tacitly greenlit, that rampant abuses will again ensue, and that a crescendo of lawsuits will again be filed.

I could write at length about Lhamon’s failure to acknowledge due process or her history of imposing subregulatory guidance as if it were an imperial decree. Organizations like FIRE have done so already here; please read their announcement if you are unfamiliar with Lhamon’s history or could use a refresher.

Instead, I’ll ask what few appear to be asking at length: how did we get here? Two things come to mind.

We have now reached the point where the Democratic Party – ostensibly the party of liberal values – is now opposed to due process, in addition to (as we have seen elsewhere) freedom of speech and equal treatment.

Some disclaimers are, of course, in order. This is not to say that Republicans who uniformly opposed Lhamon’s confirmation yesterday have all banded together to embrace those values. No doubt political contrarianism was the greater motivator, as it often is. This is also not to say that what happens among “elite” Dems is reflective of your everyday Dem supporter. Some of the strongest support for due process has come from those who may be aptly called disaffected liberals. This includes attorneys who have historically championed women’s rights and became fierce champions of due process. Some of them have proudly said so in oral arguments.

But Lhamon’s confirmation should be yet another wakeup call that those who now lead the party are increasingly about as much in line with liberal values as the medieval Vatican was in line with Christian ones. A reformation – cultural and institutional – is clearly needed.

This brings me to another point regarding how we got here: at some point, our society must address the needs and vulnerabilities of men and boys as men and boys, advocate equal treatment and civil liberties in their behalf, and elect politicians who are willing to do the same. Litigation – while potent – only goes so far in changing the culture, and it is ultimately our culture that elects our leaders.

Some in the past have argued that the issue is exclusively a matter of due process, while gender bias is a tertiary issue at best. This is no longer a tenable position, if it ever was. After documenting and reviewing 700+ lawsuits by accused students – 98% of whom are male – it is clear that Title IX is the most frequently-asserted cause of action, followed by due process and breach of contract. Title IX is also one of the most successful causes of action. In other words, it is well-established that gender bias against male students is a significant problem in higher education.

Over the past several decades, advocacy for men and boys – no matter how well-evidenced or well-presented – has often been met with severe mischaracterizations and animosity. Institutions and even some supporters of due process would bow and scrape to narrow-minded ideologues who acted as though we owed deference to their authority regarding these matters.

We do not.

Nor do we – as should now be clear – owe them the benefit of the doubt that their opposition to due process and equal treatment is based on liberal values.

It’s time to start saying so – louder and more often than ever before. Because the lack of enough people saying so is how we got here.

Thank You for Reading

If you like what you have read, feel free to sign up for our newsletter here:

Support Our Work

If you like our work, consider supporting it via a donation or signing up for a database.

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor is Title IX for All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer.

Related Posts

More from Title IX for All

Accused Students Database

Research due process and similar lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations (sexual assault, harassment, dating violence, stalking, etc.) in higher education.

OCR Resolutions Database

Research resolved Title IX investigations of K-12 and postsecondary institutions by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Attorneys Directory

A basic directory for looking up Title IX attorneys, most of whom have represented parties in litigation by accused students.