Fox News anchor Dana Perino blasted President Joe Biden&#8217;s plan to <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/biden-officially-proposes-extending-title-ix-to-transgender-students/">expand Title IX</a> to include transgender students — and called out the women who had fought so hard to win Title IX protections but were silent as the administration put forth policies that would effectively dismantle them.
Perino made the comments during Thursday&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;The Five,&#8221; arguing that Biden&#8217;s plan would erase the <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/senator-tuberville-biden-title-ix-modifications-will-destroy-opportunities-for-generations-of-women-and-girls/">protections</a> that many women had fought for — with regard to athletics in particular.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;They&#39;re erasing gender and women from the statute,&quot; <a href="https://twitter.com/DanaPerino?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DanaPerino</a> pans Biden plan to unravel Title IX. &quot;Wokism will be mandatory, if you want to compete or don’t want to be expelled &#8230; That’s why these women who valiantly fought and now are silent, it’s shameful.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Fls3o0q7ck">pic.twitter.com/Fls3o0q7ck</a>
&mdash; Virginia Kruta (@VAKruta) <a href="https://twitter.com/VAKruta/status/1540099242856955904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) opened the conversation with a joke, asking Perino to weigh in since she once beat co-host Jesse Watters in a basketball shooting competition.
&#8220;I really didn’t, but I should have. I was robbed,&#8221; Perino laughed, before turning to the topic at hand.
&#8220;I’ve been baffled by why the women who fought for Title IX have been silent. They benefited tremendously. They gave a lot of women and young girls opportunities for scholarships and opportunities to compete,&#8221; Perino began.
She went on to note that athletes were often better students, and that participation in organized athletics often helped students to learn the skills they might need later in life, whether they went into the corporate world or started their own businesses.
&#8220;You learn about teamwork and loss and winning and being gracious. And you learn so many things from it,&#8221; Perino continued. &#8220;And I’ve been baffled. Like where is everybody that succeeded in this? Now I find – I’m no longer baffled. I think it is shameful. Now you have somebody like Riley Gaines, who has to get up her courage, find her strong voice, and be the one that&#8217;s going to say, &#8216;but what about us?'&#8221;
Perino then addressed the <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/ahead-of-50th-anniversary-of-title-ix-senator-tuberville-warns-biden-admin-is-hacking-away-at-womens-progress/">proposed rule changes</a> directly, adding, &#8220;They’re erasing gender and women from the statute. So it&#8217;s like you don’t even need a statute anymore. They’re basically saying on the 50th anniversary of Title IX, let’s just do away with it because you don’t need women’s sports. The other thing I would point out, this is going to apply to all public schools and most universities, if the Biden rules go through, that using the wrong gender pronouns will now be considered sexual harassment. So wokism will be mandatory, if you want to compete or don’t want to be expelled. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s happening out there. And that’s why these women who valiantly fought, and now are silent, it’s shameful.&#8221;

Former White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Visits “America’s Newsroom”

‘They’re Erasing Gender And Women’: Dana Perino Blasts Biden’s Plan To Unravel Title IX

Dana Perino Blasts Biden's Plan To Unravel Title IX

Dana Perino

Fox News

Title IX

Women

The Biden administration on Thursday officially proposed extending Title IX&#8217;s protections to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/transgender">transgender</a> students.
The proposed change would &#8220;protect LGBTQI+ students from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics,&#8221; the Department of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/education">Education</a> <a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment">said</a> in a statement.
The department proposed the Title IX change on the 50th anniversary of the civil rights law, which bars schools that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex. When Title IX was passed half a century ago, it was meant to protect the rights of women and girls in educational settings. Since then, it has been interpreted to apply to other protected classes, including LGBTQ people.
&#8220;Over the last 50 years, Title IX has paved the way for millions of girls and women to access equal opportunity in our nation&#8217;s schools and has been instrumental in combating sexual assault and sexual violence in educational settings,&#8221; said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement.
&#8220;As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of this landmark law, our proposed changes will allow us to continue that progress and ensure all our nation&#8217;s students – no matter where they live, who they are, or whom they love – can learn, grow, and thrive in school,&#8221; Cardona said.
Along with the changes on transgender students, the proposed rules would also overhaul the process by which schools handle sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations. The overhaul would nix changes made by the Trump administration that were intended to make the process more fair for accused students. While campaigning for president, President Joe Biden said the Trump administration&#8217;s changes &#8220;shame and silence survivors&#8221; and vowed to scrap them.
The new rules will &#8220;restore vital protections for students in our nation’s schools which were eroded by controversial regulations implemented during the previous Administration,&#8221; the education department said Thursday in a <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm-factsheet.pdf">fact sheet</a> accompanying the proposed rule.
&#8220;Those regulations weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination,&#8221; the department said.
The new rules would rollback constitutional protections for students accused of heinous crimes, including the right to a live hearing, to cross-examine their accuser and the witnesses against them, and allowing a &#8220;single investigator&#8221; model that allows a single person to act as investigator, judge, jury, and executioner. This model would also prevent accused students from learning the evidence against them, such as what the accuser and witnesses are specifically accusing them of, and allow schools to keep individual testimonies hidden, making it more difficult for wrongly accused students to file a lawsuit to protect their civil rights.
Courts have consistently upheld civil rights for accused students in recent years, and legal challenges to the Trump administration&#8217;s regulations all failed.
In 2016, the Obama administration <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obama-administration-title-ix-transgender-student-rights-223149">issued</a> guidance saying Title IX protections also apply to a transgender student&#8217;s bathroom preference. The next year, however, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/22/516664633/trump-administration-rescinds-obama-rule-on-transgender-students-bathroom-use">reversed</a> that guidance, saying the issue should not have been dealt with at the federal level and that there &#8220;must be due regard for the primary role of states and local school districts in establishing educational policy.&#8221;
Over the last year, parents have raised the alarm about biological males in girls bathrooms at school. In some cases, even elementary schools have <a href="https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/parents-push-back-against-elementary-schools-trans-bathroom-policy-olentangy-school-district-gender-inclusive-restroom-title-ix-lgbtq-transgender-students-single-sex-spaces">adopted</a> policies allowing transgender-identifying boys to use the girls bathrooms, prompting parents to complain at school board meetings.
The Biden administration did not address what the new rules would mean for transgender students competing on the college sports team of their preferred gender, an issue that has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lia-thomas-teammate-competitor-blast-title-as-illegitimate-in-wake-of-fina-transgender-restrictions">sparked</a> national debate in recent months.
The proposed rule is slated to be published in the Federal Register and will be open for public comment for 60 days afterwards. If approved, the policy would not take effect until next year at the earliest.

North Carolina Clashes With U.S. Over New Public Restroom Law

Biden Officially Proposes Extending Title IX To Transgender Students

Biden Administration

Department of Education

Education

Joe Biden

LGBTQ

Transgender

Transgender Athletes

WASHINGTON — Ahead of the 50th anniversary of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/title-ix">Title IX</a> federal civil rights law, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tommy-tuberville">Sen. Tommy Tuberville</a> (R-AL) is warning that President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden">Joe Biden&#8217;s administration</a> is hacking away at women&#8217;s progress in the name of gender equality.
Passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972 and signed by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix">Title IX</a> prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools or education programs that receive federal funding. The move opened up many opportunities for women and girls to achieve in both academics and in sports.
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,&#8221; read the rule, co-authored by former Democratic Hawaii Rep. Patsy Matsu Mink, the first woman of color elected to Congress.
&#8221;It&#8217;s rare as a legislator that you fight for legislation you believe in and stay around or live long enough to see it come to fruition,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/us/patsy-mink-veteran-hawaii-congresswoman-dies-at-74.html">said Mink in 1995</a> as she met with top U.S. female basketball players. The former congresswoman passed away in 2002.
But the Biden administration recently announced plans to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/03/30/transgender-discrimination-title-ix-rule-students/">redefine sex</a> to include “sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.&#8221; This would ban discrimination based on gender identity, indicating that schools would be prevented from prohibiting biological males from participating in women’s sports.
And critics like Tuberville say the move directly contradicts the good accomplished for women through Title IX.
&#8220;The federal government, you know, we don&#8217;t get a lot right,&#8221; Tuberville, who coached Auburn University football for almost a decade, said during a phone interview with The Daily Wire. &#8220;But they got it right when they passed Title IX.&#8221;
The Alabama senator shared that he also previously coached girls high school basketball before his career as a football coach, saying that the Biden administration&#8217;s efforts will &#8220;be devastating to women&#8217;s sports.&#8221;
And most Americans won&#8217;t agree with this move, he added, suggesting that leftist activists and policy makers are focused on gender identity and &#8220;want everybody to kind of be pretty much the same.&#8221;
&#8220;They&#8217;re trying to destroy the family,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And so expanding the definition of sex is right up their alley, and by allowing biological males to compete in women&#8217;s sports, I think that&#8217;s trying to degrade women.&#8221;
Sarah Cowart, an academic coach who grew up playing sports in Alabama in middle and high school, told The Daily Wire that she started a girls soccer team in high school because her only other option was to play on the boys soccer team — and she knew that she wouldn&#8217;t stand a chance.
&#8220;I wasn&#8217;t going to get playing time just because I knew the difference of my size, their size, their skill and speed. It just wasn&#8217;t going to happen. I wasn&#8217;t going to play,&#8221; she said. &#8220;And so I think that&#8217;s what we saw when we were able to start the women&#8217;s soccer team in high school that afforded us the opportunity to be on the same playing field with our peers.&#8221;
&#8220;When you go up against them, you are playing the hardest that you can,&#8221; Cowart explained. &#8220;And when you&#8217;re trying [your] hardest and you&#8217;re playing your hardest, but you still aren&#8217;t being successful, that kills your spirit and thinking, well, I just can&#8217;t do this at all.&#8221;
Cowart celebrated that Title IX had bestowed on her and her teammates the freedom to create and lead such a team.
&#8220;I think about it from a standpoint of accessibility,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Had we not come together as girls, at our age, we wouldn&#8217;t have had that opportunity. We would have had to end up playing with the guys team on a JV level again.&#8221;
Controversy over biological males in women&#8217;s sports has escalated as transgender swimmer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/lia-thomas">Lia Thomas</a>, a biological male, competed in the NCAA Women&#8217;s Swimming and Diving Championships this spring, annihilating competitors in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biologically-male-swimmer-annihilates-female-competitors-in-500-free">women&#8217;s 500 freestyle</a>.
On Sunday, the International Swimming Federation (FINA), issued new restrictions on transgender swimmers, stating that only transgender swimmers who transitioned from male to female before age 12 may compete in women’s events.
“I’m very hopeful about it,” an anonymous teammate of Thomas told The Daily Wire on Tuesday of the new restrictions. That teammate was granted anonymity out of fear of backlash.
“I am incredibly happy that Lia Thomas will never be an Olympic gold medalist. I think that’s great. But this doesn’t actually fix the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association],” she added.
Both Thomas&#8217; teammate and Riley Gaines, a University of Kentucky swimmer, said that they wish the NCAA would rescind Thomas’ championship title.
“I believe Lia is not the fastest female in the 500-yard freestyle, therefore I don’t think she should be awarded as a female national champion,” Gaines told The Daily Wire, adding that the NCAA “needs to take accountability.&#8221;
“FINA prioritized competitive fairness which is more than any other large governing body has done thus far,” Gaines said.
The Daily Wire&#8217;s Mairead Elordi contributed to this report.

Screen Shot 2022-06-22 at 2.54.59 PM

Ahead Of 50th Anniversary Of Title IX, Senator Tuberville Warns Biden Admin Is Hacking Away At Women’s Progress

Tuberville Slams Biden Admin For Inhibiting Women's Rights Ahead Of Title IX Anniversary

Tommy Tuberville

It is difficult to overstate how controversial it is to try to change Title IX. Or rather, how controversial it is to limit excesses under the law. Generations of Americans associate Title IX with progress for women in education and athletics, and rightly so. For feminists of a certain age, it is the weapon with which they have fought for fifty years, not just to create opportunities for women, but to break down the differences between the sexes. Now, with the advent of the transgender movement, Title IX is being used to abolish the notion of biological sex altogether. Making the law more sweeping than Congress intended was pretty easy—Democratic administrations had been doing it for decades. But reining in excesses under the law—that was hard. 
There are credible legal scholars who argue that Title IX doesn’t apply to sexual harassment cases at all. In fact, the minority opinion in a 5–4 case on the topic before the Supreme Court said Title IX didn’t have such a broad reach. But we chose not to make that argument. My goal was to preserve the integrity of the law, and the advancements for girls and women within it, while at the same time restoring due process to sexual harassment cases. Our strategy was simple: To do the opposite of what we had done nine months earlier with the transgender bathroom rule. The first thing we would do is explain what we were doing and why to the public and provide the rationale for changing a landmark civil rights law. 
We planned a speech announcing that I was pulling the Obama rule and writing a new one. It would be a major address, scheduled to be given at the University of Virginia (UVA) in Charlottesville in August 2017. The Jefferson rotunda on the UVA campus was a great place to talk about falling short of our ideals but still honoring and pursuing them. There was another reason UVA was a good place to announce our reform of Title IX: The university had recently been tarred with sexual assault allegations that were ultimately discredited. The accuser turned out to be a fraud. And the accused were pronounced guilty until proven innocent. 
In November 2014, Rolling Stone magazine published an inflammatory report under the clickbait headline, “A Rape on Campus.” The article alleged that an undergraduate identified only as “Jackie” had been gang-raped on campus. Investigators later uncovered that the journalist who wrote the piece had been looking for a sexual assault case to show “that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture” on campus. She found Jackie, who told a horrifying story of going to a party at the fraternity house, being taken into an upstairs bedroom, and serially raped by seven members of the fraternity. The article immediately went viral, attracting more than 2.7 million views online. 
Literally days after the article was published, Jackie’s account began to fall apart. It was discovered that she fabricated key parts of her story, including inventing a fictional frat brother who took her to the party. Rolling Stone eventually retracted the story and settled defamation lawsuits with both the fraternity and the university. But the damage had been done. The narrative depicted in the article—that university officials are indifferent to widespread rape on campus— had trashed UVA’s reputation.
UVA had been a victim of the rush to judgment that surrounded many Title IX sexual assault claims on campus. It was a perfect venue for us to announce our intention to reestablish justice under the law. We were ready to go. Then Charlottesville happened. 
My speech was scheduled for a just a week after the white supremacist riots. It was a tough time for the administration. UVA dean of students Allen Groves called to say that I was still welcome, but we might want to reconsider coming to Charlottesville just then. Though it was a noble offer from someone who has a spine of steel when it comes to protecting free speech on campus, we told Dean Groves we weren’t going to come. I was a lightning rod, the subject was wildly controversial, and the community was already on edge. Speaking at UVA was simply not a good idea. 
So we went back to the drawing board. But school after school turned us down when we contacted them to host the speech. Many of the same schools that had quietly complained to us how bad the Title IX rules were lost the courage of their convictions when it came to hosting the speech. After eleven tries, we were concerned I wouldn’t be welcome anywhere. We had begun planning to give the speech at the Department of Education when a group of principled and courageous students from George Mason University (GMU) Federalist Society chapter agreed to host the speech at GMU’s Antonin Scalia Law School. 
On the day of the speech, I arrived at the venue in Arlington, Virginia, to a large group of protestors screaming “Stop Betsy DeVos!” Another group of protestors lined the hallway leading to the auditorium screaming “Rape apologist!” in my face. Thankfully, the audience for the speech itself was attentive and respectful. The theme woven through my address was “a better way.” Sexual harassment and assault on campus was a genuine problem, I said, and Title IX had protected students’ right to learn in safety for decades. 
But there had to be a better way. 
I talked about the many students I had heard from since I became secretary whose lives had been forever changed by sexual assault. I talked about the parents who cried as they recounted stories of receiving the phone call from their daughter who had been a victim or their son who had been accused of sexual assault. I talked about being a mom to daughters and sons and trying to imagine what it would be like to receive that call. This was not a problem we could ignore. It was a difficult conversation we had to have. 
“One rape is one too many,” I said. “One assault is one too many. One aggressive act of harassment is one too many.” 
“One person denied due process is one too many.” 
The Obama rules had failed too many students. They forced the hand of schools and tilted the scales of justice. The new rules compelled colleges and universities to step into roles and deal with situations that were beyond their capabilities. So many instances of sexual harassment on campus were “he said, she said” cases in which the truth is difficult for even trained lawyers and investigators to determine—and completely beyond the scope of most college administrators. Alcohol too often clouded memories and distorted motives. Even university officials with the best of intentions were stretched beyond their capabilities by the Title IX rules. In that environment, nobody wins. 
“Any school that refuses to take seriously a student who reports sexual misconduct is one that discriminates,” I told the audience. “And any school that uses a system biased toward finding a student responsible for sexual misconduct also commits discrimination.” 
There clearly was a better way. We were committed to find it by issuing new regulations. We would welcome the feedback of the public, the advice of experts, and the real-world experiences of students. But some lines we would not cross. We would not pit men against women. We would not ignore survivors. We would not cast aside any American’s right to due process. We would not punish speech. And we would seek justice for all students. 
The response to the speech was . . . split. Lawyers, including legal counsels at schools, welcomed the prospect of change. They knew how broken the situation was. Some civil libertarians also welcomed our pledge to restore due process to the accused. But most of the broad Title IX bureaucracy—in Washington, in regional Education Department offices, and at colleges and universities—were vitriolic in their response—extraordinarily so. Catherine Lhamon tweeted absurdly that the new Title IX regulation would be a return “to the bad old days, that predate my birth, when it was permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity.” 
There were some positive reviews—one particularly so. At a Camp David retreat for cabinet members a few days after the speech, President Trump held up a Wall Street Journal editorial during lunch. Under the headline “DeVos Pledges to Restore Due Process” was an approving article. Trump brandished the piece and congratulated me. Then he started talking about the Duke University lacrosse scandal. 
In 2006, members of the team hired a woman to dance at a party. The woman subsequently charged three of the players with raping her in the bathroom. Despite the fact that her account of the facts changed multiple times; that she couldn’t identify any of the accused in a lineup; that there was photographic evidence that the event could not have occurred; and that none of the players’ DNA was present on the accuser, the Durham County, North Carolina, district attorney, who was in a close race for reelection, pursued the case for months, permanently scarring the reputations of three men who were eventually declared innocent. 
Trump associated Title IX sexual harassment with the Duke scandal, I think, because he knew the father of one of the lacrosse players. He was a filmmaker. One night Dick and I went to the White House with other cabinet members and spouses for a screening of one of his movies. The president once again mentioned how important it was that I was reforming the Title IX regulation, despite the controversy it caused. As we were leaving, he turned to Dick and said, “She’s tough. She’s tougher than both of us.”
Betsy DeVos served as the 11th U.S. Secretary of Education from 2017-2021. During her term, DeVos delivered historic reforms to improve education and ensure the protection of civil rights. For more than three decades she’s led the fight for policies that allow students and their parents the freedom to choose the best available educational option.
This post is an excerpt from the author’s new book Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child available June 21, 2022 from Center Street, an imprint of the Hachette Book Group. The book is now available for pre-order on <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hostages-No-More-Education-American/dp/1546002014/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2U9511FHJA8EH&amp;keywords=hostages+no+more&amp;qid=1654607722&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=hostages+no+more%2Cstripbooks%2C62&amp;sr=1-1">Amazon.com</a>. 
 
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers Pass – DeVoss – title TBD16x9

Secretary DeVos: Restoring Due Process To Title IX And Fighting False Claims Of Campus Sexual Harassment

Readers Pass

Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem vowed Thursday to protect women&#8217;s sports from the Biden administration&#8217;s threats to defund lunch programs for schools that do not adopt the president&#8217;s interpretation of Title IX policies.
“President Biden is holding lunch money for poor Americans hostage in pursuit of his radical agenda,&#8221; Noem said in a statement Thursday morning. &#8220;He is insisting that we allow biological males to compete in girls’ sports or else lose funding for SNAP and school lunch programs.&#8221;
“South Dakota will continue to defend basic fairness so that our girls can compete and achieve. I would remind President Biden that we have defeated him in litigation before and are ready to do so again,&#8221; Noem added, referencing her state&#8217;s lawsuit against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) vaccine mandate, which the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf">struck down</a> in January.
&#8220;Mr. President,&#8221; the governor warned, &#8220;we’ll see you in court.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
South Dakota will stand up to defend freedom. <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> see you in court.
&mdash; Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) <a href="https://twitter.com/govkristinoem/status/1436060414970892288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Noem&#8217;s warning draws on a promise from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) that it will interpret &#8220;the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 &#8230; to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.&#8221;
This would mean that schools that do not allow biological males in women&#8217;s sports, women&#8217;s locker rooms, or women&#8217;s restrooms would be considered to be discriminating against students based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
&#8220;Under the leadership of the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA and FNS are issuing this interpretation to help ensure its programs are open, accessible and help promote food and nutrition security, regardless of demographics,&#8221; the USDA said.
&#8220;This action is in line with President Biden’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/">Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation</a>, and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,&#8221; the department said in a release.
State and local agencies, as well as program operators and sponsors receiving funds from FNS will be required to &#8220;investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation,&#8221; the USDA said, and these organizations must update their policies and signage to &#8220;include prohibitions against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.&#8221;
The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Wire.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said in a statement that the USDA &#8220;is committed to administering all its programs with equity and fairness, and serving those in need with the highest dignity.&#8221;
&#8220;A key step in advancing these principles is rooting out discrimination in any form – including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” Vilsack said. “At the same time, we must recognize the vulnerability of the LGBTQI+ communities and provide them with an avenue to grieve any discrimination they face. We hope that by standing firm against these inequities we will help bring about much-needed change.”
Jay Richards, Director of the Heritage Foundation&#8217;s DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family, told The Daily Wire that Noem &#8221; has this exactly right.&#8221;
&#8220;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/the-white-house-plan-make-gender-ideology-central-theme-the-american-experiment" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/the-white-house-plan-make-gender-ideology-central-theme-the-american-experiment&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1654269577061000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2HLXwB9mAg4GZC29r2CBgD">Biden told us last November</a> that gender ideology would be a central theme of his administration, and he’s making good on that promise,&#8221; Richards said. &#8220;States such as Florida, Alabama, and South Dakota are starting to push back against this ideology, as least when it comes to kids.&#8221;
Richards noted that many GOP states have begun introducing laws to &#8220;reserve girls&#8217; sports for girls.&#8221;
&#8220;The Biden White House is committed to fighting such states who resist the gender juggernaut,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The threat from the USDA, to withhold funding for poor public school students in states that don’t surrender, shows just how radical the Biden Administration is on this question. And it’s a terrific opportunity for politicians who claim to defend families and parents’ rights to show their mettle.&#8221;
The Daily Wire first <a href="https://www.tuberville.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sen.-Tuberville-Title-IX-Letter-to-ED-Sec.-Cardona-5.31.22.pdf">obtained a May 31 letter </a>sent by Republican Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in which Tuberville warned the Biden administration that its modifications to Title IX will destroy “opportunities for generations of women and girls at the behest of liberal extremism.”
<div class="ad-wrapper">
The senator noted that at least 13 states have enacted legislation banning biological males from women’s sports, warning that the policy reversal would fundamentally affect how women and girls approach athletics going forward.
“It is my understanding that the Department of Education is currently considering a proposed regulation that would modify Title IX implementation to adhere to the progressive priorities of the Biden administration,” Tuberville wrote in the letter.
“Any such weakening of current Title IX protections would amount to a reversal of 50 years of progress for women and girls in sports and an offense to every woman who has ever benefited from the enactment of the law,” he continued. “Title IX has fostered generations of female athletes who would otherwise never have been afforded the same opportunities as their male counterparts.”
</div>

Screen Shot 2022-06-02 at 9.43.51 AM

‘We’ll See You In Court’: Kristi Noem Vows To Defend Girls Sports As Biden Admin Threatens Funding For Schools

Kristi Noem Promises To Challenge Biden Title IX Rules Banning Schools From Protecting Women's Sports

Kristi Noem

South Dakota

Republican Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville is warning President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration that its modifications to Title IX will destroy &#8220;opportunities for generations of women and girls at the behest of liberal extremism.&#8221;
The Daily Wire first <a href="https://www.tuberville.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sen.-Tuberville-Title-IX-Letter-to-ED-Sec.-Cardona-5.31.22.pdf">obtained Tuberville&#8217;s letter</a> to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, which comes after the administration announced that the department would follow through on its December 2021 proposition to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/03/30/transgender-discrimination-title-ix-rule-students/">redefine sex</a> to include  “sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Title IX rules <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/03/30/transgender-discrimination-title-ix-rule-students/">focus on discrimination</a> on the basis of sex, specifically in education. The Biden administration&#8217;s policies would specify that students could not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Wire.
Tuberville&#8217;s letter draws on reports that the Biden administration modifications would allow biological males to participate in women&#8217;s sports — a phenomenon which Tuberville notes &#8220;has already received criticism from across the country.&#8221;
“It is my understanding that the Department of Education is currently considering a proposed regulation that would modify Title IX implementation to adhere to the progressive priorities of the Biden administration,&#8221; Tuberville wrote in the letter.
&#8220;Any such weakening of current Title IX protections would amount to a reversal of 50 years of progress for women and girls in sports and an offense to every woman who has ever benefited from the enactment of the law,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Title IX has fostered generations of female athletes who would otherwise never have been afforded the same opportunities as their male counterparts.&#8221;
The senator notes that at least 13 states have enacted legislation banning biological males from women&#8217;s sports, warning that the policy reversal would fundamentally affect how women and girls approach athletics going forward.
“The entire country is watching while this Administration destroys opportunities for generations of women and girls at the behest of liberal extremism,&#8221; he added.
Tuberville, a retired football coach, has previously called on the Senate to pass the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, legislation which he co-sponsored that would require the definition of “sex” in Title IX to be based “solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
WATCH: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Senator Tuberville delivers a floor speech on the real March Madness" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AVnWlXJg6RY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Screen Shot 2022-05-31 at 1.43.59 PM

Senator Tuberville: Biden Title IX Modifications Will Destroy ‘Opportunities For Generations Of Women And Girls’

Tuberville Pushes Back Against Biden Title IX Modifications Allowing Biological Males In Women's Sports 

Miguel Cardona

A group of 22 GOP House leaders sent a letter on Thursday to Biden Administration Education Department Secretary Miguel Cardona opposing the plan to change the definition of Title IX to include gender identity.
The Daily Caller first shared the report regarding the letter led by Oklahoma Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin.
“This change in definition will negate the very foundation on which this protection is based,” Mullin said in a <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/21/house-republicans-markwayne-mullin-letter-biden-miguel-cardona-democrats-compromising-progress-womens-sports-title-ix/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> to the Daily Caller. “There will be no level playing field as 50 years of history and progress are erased. Since its introduction, there has been a significant increase in the number of women who participate in sports and go on to pursue them at a collegiate level. It’s a shame the president’s leftist agenda is willing to compromise this,&#8221; he added.
The <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/570956191/DAILY-CALLER-OBTAINED-Title-IX-Letter-to-Sec-Cardona" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> urged Cardona to stop biological males from being eligible to compete in women&#8217;s sports at the collegiate level.
&#8220;When women are forced to compete against biological males, the level playing field that Title IX created is obsolete,&#8221; the Republican House members wrote.
&#8220;In one year, 275 high school boys ran faster times than the lifetime best of World Champion sprinter Allyson Felix. Earlier this year, Lia Thomas, University of Pennsylvania swimmer and biological male, won the NCAA D1 500-meter National Championship,&#8221; the letter added. &#8220;Your proposed changes to the Title IX rule would make this the norm and would fundamentally erode the very protections it was designed to provide.&#8221;
The communication follows a similar <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/567482760/DAILY-CALLER-OBTAINED-Final-Letter-to-Emmert-on-NCAA-Title-IX-Violations-3-31-22" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> sent by House Republicans in March to National Collegiate Athletic Association President Mark Emmert that urged the NCAA to prohibit biological males from competing in women&#8217;s athletics.
&#8220;In recent years, the NCAA has taken numerous steps to promote women&#8217;s sports. Yet, all these measures are worthless if you are unwilling to ensure a level playing field for biological women,&#8221; the group of GOP leaders wrote.
Several states have recently passed laws to ban biological males from participating in girls&#8217; and women&#8217;s sports. Some, like <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/south-dakota-gov-kristi-noem-signs-bill-banning-biological-males-from-girls-sports" target="_blank" rel="noopener">South Dakota&#8217;s recent law</a>, have included sports at the college level. The legislation could come into legal disputes in connection with the Education Department&#8217;s effort to redefine gender to include gender identity.
South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem addressed the transgender controversy in a January <a href="https://news.sd.gov/newsitem.aspx?id=28842" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> from her office that later led to signing the state&#8217;s Women&#8217;s Fairness in Sports bill in February.
“One way a young girl exercises her liberty is on the fields and in the gyms of South Dakota: playing basketball, swimming competitively, and running track, just to name a few popular sports here in the Mount Rushmore State,” the governor said in the statement.
“It is in playing sports that a young girl can learn how to achieve and how to succeed. But some in our society want to take those opportunities to succeed away from our young women.  Some schools and organizations across the country have sought to take away their freedom to achieve by changing the rules of the games,” she added.

Lia Thomas

GOP House Members Send Letter To Biden Administration Over ‘Compromise’ On Women’s Sports

College

Sports

A Shawnee State University professor who refused to use the preferred pronouns of a male student who identifies as female has settled with his employer for $400,000 and an agreement that he will never be forced to use pronouns.
Shawnee philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether refused to address a male student who identifies as female by the student’s preferred pronouns, instead referring to the student as “sir,” saying that his evangelical Christian beliefs were behind his actions.
“To accede to these demands would have required Dr. Meriwether to communicate views regarding gender identity that he does not hold, that he does not wish to communicate, and that would contradict (and force him to violate) his sincerely held Christian beliefs,” Meriwether wrote in his lawsuit against the school after he was disciplined over the incident. The lawsuit also notes that Meriwether addresses students as “sir” or “Miss” to show respect,” The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-reprimands-professor-not-calling-hank-berrien">reported</a>. More from The Daily Wire:
<blockquote><a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2018/11/07/ohio-professor-sues-doesnt-want-use-transgender-students-pronouns/1894084002/">Cincinnati.com</a> reported that when they met after class, Meriwether said the student circled Meriwether threateningly and compared the professor’s refusal to use the student’s preferred pronouns to someone calling him a “c***.”
According to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/Applications/Microsoft%20Office%202011/Microsoft%20Word.app/Contents/and%20the%20student%20complained%20twice%20to%20the%20university.%20This%20prompted%20a%20Title%20IX%20investigation.">Heavy.com</a>, the student complained twice to the university, prompting a Title IX investigation. Heavy.com also noted that Meriwether said he would address the student using the student’s last name.
Shawnee State University started a Title IX investigation, deciding Meriwether had violated the school anti-discrimination policy when he refused to call the student by the student’s preferred pronouns. The university issued a written rebuke.</blockquote>
In February 2020, a lower court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/use-trans-pronouns-or-get-fired-ohio-court-tells-christian-professor">dismissed</a> Meriwether’s lawsuit, writing “Plaintiff’s refusal to address a student in class in accordance with the student’s gender identity does not implicate broader societal concerns and the free speech clause of the First Amendment under the circumstances of this case.”
Further, the court said Meriwether hadn’t been forced to use speech with which he disagreed because he had been given the option to remove all gendered language from the classroom.
Meriwether had attempted to compromise. He said he called his students by either “Mr.” or “Ms.” and their last name. He offered to call the transgender student simply by their last name. The court said this was still discrimination and suggested Meriwether call all students by their last name. Meriwether refused, so the court concluded he had not been forced to express a view with which he disagreed and claimed pronouns and titles are not the same as expressing a belief.
But in March 2021, an appeals court revived Meriwether’s lawsuit and allowed it to continue.
“A district court previously dismissed Meriwether’s lawsuit for lack of standing. Friday’s decision by a three-judge panel from the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals revives the lawsuit and sends it back to a lower court where Meriwether can make his argument that his First Amendment rights of free speech and religion and his 14th Amendment right to due process were violated,” CNN <a href="https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/29/us/ohio-professor-transgender-appeals-trnd/index.html">reported</a> at the time.
Meriwether and SSU have now settled the matter. Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Meriwether, released <a href="https://adfmedia.org/case/meriwether-v-trustees-shawnee-state-university">a statement</a> saying that the university “agreed to pay $400,000 in damages and Meriwether’s attorneys’ fees. Additionally, considering the 6th Circuit’s ruling, the university is rescinding the written warning it issued Meriwether in June 2018.” Further, “the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. Significantly, the university agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex,” ADF noted.
“This case forced us to defend what used to be a common belief—that nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job,” ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham said in the press release. “Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldn’t endorse an ideology that he believes is false. We’re pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwether—and every other American—the right to speak and act in a manner consistent with one’s faith and convictions.”

Person marking with pen on male and female gender checklist

A Professor Was Punished For Refusing To Use Preferred Pronouns. He Sued And Just Settled For $400K.

Gender Pronouns

Lawsuit

Pronouns

Universities

A jury verdict resulted in what must be one of the largest – if not the largest – monetary award a falsely accused college student has ever received in such a case.
In early September 2015, a Clemson University student named Erin Wingo kissed fellow student Andrew Pampu, according to a lawsuit later filed by Pampu. He alleged that Wingo “became preoccupied” with him after they first met and he gave her a ride back to her apartment on his moped. They kissed and the next morning she sent him a text message saying she felt guilty because she had a boyfriend, Colin Gahagan, who was a pledge at Pampu’s fraternity.
For the next month and a half, however, Wingo continued to pursue Pampu, the lawsuit alleged, including “repeatedly initiat[ing] contact.” During this time, Wingo also kept an “open relationship” with Gahagan, court documents state.
On October 24, 2015, Wingo and her friends attended a birthday party for Pampu at his fraternity house even though they hadn’t been invited. Prior to arriving at the party, Wingo drank alcohol, later claiming she “consumed an implausible 9 shots,” according to Pampu’s lawsuit. She reportedly took that many shots but was able to walk to the off-campus fraternity house without issues. During this time, Wingo also apparently told multiple friends that she wanted to give Pampu a birthday kiss.
Wingo found Gahagan at the party but he dismissed her, telling her to “find someone else” and “go have a good time,” according to the lawsuit. Wingo then sought out Pampu, even asking people at the party where he was. When Wingo finally found Pampu, she gave him a kiss on the lips in front of witnesses. Wingo also reportedly told Pampu that “if you don’t kiss me now, you won’t have sex with me tonight.”
Pampu’s inhibitions were lowered due to the alcohol he consumed, and said in his lawsuit that he usually avoids public displays of affection, but gave in to Wingo’s advances that night. The two eventually left the party to find a private place for their sexual encounter. As Pampu said in his lawsuit, Wingo walked unassisted and showed no signs of intoxication. She didn’t stumble, or slur her words, and was able to hold an intelligible conversation with Pampu.
The two found a secluded area near a shed and the encounter escalated, with Wingo removing her own clothes, according to Pampu’s lawsuit. Pampu thought that Wingo was only going to provide him with oral sex so he asked why she was removing her pants, to which she reportedly responded “so we can have sex.”
Pampu said in his lawsuit that he repeatedly asked for Wingo’s consent even though she was initiating all the contact. His lawsuit stated that Wingo kept saying she knew what she was doing and consenting “both verbally and non-verbally.”
On the way back to the party, Wingo reportedly complained to Pampu about past boyfriends, including Gahagan. Back at the house, when Wingo met up with her friends again, she started to cry and asked them why Gahagan didn’t want to be with her. She also texted him. When Wingo returned to her dorm, she couldn’t find her key and remembered she might have left it with Pampu (an important note because she would later say she didn’t remember anything that night). At the time, the resident assistant (RA) provided a temporary key to let Wingo and her friends into her room. At that time, the RA did note any concerns regarding Wingo’s level of intoxication, later telling campus investigators that Wingo didn’t slur her words but was crying about Gahagan. At the time, Wingo didn’t mention anything about being sexually assaulted. Even though the RA was sober at the time this occurred, Clemson would later give Wingo’s “drunk” claims more credibility.
Before falling asleep, Wingo “exchanged numerous hostile text messages” with Gahagan, which she later deleted before eventually retrieving.
The next morning, Wingo sent Pampu a text message at 10:45 a.m. pleading with him to not tell Gahagan about “what happened.” Her text made no mention of sexual assault and was focused on making sure Gahagan didn’t find out Wingo had sex with Pampu. Later, after accusing Pampu of sexual assault, Wingo would tell campus investigators that she woke up at 11 a.m. to hide the fact that she sent the text.
When Wingo accused Pampu of sexual assault, she left out the fact that she texted Pampu the morning after their encounter to ask him not to tell Gahagan and to see if he had her key. Instead, she told investigators that she didn’t remember anything that night and thus could not have consented. Pampu showed the text messages to campus investigators, who ignored them.
Before she made the sexual assault accusation, Wingo told several friends about her encounter with Pampu, but did not say it was nonconsensual and only said she was concerned Gahagan would find out.
A friend of Pampu’s copied and pasted a message from Pampu about having sex with a girl on his birthday and sent it to a group chat that included other fraternity members, including Gahagan – without Pampu’s knowledge. Gahagan figured out that the text was referring to Wingo based on her actions the night of the party.
Gahagan confronted Wingo that day and asked if she remembered the sexual encounter with Pampu. Wingo claimed she didn’t, even though she had clearly demonstrated previously that she did. Just seven hours after Wingo asked Pampu not to tell Gahagan about their encounter, she started saying she didn’t remember the night at all. Gahagan then told her “it is rape” if she couldn’t remember and helped her accuse Pampu of sexual assault.
According to Pampu’s lawsuit, even as Wingo told Gahagan that she didn’t remember her night with Pampu, she texted a friend saying that Gahagan had found out about her night with Pampu.
Gahagan sent Pampu a text saying “whether it was your birthday or not. Not too proud of you for taking advantage of Erin like you did last night. The poor girl doesn’t even remember it.”
Pampu was shocked by the allegations and reached out to Wingo to say as much. Suddenly Wingo claimed she couldn’t remember the encounter even though her text messages earlier that day indicated otherwise. “Colin’s right, I don’t remember it. I’m sorry. Not all of it at least,” Wingo texted Pampu. Pampu’s lawsuit suggests Gahagan was with Wingo when she sent the texts and may have influenced what she said.
Two days after the encounter, Wingo’s roommate – who didn’t witness the encounter and only learned about it from Wingo afterward – told a friend of a friend’s RA that Wingo had been sexually assaulted. The roommate didn’t even tell her own RA, instead going to someone who had no personal knowledge of the incident.
Four days after their sexual encounter, Wingo told a Clemson counselor that Pampu sexually assaulted her. Gahagan was apparently present at these meetings.
Despite claiming she had been sexually assaulted and needed counseling, Wingo attended more events at the same house where Pampu’s birthday party took place.
Meanwhile, Gahagan stopped pledging his and Pampu’s fraternity. Text messages later showed that some fraternity brothers were glad he was not a member of the pledge class, which appears to have made him even angrier toward Pampu.
On November 11, two weeks after her encounter with Pampu, Wingo filed a Title IX complaint against him alleging sexual assault. Gahagan was interviewed a month later and reportedly called Pampu a “rapist” around campus, according to Pampu’s lawsuit.
Months later, Pampu tried to file an incident report against Gahagan for violating the school’s policies against retaliation and breaking confidentiality. He had been told that everyone interviewed during the process must abide by those rules, but Gahagan broke them by calling Pampu a “rapist” on campus. Pampu also tried to file a complaint against Wingo claiming that she had sexually assaulted him and engaged in a harassment and retaliation campaign against him. He was told by a school official that if he filed the complaint he would immediately be expelled for retaliation.
Pampu also reported several other incidents of harassment and retaliation by Wingo and Gahagan. At a fraternity event, Gahagan mocked about 60 members, including Pampu, by saying “it is too bad you are all down one person now.” He then cussed and shouted at Pampu in front of the other members. The next day, when Pampu left the library, Wingo and Gahagan stared at him, glaring. None of the issues were addressed.
Pampu was found responsible for sexually assaulting Wingo and suspended for one semester along with other sanctions. He was also told not to have contact with Gahagan or Wingo during his time at Clemson. For months, Gahagan would go to the gym when Pampu was working out in an apparent effort to bait him into starting a conflict. Wingo also tried to bait Pampu, sitting four rows ahead of him at a karaoke event despite numerous open seats and continuing to make eye contact and glare at him.
Pampu and Wingo both appealed the sanctions against him, for different reasons. In campus Title IX hearings, accusers can also appeal sanctions. While the appeals were pending, Pampu was informed that he was suspended from the fraternity and had been recommended for expulsion. The decision came after the fraternity received a confidential “pending” disciplinary decision letter. It later turned out that Wingo’s father sent the pending letter, in violation of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.
Clemson eventually sided with Wingo’s appeal, increasing Pampu’s suspension by one year, meaning he would be suspended until August 1, 2017.
After the sanctions, Wingo gave a presentation on sexual assault to a Clemson-sponsored event, continuing to insist she had been sexually assaulted. She then profited off her allegations when she was given a cash prize for her presentation. The presentation was also posted online.
Months after Pampu was suspended, in January 2017, Gahagan sent him a text message admitting that he had helped Wingo make a false allegation against him.
“You’re innocent,” Gahagan wrote. “I lied in that hearing. Erin wanted to have sex that night. Get your brothers away from me and never touch your life again and I’ll come through with the truth that she lied. I deleted the texts from that night prove she was f****** crazy. You’re innocent. Just pull your f****** boys off me and never touch me again. It’s sad that you were like a brother to me and this happened[.] You’re innocent. Send this to your lawyer. Just don’t call me into the hearing and leave me alone. You’re welcome. That’s all I ask. You’re innocent bud.”
Gahagan also shared screenshots of text messages between himself and a woman sharing data with Wingo’s father. The exchange showed Gahagan told the woman that Wingo lied about being raped, writing: “She destroyed my life. She deserves, Everything [sic] she gets. She lied about to [sic] everything. She don’t [sic] get raped. The sex with Andrew was consensual.”
Gahagan further told the woman that she should tell Wingo’s father that he would destroy the father’s life and that his “daughter is a slut.” He also reiterated that Pampu was innocent.
On March 25, 2022, more than six years after Wingo’s false allegations, a unanimous jury verdict resulted in a $5.3 million award for Pampu. A week-long trial regarding Pampu’s defamation and civil conspiracy claims against Wingo, Gahagan, and her father included 10 witnesses that testified that Wingo was not too drunk to consent on the night of the encounter, along with evidence showing exactly how the defendants conspired to falsely accuse Pampu.
“The jury verdict represents more than an exoneration for my client who has endured reputational harm, educational barriers, and the deprivation of hard-earned career opportunities due to defendants’ defamatory statements,” Pampu&#8217;s attorney, <a href="https://www.wbny.com/Kimberly-Lau">Kimberly Lau</a>, said in a statement provided to The Daily Wire. “The jury sent a message to others that our society does not condone spreading harmful lies about someone else to ruin someone’s reputation and deprive him of future opportunities. Not only does this kind of behavior cause irreparable damage to the wrongfully accused, it represents a setback for true rape victims to come forward and be believed in the future.”
Pampu also provided a statement:
<blockquote>
When I received the verdict, I was overwhelmed with emotion and incredibly relieved. For seven long years, I carried a burden of accountability that was not mine to bear. Consequently, my family battled through the process with me every step of the way. By the Grace of God and with the support of my loving family and counsel, I was somehow able to persevere throughout the adversity and fight for the truth. I feel incredibly thankful for all members of the jury in Pickens, South Carolina who chose to end this nightmare for me. I hope that the favorable verdict gives hope to many other young men who are in a position similar to mine.
</blockquote>
Prior to this verdict, Lau finalized a settlement for Pampu in 2019 with Clemson University over the school’s Title IX and due process violations involved in their investigation into Wingo’s allegations. The details of that settlement were not made public, but Pampu received a monetary sum and had the disciplinary notation removed from his official transcript.
This article has been updated to make clear Pampu’s monetary award came from a verdict, not a settlement. It has also been updated to include statements from Pampu and his attorney.

Rear View Of Man Sitting On Bed

He Was Accused Of Sexual Assault By A Woman Whose Boyfriend Later Admitted Lying. A Jury Just Awarded Him $5.3M.

Clemson University

false accusations

Sexual Assault

A Binghamton University professor wrote in her syllabus that she would prioritize calling on “minorities, women and shy people,” adding that she would likely call on white males last. She was told to remove the wording from her syllabus, but now activist students and professors are defending her actions.
Syracuse.com <a href="https://www.syracuse.com/state/2022/02/binghamton-university-professor-rebuked-for-favoring-minorities-women-over-white-men.html">reported</a> that Binghamton sociology professor Ana Maria Candela made the addition to her syllabus. The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/02/21/suny-binghamton-professor-rebuked-for-race-gender-policy/">added</a> that Candela wrote that “if you are white, male, or someone privileged by the racial and gender structures of our society to have your voice easily voiced and heard, we will often ask you to hold off on your questions or comments to give others priority and will come back to you a bit later or at another time.”
&#8220;Our experience with this practice is that within little time, those who feel most privileged to speak begin to take the initiative to hold space for others who feel less comfortable speaking first, while those who tend to be more silenced in our society grow more comfortable speaking. As you can imagine, it has tremendous benefits for our society as a whole when we learn to hold space and listen to others whose voices are typically disregarded and silenced,&#8221; the syllabus said.
Candela was told to remove the policy, Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/binghamton-university-slaps-down-professors-progressive-stacking-section-of-syllabus-for-non-white-folks">reported</a>, and a spokesperson for the school said it violated school policy.
&#8220;The Faculty Staff Handbook outlines principles of effective teaching, which include valuing and encouraging student feedback, encouraging appropriate faculty-student interaction, and respecting the diverse talents and learning styles of students. The syllabus statement you have brought to our attention clearly violates those principles. The faculty member has updated their syllabus, removing the section in question, and is now in compliance with the Faculty Staff Handbook,&#8221; the spokesperson told the outlet.
But that was not the end of the story. WSKG <a href="https://wskg.org/students-faculty-rally-behind-bu-prof-censured-for-progressive-stacking-practice/">reported</a> that more than 100 people attended a rally to support Candela’s policy. Professor Tina Chronopoulos told the outlet that Candela’s policy shouldn’t have been removed.
“[Faculty] are worried that, you know, whenever they bring up, quote unquote, ‘these difficult topics,’ that they’ll get blowback from people who feel like they’re being discriminated against,” she said.
Candela herself told rally attendees that she appreciates the support she has received.
“That tells you something about what students are experiencing on this campus,” Candela reportedly said. “That you have to write a statement to help them to feel safe coming into the classroom space, to speak their voices, to have their voices heard.”
The College Fix <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/students-professors-demand-scholar-be-allowed-to-call-on-white-male-or-someone-privileged-last/">reported</a> that Binghamton sociology professor William Martin began a change.org petition to support Candela, claiming her policy is “inclusive.”
“Dr. Candela recognizes as we do that our classroom discussions are often dominated by a minority of persons reflecting societal class, racial and gender inequalities. … Many of our students all too often feel marginalized, and discussions are constrained and limited as a result. We should not pretend otherwise,” Martin wrote.
Martin added that Candela should be “celebrate[d]” for her policy.
As the Fix noted, not everyone supports Candela. One student in her class, Sean Harrigan, filed an anti-gender discrimination complaint against the professor for the policy.
“How am I supposed to get a full participation grade if I’m not called on because of the way I was born?” Harrigan told the Post.

We all know the answer!

A Professor Publicly Noted She Would Call On White Males Last. Students, Professors Support Her.

Racial Discrimination

Do witnesses in non-courtroom hearings have immunity from being sued like they do in court? That’s the question the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is asking in a new filing in a long-running case involving a Yale University student accused of rape by another student. The accused was found not guilty of all charges in a court of law, but Yale expelled him anyway, using a much lower standard of evidence – and backed by a culture that insists all accusations are true.
The accused student, Saifullah Khan, sued his accuser, who has not been named in court or the media, for defamation. He also sued Yale for numerous grievances including gender discrimination, breach of contract, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and more. On February 9, 2021, a district court dismissed Khan’s lawsuit, citing absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Khan, however, argued that “the proceedings of non-government entities cannot be quasi-judicial and, thus, Doe&#8217;s accusations of sexual assault in a private university&#8217;s disciplinary hearing are not shielded by absolute immunity,” the Second Circuit wrote.
Eugene Volokh, at Reason, <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/07/absolute-immunity-from-libel-lawsuits-for-witnesses-testifying-in-private-universities-title-ix-proceedings/">noted</a> that the Second Circuit has submitted a list of questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding Khan’s case:
<blockquote>[1.] Under Connecticut law, can a proceeding before a non-government entity ever be deemed quasi-judicial for purposes of affording absolute immunity to proceeding participants?
[2.] If the answer to the first question is &#8220;yes,&#8221; what requirements must be satisfied for a non-government proceeding to be recognized as quasi-judicial? Specifically,
[a.] Must an entity apply controlling law, and not simply its own rules, to facts at issue in the proceeding? See Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. at 246, 510 A.2d 1337; see also W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton &amp; D. Owen, Prosser &amp; Keeton on Law of Torts § 114, at 818-19 (5th ed. 1984).
[b.] How, if at all, do the &#8220;power&#8221; factors enumerated in Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. at 567, 606 A.2d 693, and Craig v. Stafford Construction, Inc., 271 Conn. at 85, 856 A.2d 372, apply to the identification of a non-government entity as quasi-judicial; and, if they do apply, are these factors &#8220;in addition&#8221; to, id., or independent of, a preliminary law-to-fact requirement?
[c.] How, if at all, does public policy inform the identification of a non-government entity as quasi-judicial and, if it does, is this consideration in addition to, or independent of, a law-to-fact requirement and the enumerated Kelley/Craig factors?
[d.] How, if at all, do procedures usually associated with traditional judicial proceedings—such as notice and the opportunity to be heard; the ability to be physically present throughout a proceeding; an oath requirement; the ability to call, examine, confront, and cross-examine witnesses; the ability to be represented by counsel—inform the identification of a proceeding as quasi-judicial? See Craig v. Stafford Const., Inc., 271 Conn. at 87-88, 856 A.2d 372; Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. at 568-70, 606 A.2d 693.
[3.] If it is possible under Connecticut law to identify a non-government proceeding as quasi-judicial, then, in light of responses to the above questions, was the 2018 Yale University UWC proceeding at issue on this appeal properly recognized as quasi-judicial?
[4.] If the answer to Question 3 is &#8220;yes,&#8221; would Connecticut extend absolute quasi-judicial immunity to defendant Jane Doe for her statements in that UWC proceeding?
[5.] If the answer to Question 3 is &#8220;no,&#8221; would Connecticut afford defendant Jane Doe qualified immunity or no immunity at all?</blockquote>
Khan&#8217;s attorney, Cameron Atkinson, told The Daily Wire that the &#8220;so-called victim in this case sought a get-out-of-jail free card from being held accountable for the false accusations against Mr. Khan.&#8221;
&#8220;A jury of his peers found him innocent,&#8221; Atkinson continued. &#8220;A Connecticut district court gave her a get-out-of-jail free card, but the Second circuit agreed with us that Connecticut courts get to decide Connecticut law and we look forward to making sure Khan’s side of the story is told and that she and the university are held accountable for the outrages that have been committed against him.”
The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-jury-acquitted-him-on-all-charges-but-yale-still-expelled-him-now-hes-suing-the-school-and-his-accuser">reported</a> on the details of Khan’s case. In March 2018, Khan was found not guilty by a jury in a court of law. While some could argue that “not guilty” does not mean “innocent,” the jurors <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/16/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-yale-sex-assault-trial/">I spoke to</a> after the trial said that they saw Khan as innocent.
“He’s innocent, and the facts prove it,” said Elise Wiener, an alternate juror who saw the same evidence as the other jurors. “He was acquitted because he deserved to be acquitted and the prosecutor should never have brought the case in the first place.”
Wiener and main juror Jim Gallulo said they didn’t believe Khan’s accuser. At one point, prosecutors showed a still frame from surveillance footage that appeared to show Khan holding up his accuser (her name has not been released and she is referred to as Jane Doe in court documents). Prosecutors claimed this was evidence that the accuser was too drunk to even stand on her own and that Khan had to practically drag her to the dorms. The defense, however, played the actual video from surveillance footage, which showed Khan and his accuser walking arm in arm and appearing to be a happy couple.
That is how every moment on the evening of the alleged sexual assault played out in court. Prosecutors spun everything as evidence that Khan was forcing Jane toward sex. For example, prosecutors claimed Khan took the accuser’s phone at one point. Khan said that he was helping her find a ticket for a concert they were both attending. During the concert, Khan’s accuser threw up. Prosecutors described the situation in a way that made jurors believe the woman must have been really ill. But when defense attorneys produced the accuser’s dress from that night — which hadn’t been washed — there was only a faint trace of vomit.
The sexual encounter happened hours later. Keen observers will realize that vomiting actually removes much of the alcohol from one’s system.
Khan was found “not guilty,” and returned to Yale, but he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yale-student-cleared-sexual-assault-will-return-ashe-schow">still faced a pseudo trial</a> at his university. The Yale kangaroo court found Khan responsible for sexual assault and expelled him. Many of the same people involved in Khan’s expulsion have been involved in other sexual misconduct “trials” for accused students who were also found responsible based on flimsy evidence or when there was exculpatory evidence.
In court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire, one of the named persons being sued by Khan is David Post. Post was the Yale administrator <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yale-student-railroaded-by-university-kangaroo-court-is-finally-moving-on-with-his-life">who convinced a student</a> to file a formal allegation against former Yale basketball Jack Montague after another administrator reportedly suggested that Montague had assaulted another woman on a previous occasion.
Khan was born in a refugee camp in Pakistan six months after his family fled Afghanistan to avoid potentially being killed by the Taliban. He grew up in and around the refugee camp before fleeing to the United Arab Emirates. Khan, a bright student, applied to Yale and was accepted, but suggested he attend the preparatory Hotchkiss School in nearby Lakeville, Connecticut first. Khan accepted a full scholarship to Hotchkiss and Yale. Prior to attending Hotchkiss, Khan hadn’t even learned to use a knife and fork.
Khan knew his eventual accuser previously, and attended a Halloween party where he met up with her before a concert by the Yale Student Orchestra later that evening. Jane drank during the party and became ill during the concert and threw up on her costume. Khan and Jane left early due to the illness.
The pair walked together across campus — as seen in the surveillance footage mentioned earlier — and returned to their dormitory. Khan took Jane to her room and used his key card to swipe her in. A minute later, Khan used his key card to enter his own dorm room. Khan and his attorneys say that Jane called Khan to ask him to come back to her room.
According to Khan, once there, Jane asked him to check up on one of her friends, who had too much to drink that night. Time codes show that Khan used his key card in an area of the dorm he had no otherwise reason to be in — the area where Jane’s friend was sick. Khan returned to Jane’s room after checking on her friend, and Jane performed oral sex on Khan. Jane asked Khan to wear a condom, but she gagged on it and went into the bathroom to vomit, Khan says.
While she was in the bathroom, Khan called his girlfriend at another university, with whom he had an open relationship. Khan said he did not understand how an American girl might feel about him talking to another woman just after engaging in sexual activity, as Khan and his girlfriend were both from Afghanistan.
Khan and Jane then engaged in sexual intercourse and fell asleep in Jane’s bed. The next morning, Khan returned to his own room.
According to Khan’s lawsuit, Jane then started telling her friends she was raped, but told a campus health care worker that she had consensual unprotected sex. Jane then publicly accused Khan of rape and went to the Yale Women’s Center where she was advised to file a formal complaint against Khan. Based on her complaint, Khan was immediately suspended and police opened an investigation. Khan was charged but acquitted at trial based on the evidence laid out earlier in this article, as well as texts she had sent to Khan and the inconsistent claims she gave to authorities about their encounter.
This article has been updated to include a statement from Khan&#8217;s attorney.

Silhouette People Against Sky During Sunset

He Was Acquitted Of Rape And Tried To Sue His School And Accuser. Now The Court Is Asking About Qualified Immunity.

Yale

This might be one of the most egregious examples of bias against an accused male student among numerous egregious examples.
The male-accused student at the University of Illinois had text messages, Snapchats, photographs, witnesses, class attendance records, and more all backing up his side of the story. Even the female accuser’s own witnesses contradicted her claims, yet still the male student, referred to only as John Doe in court documents, was expelled.
The female student, referred to in court documents as Jane Roe, didn’t even claim that the sexual encounter was nonconsensual, just that she did not consent to one particular position during the encounter, though she admitted to a friend that she never informed John that she didn’t want to do that particular position.
John and Jane met in September 2019 during a class they shared. The two were assigned to work a group project and exchanged Snapchat messages. Throughout October, according to John’s lawsuit, the two started flirting through social media messages. Jane apparently told her friends she thought John was “attractive” and “nice.” After messaging each other for some time and talking in person, Jane invited John back to her dorm. They eventually started to kiss, and Jane texted her friends, referred to only as U.Z.: “when r u coming back… [John] is tryna lmaooooooooooo.”
To John and his attorneys, this meant Jane was trying to figure out when her roommate would come back so that she and John wouldn’t be disturbed while they had sex. When Jane learned U.Z. wouldn’t come back until 3 p.m., John and Jane engaged in sexual activity. John says in his lawsuit that he asked for Jane’s consent every step of the way: To undress, to have sex, to use protection, etc. John says Jane “enthusiastically consented.” Jane never disputed this during the hearing against John, telling the hearing panel “there was clearly consent.”
During the sexual encounter, John asked Jane if she wanted to change positions to vaginal sex from behind. John says Jane agreed to the position, but Jane has given different accounts, at one point saying she told John “no… definitely more than once directly to his face.” Another time, she claimed she laughed “in a light manner” and told John “I don’t do that.” The two switched to a different position and finished their encounter.
The two talked after the encounter, during which time John asked Jane about her semicolon tattoo. Jane said it related to her mental health struggles and thoughts of suicide, something that made John uncomfortable. He worried that being with someone who struggled with mental health would be too much for him to handle as a freshmen in college, and so even though he had previously thought Jane might be a romantic partner, he told her he had to leave. The two kissed before he left her dorm room.
After he left, Jane texted U.Z.: “I can’t believe our suitemates heard.” As far as John knows and what was presented during the hearing, this is the only text Jane sent immediately after the encounter and relating to it.
Six months later, Jane claimed John sexually assaulted her. She claimed the incident occurred on October 18, 2019, but it was later determined to have occurred on October 25, 2019. This was not held against Jane, but when John incorrectly thought the date must have been the 19th since he had lunch with his cousin on the 18th, his statement was taken as him being contradictory.
On July 28, 2019, University of Illinois investigators issued a report that included a section titled, “Additional conflicted statements.” Three of the four statements included were from Jane and all of them were about things central to her claims, whereas the one conflicting statement from John referred to an interaction he had at a bar with one of Jane’s friends at some point after their sexual encounter.
Jane claimed that she told U.Z. that John sexually assaulted her, but U.Z. said that never happened and that Jane was “more focused on the potential of their suitemates being able to hear the sexual activities through an adjoined bathroom and that [Jane] did not speak about the interaction with [John] negatively until” months after it occurred. Jane never told investigators that she had texted U.Z. to make sure she wouldn’t return to the dorm for a while. Investigators only learned about the texts Jane sent when U.Z. provided them to the investigators.
Jane also mentioned her friend – S.A. in court documents – as a witness, but S.A. told investigators that she saw Jane a few hours after the alleged assault and that Jane was “really excited” about the prospect of John asking her “to go to semi with him.” S.A. told investigators that Jane’s “attitude about the incident had shifted” only after John stopped talking to her. Even then, according to court documents, Jane didn’t claim she was sexually assaulted, only that one position made her uncomfortable, but added that she “didn’t say no or tell him to stop.”
Jane’s third conflicting statement was her claim that she had never, ever considered a relationship with John. Investigators never seemed to believe her on that point.
“[Jane] has made several statements discovered throughout the investigation which indicate a desire for long term relationship with [John],” the investigators wrote in their report. “These statements conflicted with [Jane’s] follow-up interview and response to the evidence packet. When further contact did not happen after the 25th, [Jane] was not happy for being ‘ghosted.’”
Another contradiction – which wasn’t included in the named section – from Jane was her claims that she had talked to John’s friend T.W. about John and that T.W. said John says derogatory things about women and claimed Jane was a one-time hookup. When investigators read to T.W. what Jane had said, he said he didn’t “talk like that” and he never warned Jane about John. Further, he always thought John was a “nice guy.” In fact, T.W. didn’t even know John and Jane had hooked up, contrary to Jane’s claim that John had bragged about the encounter to his fraternity brothers.
Jane told investigators different versions of her encounter with John. She at one point said she didn’t know how her clothes were removed and that she never wanted to have sex with him. Another time she said she consented to kissing, undressing, and sex. Yet another time, she claimed she merely didn’t object and that is why John would have thought she had consented.
She initially told investigators that after the sexual encounter, John immediately left her dorm room. During a second interview, she claimed she “ran to the bathroom to get dressed and allow him time to leave the room.”
Investigators also had a copy of a Snapchat Jane sent to John months after the encounter, in which she said:
<blockquote>i did not appreciate your lack of communication with me afterwards, especially when you told me you wanted to invite me to delts events and asked to come to my semi. After what had happened I clearly was in a state of shock, seeing as how you completely used me. </blockquote>
Another of Jane’s friends testified that Jane never mentioned sexual assault after the encounter, but that she grew upset when John stopped responding to her messages. A fourth friend, referred to as M.M., told investigators that Jane “stopped going to class for a couple weeks,” and wouldn’t go out with her friends because she was distraught over the incident, but social media posts showed her going out during that time and an attendance sheet for the class she shared with John proved she never missed that class.
Despite this mountain of evidence showing Jane not only wasn’t sexually assaulted, but had made up a false claim about being sexually assaulted after John didn’t pursue a relationship with her.
The University of Illinois, according to John’s lawsuit, engaged in a pattern of discriminatory behavior against him due to his gender. For starters, the school arbitrarily set a date for the hearing and then refused to change that date when informed John’s adviser would be unavailable for the originally scheduled hearing. John was forced to bring his father as his adviser because he couldn’t get anyone else with actual legal training (his father had none, nor had he known the evidence prior to the hearing).
At the start of the hearing, the student panelist asked why John wasn’t facing additional charges of harassment, indicating he had already made up his mind that John was guilty and should be facing even more consequences.
Jane’s testimony also differed from the evidence and what she had previously told investigators, yet no one on the panel asked her about these contradictions or inconsistencies. Also, despite previously claiming she hadn’t consented to sexual activity with John, Jane suddenly admitted she had, yet the panel didn’t seem to count this as evidence John was innocent.
John was found responsible and suspended from the University of Illinois for two years. He appealed and lost, with the appeals board ignoring the same evidence as the hearing panel with no justification.
John filed a lawsuit against the university on September 25, 2020, and the University of Illinois failed to get the case dismissed. On December 24, 2021, the school and John filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, indicating a settlement had been reached, though the details have not been disclosed.

A woman looking through the window… Social distancing.

She Claimed He Sexually Assaulted Her Months After He Declined To Date Her. He Was Expelled Despite Her Own Witnesses Backing His Story.

Illinois

Menu