Sex

Title IX: The Federal Law That Started a War Against Speech, Sex, and Students

Students unfairly disciplined for sex crimes are now suing their schools, and winning.

|

College
Dreamstime

IX: It's the little-known Roman numeral that has completely changed students' lives on college campuses with respect to free speech, due process, and even sex. Thanks to the federal government's increasingly broad interpretation of its power to regulate expression under anti-harassment law, college students and faculty members face new challenges to their rights each and every day.

But in a recent column for The Daily Beast, I note that students are resisting the Title IX Inquisition by filing lawsuits against their universities. And in four recent cases, the students scored important victories:

A male student scored a major victory in his lawsuit against the University of Southern California, which kicked him off campus for a remarkable non-crime: failing to de-escalate an orgy. This was a crazy case, and the decision in his favor impugns not just USC, but the federal government's entire strategy to combat rape by making colleges deal with it.

Over the past five years, the Obama administration's Education Department has instructed universities to take sexual harassment and violence more seriously as part of their obligation to obey Title IX, a little-known gender equality law. While that all may sound like a good thing, the policies universities have been forced to put in place are shockingly illiberal, leading to routine violations of students' due process rights, their right to free expression, and even their right to sleep together.

As I've mentioned on this blog, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is now seeking a student who would be willing to sue the Office for Civil Rights—the Title IX compliance agency—for exceeding its authority:

Justin Dillon, a partner with the law firm Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon and an expert on campus legal issues, is deeply concerned about OCR's guidance.

"Title IX is being used as an excuse to regulate everything from how college students talk about having sex to how they actually have sex," wrote Dillon in an email to The Daily Beast. "Title IX is being turned into a speech code, which is something it was never intended to be."

The situation has become so dire that Dillon's firm, in partnership with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is now seeking a client to sue OCR. Their hope is that a court might eventually rein in the rogue agency and correct its reckless interpretation of Title IX.

In the meantime, the lines separating protected speech from illegal harassment and messy sexual encounters from sexual assault have become a whole lot blurrier—to the great detriment of the quality of life for many college students.

Read the full thing here.

NEXT: Hundreds Dead in Ecuador Earthquake, Trump Coins Nickname for Hillary, Impeachment Vote in Brazil: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The picture with the story – she reported her rape, and was shunned as a result? Not really feeling it, and not alt tex. Article is a C- right off the bat as a result.

    Title IX has always been a monstrosity used by bureaucrats to screw over men.

    1. More like – she had consensual sex, didn’t report a rape and was shunned for it.

    2. Not really feeling it, and not alt tex.

      De-escalated orgy.

    3. She’s getting ostracized for being hottest one of the bunch.

      1. She’s so hot she’s making me sexist.

        Bitch.

  2. Title IX is being turned into a speech code, which is something it was never intended to be.

    Ah, yes, the legislation that mutates.

    1. When has THAT ever happened before?!?

  3. the little-known Roman numeral

    I’m’a stop you right there and go back to the AM Links.

    1. I think he means the law it represents, not the numeral itself.

  4. John was not accused of doing anything improper: In fact, Jane later texted him, saying she enjoyed her time with him.

    Months later, after attending counselling sessions, she came to consider herself a victim of sexual assault. And she was right to think that?the other two men had not asked for explicit consent to touch her. But these men were not USC students, and it was USC that fielded her complaint.

    Yeah, no. She clearly wasn’t a victim, but she sure found one of her own.

    1. That is the same thing that happened with the two gay guys in the law suit that made the news a few weeks ago. The two dated for a year. And then one of them goes to one of these sexual assault awareness courses and suddenly realize his old boyfriend had been sexually assaulting him for a year.

      It is completely insane. These activists take people who have no issues with something and convince them they are victims.

      1. If you can’t find enough victims your petty bureaucratic fiefdom, create some. /Title IX administrators

    2. And she was right to think that?the other two men had not asked for explicit consent to touch her.

      Aaaand, we’re back to “affirmative consent”.

      Remember when libertarians understood that affirmative consent was unrealistic, totalitarian, and a violation of due process?

  5. Thanks for not updating with details as asked, Rico. Now we get to fight over your carelessness.

    You’re a champ, brah.

    1. And she was right to think that?the other two men had not asked for explicit consent to touch her.

      Odd choice of wording.

      A university told a female student that her consensual sexual encounter was rape…

      You just said she was right to think she had been a victim of sexual assault.

      and then punished a male student for not putting an end to group sex quickly enough

      And now we’re back to calling it group sex.

      Did she consent, Robby. This is simple. Did she consent. To sex. With all three of them. This “she’s a victim of sexual assault a little bit but never mind that now,” is not okay.

      The university’s actions are atrocious, reprehensible and so far out of bounds they’re fading over the horizon, but now I’ve got additional worries, Rico, because now I’m worried you’re hand-waving away sexual assault in order to get your story.

      We’re supposed to be the integrity choice, here. This crap is not helpful.

      1. I think the key phrase is two men had not asked for explicit consent to touch her.

        They are saying its rape because they didn’t ask her straight out “can we play too”. The fact that they had to resort to saying “they didn’t get explicit consent” tells me that she wasn’t passed out or too drunk to consent. If she had been, the university would have said “without her consent” and not bothered with the explicit part.

        It looks to me what happened was the other two guys joined in and she was both conscience and into it. The university is making this a crime by saying they didn’t ask her, as if her actions couldn’t ever constitute consent.

        1. It looks to me what happened was the other two guys joined in and she was both conscience (sic) and into it.

          Because it’s totally normal to start crying during a consensual sexual encounter.

          1. Isn’t that how all of your sexual encounters end?

            1. Only when he breaks their pelvis.

            2. End and begin. The tears lubricate.

              *removes belt, hangs self*

          2. If she didn’t consent, then they would have said “without consent”. There is no point in saying “explicit consent” unless there is some reason to believe she did consent just not explicitly.

            It is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. I know you are dumb as a fence post on most things. But I would think even you could understand that.

            Moreover, did they stop when she started crying? If so, that could have been her withdrawing her consent. That doesn’t mean she didn’t consent in the first place.

            1. There is no point in saying “explicit consent” unless there is some reason to believe she did consent just not explicitly.

              Yes, that’s what I told the cops as well. They pointed out that at 18 months, she wasn’t talking yet, but still, she didn’t say no.

              1. Yes, that’s what I told the cops as well. They pointed out that at 18 months, she wasn’t talking yet, but still, she didn’t say no.

                WTHF?!?! Is this an equivocation between Title IX and Statutory Rape? On Reason (*drink*)?

            2. John, the quote you keep referring to is from Robby, not the university.

      2. Did she consent. To sex. With all three of them.

        Very important missing qualifier: individually.

        If she didn’t consent to sex with Parties B and C but did with Party A then you can’t say Party A committed a crime (unless his own actions stepped beyond the level of her consent).

        Which was what the originally story was about, before the discussion descended into madness.

        1. Exactly. This hand-waving isn’t even necessary. Rico has the university dead to rights on every score. John Doe, by both his and her accounts, by law, by any definition under the sun, did nothing wrong.

          1. IF she didn’t consent, then its rape. The problem seems to be that university considers anything but a contractually binding offer and agreement not to be sufficient consent.

            1. I think Hamster is pointing out that, regardless of the fact of consent (or nonconsent), this was outside of the jurisdiction of the university.

            2. That quote wasn’t the university, it was Robby.

              Robby said that. His words. Robby also said she was right to think herself a victim of sexual assault.

        2. Very important missing qualifier: individually.

          Again, bullshit. If we were talking about any issue that didn’t invoke the magic vagina this wouldn’t be an issue.

          The story goes that bouts of sex had already occurred in the room and/or were ongoing/recurring. After you’ve sat down at the table, the cards have been dealt, and you’ve laid out your hand is not the time to say, “I didn’t explicitly say ‘deal me in’ to every single one of you, so it should be clear that I didn’t want to play with anyone except the dealer.”

          1. All of which is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether to discipline the one student who had inarguably obtained the alleged victim’s consent.

            Jesus Christ, are you people this fucking dense?

            1. Jesus Christ, are you people this fucking dense?

              *You’re* the one suggesting that affirmative consent isn’t enough, affirmative consent to all parties involved, individually by name. What’s next written contracts for anyone within earshot? *You’re* adding legitimizing(?) qualifiers to a law and case that you consider to be complete bullshit.

              The problem is Title IX (as I think we all agree). Nobody’s filed any extortion or conspiracy charges, it’s just ‘The one guy she liked cheated at cards.’ and the University taking action on her behalf.

              1. *You’re* the one suggesting that affirmative consent isn’t enough, affirmative consent to all parties involved, individually by name.

                What the fuck are you talking about? Read the goddamn handle above a message before you start slinging accusations around.

          2. What? So if you have sex in a room with someone, that means anyone else who enters that room has consent to have sex with you too?

            1. Yep, it’s the “rule.”

            2. There are situations when that would be a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.

              Whether it was reasonable in this case is a factual question, and a clear picture of what was going on at this wild frat party is not easy to come by.

              1. There are situations when that would be a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.

                Perhaps I’m being unimaginative, but outside of a room with a carnival barker enticing guests to enter with ‘Come one, come all! Come fuck the All-Consenting Woman!’, I’m having a hard time thinking of a situation when “that would be a perfectly reasonable assumption to make”.

                Would you be so kind as to provide one that could occur outside of the fantasy universe of porn and exist solidly in the real world? Thanks.

                1. Would you be so kind as to provide one that could occur outside of the fantasy universe of porn and exist solidly in the real world?

                  Orgies.

                  Some swinger parties.

                  A party where one room is known as the bang room, and anyone who goes into it (and doesn’t leave immediately) does so for one particular reason.

                  This notion that sex follows “explicit” consent ignores that most sex involves the exchange of nonverbal cues. Those nonverbal cues can be exchanged with any number of people, in any number of ways.

            3. Jeez. It’s like you never went to college.

      3. Did she consent. To sex. With all three of them.

        If we are talking about actual prosecution for rape as a crime, this isn’t quite the right question. Better would be either:

        (1) Did they have reason to believe she had consented?

        (2) Did she give them reason to believe she hadn’t consented?

        As I understand it, she went along (gave them reason to believe she had/did not give them an indication she hadn’t) until it got too rough for her, at which point she gave them reason to believe consent was withdrawn, and they stopped.

    2. I just want to say = this attempt at adjudicating the consent-details of a college-dorm 3-way-spit-roast like its one of Zeno’s Paradoxes?

      is fucking dumber than The Shove

  6. I’m just hoping that by the time my 2 year old son is in college, he won’t get booted out for looking at a girl in an off-campus bar the “wrong way”. I’m not very optimistic; the pendulum is definitely swinging towards punishment for thought crimes.

    1. Don’t worry about it. By the time your kid is 18 we will be entering the time of the great entitlement collapse and there won’t be any money for him to go to college.

      1. Silver linings?

        1. Silver is the weapon of capitalist cishetero shitlords. See more at “silver spoon”.

          1. No, it’s gold. After all, William Jennings Bryan was one of the greatest economists who ever lived, right?

    2. By the time he’s ready for college, college won’t exist. You’ll just upload whatever you want to learn directly to your brain. Then you teach the kid to avoid college age women and pick up local milfs instead.

      1. We can only hope. But, even if it isn’t that, the whole system is going to die in the next 20 years. People are going to go online and get certifications. The days of going four years to college or grad school are over.

        1. If I were a young man today, there’s no way in hell I’d step foot on one of those insane asylums. I’d do just what you said, get my degree online.

          1. This shit started in the military. Before there was the “campus rape epidemic” there was the barracks rape epidemic. It was of course the same stupid shit; taking drunken mistakes and calling it rape or deciding that every woman who ever cheated on her b/f or husband or fucked someone in charge could get out of it by crying rape. The result was that any male that went in the military had to have a death wish to ever fuck around with a female who was also in the military.

            Same result here. If you have to go, live off campus and make sure your social life doesn’t ever involve other students.

            1. The problem, John, is that a few people are informed about things like this. Most are not, and likely very few people of the age to enter college, do. They go into a very perilous situation knowing nothing of the danger they are in every time they co-mingle with their female classmates. They know nothing until one day some girl they were screwing around with gets mad at them and decides to accuse them of rape. That’s how they find out.

              1. You are right. The worse part is, the real predators are smart enough to know how to avoid the system and generally skate. Its only the naive that get caught up in this. These rules do nothing but screw innocent people.

  7. Every article about Title IX should contain the full wording of the statute. It is, after all, a not very long single sentence. So we can easily judge how off-the-rocker the OCR is.

    “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

    1. Shouldn’t that mean that kicking people out of school for rape is illegal? After all, they are being excluded on the basis of sex.

    2. You would think that the “white privilege” and various mandatory (or even voluntary) SJW indoctrination sessions would be facial violations of Title IX, as they explicitly create a hostile environment for men at these schools.

  8. But one in four college women are raped on campus, right? That’s what I heard. Evidently, these college campuses are more dangerous than the worst shanty town in El Salvador.

    1. These places are so inherently racist that without forcing them to admit a set number of minorities, minorities don’t have a fair chance to even get in. Then once there, one in four women are raped.

      Why don’t we just shut these places down as being a public nuisance?

      1. Well, if one in four women are raped just by being on a college campus, then obviously, that would be the only thing to do. I mean, that’s 25% of all women, raped just by being on campus for 4 years. How does that number compare with rape statistics in general? We have the shut down these rape factories, it’s the only way.

        1. Shut them down and distribute those big fat endowments to the poor and those in need. Its the only moral thing to do.

  9. I remember the good ol’ days when Title IX was just used to extort more money for women’s sports. On the other hand, I guess this is a new women’s sport.

    1. It was all fun and games when they were just destroying wrestling and men’s swimming programs.

  10. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. BE I am more than sure that you will get best result..D–05

    ——- http://www.Buzzmax7.com

  11. Does anyone know what the 2 other men were doing there? Where they a team of pizza delivery men or plumbers and just waltzed into an orgy, like in the pornos? Where they there at the start of the encounter? Did they teleport into the room?

    Help a brother out here.

    1. They were wingmen.

  12. Title IX is about gender as a binary, not as you have misconstrued it elsewhere, Mr. Soave. Orwellian language acrobatics are Saruman to speech codes’ Wormtongue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.