The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

Case Overview — Page 1
Text Box: CASE OVERVIEW: Baker vs. St. Louis Community College & U.S. Department of Education Background Information: Skip this section if you have read all or most of the topical pages. During the 1960-80’s Feminism emerged a significant force in the public domain, and had a major impact on the workplace. Feminists promoted assertions like: [1] women are paid 70-75% of what men earn, women’s jobs are undervalued, and women are underrepresented in decision-making roles; [2] women are denied entry into the professions, managerial, and government careers—i.e. there male-imposed “glass-ceilings”; [3] women are denied the same education opportunities/benefits—i.e. there are “fewer women in colleges” proposition; and [5] the only men are sexually aggressive in public. [Refer to Equal Pay=Equal Jobs and Sexes Different & Equal for more information.] During this period the author administered compensation for many major employers with ~100,000 employees, and judiciously tried to find verification of every Feminist position on female-discrimination in the employment. In sum, massive, truly legitimate evidence indicates that none of its hypotheses are valid and reliable. This included Feminist’s interpretations of isolated case studies, and it unsupported wild-speculations that men conspired in discriminating against women. Their continued use of average pay statistics offers no verification of unequal hiring, pay, or promotions due to discrimination based on sex. It is important to recall the atmosphere during that period. Martin Luther King was struggling to advance the Black cause through nonviolence by organizing peaceful mass marches and demonstrations nationwide. Groups like the Black Panthers and Student for a Democratic Society were busy pursuing violence and socialist revolution respectively. Meanwhile, Feminism’s leadership and proactive members were busy making speeches, organizing marches, and promoting highly visible acts of civil disobedience—occupying the offices and buildings of businesses and universities and burning their bras in ceremonial fashion. Like every other women’s movements in American history (i.e. Charity in the 1800’s, Prohibition, Women’s suffrage, and Birth Control) Modern Feminist’s are largely well-educated women from advantaged backgrounds, who chose and had successfully pursued professional career paths. These tactics, of course, gained Feminism the ample, uncritical support, and coverage in most of the popular media and publishers. Feminism’s “side-of-the story” was “loudly” broadcast nationwide. Its themes and methods shrewdly inflamed many women by casting females as men’s abused, exploited, and repressed victims. The messages simultaneously generated, empathy, guilt, and protectiveness in men. Meanwhile, a counter-balancing force of male activists did not emerge to defend their sex. On the other hand, while grumbling often occurred in private, men have effectively offered no significant resistance to either Feminism’s demands or accusations about men. The business community did not even take a very strong stand on the fallacies of Feminism’s jobs, pay, and sexual harassment allegations. Businesses in America promote and lobby for political issues of an economic nature, when it comes to social and cultural issues their role is society is to comply with public policy and laws, not try to shape or control them. In that context, businesses were limited to providing the facts to those who want to and are willing to listen. Congress was under substantial pressure to force males in the workplace to treat women equally in all of the above respects. When its committees asked for input from business, it accepted some of the important facts presented about women’s pay, but not sexual harassment. Compensation that attracts, retains, and motivates in a free-market economy is not easily grasped by or very understandable to most people. Further, the topic is complicated by self-interest and emotions—e.g. it is rare that people willingly admit to being overpaid or underworked. As a result, new legislation sought to avoid disrupting the equality that already existed. This was accomplished by replacing activist’s demands for “equal pay on average” with the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” The latter sustains the principles of a free labor market—that the availability of qualified and experienced candidates and the value of the work they actually do determines the comparative pay for jobs—not their sex. If Congress conceded to Feminism’s argument, it would have in introduced a socialist concept into the labor market that would have crippled its functioning, as well as lead to further attempts to centrally plan and control what employers pay and individuals earn. Perhaps the most catalytic event in the early period was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law was initially conceived as a tool to advance racial equality. Feminists persuaded Congress and the leaders of racial activist groups to add “sex” to that law’s list protected groups. Both legislators and racial groups opposed such a move. They were convinced Feminism would draw attention away from and undermine the effectiveness of the racial cause. Feminist’s convinced both to do so by promising that they would see to it that women’s huge social influence would serve as additional supported their cause, not detract from it. Everyone involved took it for granted—just as they do today—that protections under that law, regardless of its sex-neutral wording, was to be applied to women—not to men. After all, it was self-interest-driven and aggressive men had most of the cultural power, authority, resources, physical size/strength, etc. right? [Which cause—women or race—has actually received more time, attention, and resources since 1964?] Feminisms claims about female-discrimination in employment or compensation were not valid. [See Equal Pay=Equal Jobs for more.] This case tangentially explores that issue extensively. For now suffice it to ask: “How can any objectively observer look at the way many women dress, speak, and act and conclude that females are less sexually aggressive and males?” Feminism has exploited traditional views about human sexuality and succeeded in persuading most people and the law into misinterpreting men’s normal proactive sexual behaviors as a potential offensive form of aggression, and women’s different but at least equal forms of typical sexual proactivity as neither aggressive nor potentially offensive at all? In dealing with the above, the author first began to appreciate Feminism as a powerful, aggressive, and self-interest-driven movement; one that carelessly misrepresented objective facts and cultural realities as they saw fit to achieve their mission—without regard to the consequences to others. These experiences were not alienating per se, but they established a foundation of prior experience that led him to thereafter become considerably more vigilant and skeptical with respect to the movement. Understanding the full scope of the activism’s continuing impact on our culture began to emerge toward the turn of the century. The author’s awakening began upon returning to university in 1999 to complete a master’s degree, and then briefly do doctoral studies. It was no longer possible for the author to ignore the spread of Feminism throughout education and its devastating effects on society. At first his attention was focused on the falsehoods, manipulation, and pervasiveness of Feminism in academia. He also noticed that students did not question, seemed to be blindly accepting, and were being suppressed by such information. These observations prompted the author to prepare a Master’s Project exploring one of Feminism’s central themes—violence and aggression among intimates. He then decide to do research and try to write a book on changes in gender/sex-relations on other related topics during the 20th century and their effects on the overall culture. After several years of investing time, effort, and resources, the latter ambition was not realized, and the author decided to take a couple of course at a local junior college. The Initial Incident and Grievances: In January, 2005 the author became student at St. Louis Community College (StLCC), Missouri’s second largest college, with 32,000 students. After scanning the course outline and texts for many different classes—seeking to avoid any further encounters with Feminist dogma and data—he chose classes on substance abuse and crisis intervention. As a student, he was unexpectedly confronted with was two chapters of 96 pages of Feminist propaganda several weeks before it was to be discussed in class. [See: 2nd StLCC Grievance for more extensive textbook excerpts.] To the student/author it seemed junior college students were being force-fed data they are entirely too topically naïve and trusting absorb; too discouraged from researching issues for themselves and disputing their implications; too subjected to demands for “politically correctness;” and too inexperienced to resist. More importantly, he began to realize Feminism’s data was not only false and culturally destructive, but constituted sex-discrimination against male-students and adult men in the community-at-large as well. The student/author concluded it was time to try to do what he could reverse Feminism’s momentum. But what can a typical junior college or even university student do in a situation like this? For example: How does a lone student reading a textbook in private proceed to complain about and refute such data? How could a typical student overcome the authority of the written word; compete with authors with PhDs; challenge instructors convinced the data is factual; and question the power of the college’s implied endorsement? How could a student complain to higher level faculty—the very decision-makers who chose the curriculum—especially when so many of them make it clear they are believers in Feminism? How many students possess adequate specialized knowledge to challenge such content? Even if students have background in social science, have access to all the right research data, and have the time and inclination—which are most likely—how could they effectively present their case to other students campus-wide? Could a student get equal time with their peers to that enjoyed by the many instructors promoting Feminism in so many classes? As a practical matter, would such a student in fact be able to get an open-minded reception from so many people who have been conditioned by the school, media, and society-at-large to believe most of the male-discriminatory sex-stereotyping is fact, truth, and reality? The student/author chose to first mention his concerns about the information in the textbook to the instructor prior to class. He asked that the material be skipped and permanently removed from the curriculum because it was discriminatory and served no legitimate specific or general educational purpose. This was a class teaching ways to help people in crisis over the phone, and then refer them to fully trained professionals in counseling and other services. The instructor responded empathically, but did not agree to these proposals. The student/author then mentioned filing a complaint with the school and departed. The student/author was distracted by the issues the materials, and lost his ability to concentrate as a result. He decided he needed to audit both courses so he could continue to learn, but would not have to take tests and risk a failing grade. The college’s policies prohibited auditing classes at such a late date, but he intended to request for exception based on the circumstances. Anticipating StLCC would refuse, he prepared a letter requesting permission to withdraw without penalty, and then met with one of the college’s counselors on March 2, 2005. He verbally repeated his concerns and asked for permission to audit the course instead of being forced to withdraw. As expected, the counselor declined to waive the School’s policy, and the a one-page 1st StLCC Grievance was then handed to the counselor. The counselor promptly forewarned via internal mail to the accountable department heads in front of the student. After receiving no response, a far more in depth, 13-page 2nd StLCC Grievance was mailed to the College’s Chancellor, with copies the Board of Directors and department heads, on March 24, 2005. Four StLCC Follow-up letters were also sent to the College over the next three years. In sum, the College’s administration refused to responded verbally or in writing to any of the communications it received. It would seem that the escalation of the grievance that followed may have been avoided if the College’s administration had chosen to pay attention to such concerns by a student in an understanding and conciliatory manner. What if someone in authority had taken the time to meet and discussed the student’s concerns, acknowledge some of the factual and discrimination arguments as sound, but then took the position that these practices are so widespread in the education system and society that such classes are a norm offering in higher education and in fact being taken by students? What if it then let the student audit the courses involved to receive a partial benefit from both learning experiences, or offered to refund the student’s tuition? Might the whole matter have been defused and put to rest once and for all? The Department of Education (DOE) Complaint, Appeals, and Denials: On May, 2005, a claim of discrimination based on sex was filled against the College with the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in Kansas City, Missouri (-KC). [See: Emailed DOE Complaint.] It was answered on May 12—attachments explaining the OCR’s role were enclosed. [See: DOE Acknowledgment.] Four telephone conversations occurred thereafter between the student/author and a person who identified himself as OCR-KC’s “liaison officer,” who was assigned to serve as an intermediary. In later written correspondence, the “liaison” was described as an “investigator.” Each call led the student/author to submit additional information on issues addressed in those telecoms. These can be found at: Add’l DOE Complaints - 1/2, Add’l Complaints - 3/4, Add’l Complaints - 5, and Supreme Court Rulings. Note the OCR-KC verbally stated they would deny this case within a few weeks after receipt based on two positions: 1) that enforcing the claim would violate educators free-speech, and 2) that the materials in the textbook were not inherently male-discriminatory. It refused to address the issue that student’s speech and academic freedoms were being violated, and later mysteriously dropped its initial position that the textbook content did not discriminate against males. At that point, the OCR’s “rush to judgment” was based solely on the Emailed Complaint and the one-page 1st StLCC Grievance. The OCR’s initial handling of this case is analogous to policemen whom become suspicious that an innocent person is guilty of committing a crime, start following their instincts, and then—surprise, surprise—thereafter only finds evidence proving the innocent person’s guilt? This case is complex and unprecedented. OCR’s knee-jerk reaction suggested StLCC may have contacted the OCR for legal advise in advance. OCR requires schools to employ a grievance procedure in sex-discrimination cases, which the College refused to do. Failure to grieve complaints is more than sufficient grounds for triggering a full OCR compliance review. If such contact did not occur, how else could StLCC have known the OCR would allow it get away with refusing to grieve this case? The submission of additional complaints probably lead the OCR send a letter indicating there would be a delay in its review of the complaint on June 28 [DOE Review Delay]. That letter failed to refer to all of the student/author’s prior correspondence, which prompted him to respond by sending all previous submissions in a three-ring-binder. [See: DOE Missing Info Binder.] On July 29, 2005 the DOE Complaint Denial was sent, refusing to “investigate” the case. In other words, OCR-KC had preformed a “desktop” analysis; refused to require StLCC to submit the case to a grievance process; refused to determine if such procedures existed and were being employed properly by the College; and rejected performing an on-site audit or compliance review to collect additional information. In sum, the Complaint Denial states that OCR does “not have authority (or jurisdiction) to investigate...” because the facts presented were “insufficient to indicate noncompliance with the laws they…enforce” and “insufficient to establish a complaint of discrimination based on sex.” The problem is 34CFR 106 applies to all forms of sex-discrimination, but the OCR chose to only established standards for Sexual Harassment (which in itself is discriminatory because it is enforced as a male-only crime.) It therefore failed in its duty to enforce nonsexuality-based forms of sex-discrimination. The OCR continued, indicating the student/author did not allege a male-student: was denied a material benefit provided to females; subjected to conduct by others severe enough to be denied participation in or benefit from education programs; or subjected to sexual harassment. The problems are: [1] the student/author did describe personal losses of educational benefits by being forced to withdraw from rather than audit classes; and [2] the last two arguments come from OCR’s Sexual Harassment Guidances, which state they do not apply to non-sexuality-based complaints. Finally, the OCR states StLCC: [1] did not stop the student/author from expressing opinions and opposition; and [2] provided the “opportunity to withdraw” from class. The problems are: [a] its argument did not address the suppression of student’s speech and academic freedoms; [b] it is impossible for students to have an equal opportunity to express opposing views to those presented with so much authority in dozens of courses; [c] the only “expression of opinion and opposition” the OCR had been informed of were private discussions with the instructor and counselor; and [d] a student having the “opportunity to withdraw” is the same as telling a woman she has the “privilege to quit her job” if she is not “satisfied” with being discriminated against at work—which is clearly against the law. In mid-April, the student/author was picketing and handing out pamphlets in the hallways outside the Intervention class, and was spontaneously ask to briefly explain his position to the class and answer question. Unless OCR-KC had talked with the College, which it is prohibited from doing [See: attachment at DOE Acknowledgement], how could it have known that this actual opportunity to “expression of opinion and opposition” had been provided? This led the grievant to suspect OCR and StLCC had been in contact. Finally, the Complaint Denial states the case dealt solely with the academic materials that constituted free-speech protected under the First Amendment of College’s faculty and administration—not that of an individual instructor. The problems here are: [1] the solely argument is nonsense; [2] the regulations the DOE/OCR is delegated to enforce relate exclusively to protecting student’s from sex-discrimination, specify limits on faculty and administrators’ liberties in dealing with such matters, and do not authorize the it to protect educator’s rights in any domain; and [3] no regulation or Executive Order authorizes the DOE/OCR to give greater priority to the First (free-speech) than the 14th (equal protection) Amendment. In sum, the DOE/OCR does not have the authority to make this determination, and, if it did, it would have to do so on behalf of student’s rather than educators and the administration. The OCR’s only concrete defense of its educator’s free-speech position at this point is to refer to an internal “DOE Dear Colleague Letter...” by a former OCR assistant secretary. But neither the complaint denial nor that letter offer explanation of its position versus students or cites specific legal references for its position. Such a letter, in its own right, is not legally enforceable. It is OCR’s Federal Register published policies that are imbued legal enforceability derived from statues, regulations, executive orders, or the Constitution. The very existence of this letter strongly supports the conclusion that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has not been delegated the authority to specifically enforce, give priority to, or advance First Amendment rights in education—much less do so on behalf of educators over those of students or to excuse for allowing violations of Title IX, 34CFR 106, or the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court Rulings webpage offers a review of what seems to be the key precedent-setting education-related First Amendment decisions by the Court. When considering such rulings it is vital to remember that the Court’s rulings are intended to be interpreted and applied in the narrowest sense. In other words, they are “situation specific” and not meant to be arbitrarily applied to substantially different circumstances. Thus, a ruling involving the free-of-speech for teachers would be subject to very different—and far more stringent—standards than one applying to student’s speech and academic freedoms. The most salient aspect of these rulings is that neither teachers nor educational institutions have the right use free-speech or “academic freedom” as an excuse to function virtually unregulated with students in the classroom, or with other faculty and a school’s staff for that matter. They indicate educators

EmasculationOfAmerica.com
Text Box:

Last Updated: 7/19/08