The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

Case Overview — Page 2

EmasculationOfAmerica.com
Text Box: Text Box: DOE Complaint, Appeals, and Denials (Continued): must satisfy higher standards of self-censorship and public responsibility than reporters and the media because teachers and schools are in positions of far greater public trust and accountability. Thus individual instructors, entire faculties, and administrators are not allowed to teach student’s sex-discrimination with respect to any protected group, or allowed to indoctrinate students with the faculty’s collective psychosocial ideologies or political economy preferences. The OCR evaded addressing this legal argument. It is important to note that the OCR– KC’s denial discusses legal arguments it raised for the purpose of creating a rationale for rejection. It has ignored the various legal issues raised by the complainant that do not support its legal conclusions. It has failed to address the Tinker/Hazelwood cases, the violations of student speech and academic freedoms, the reported loss of educational benefits, and so forth). The denial of both of the later appeals failed to repair this deficiency as well. This case reveals the DOE/OCR repeatedly refused to address most of issues raised by the complainant. The 1st DOE Appeal was submitted August 5, 2005. To assure objectivity and protect against mischief, Appeals are typically adjudicated by courts operating within different organizational hierarchies than those that rendered the initial judgment. OCR’s procedure is thus inherently flawed. The First Appeal argued that OCR had the authority and legal duty to enforce sex-discrimination on an equal basis for both sexes. It provided excerpts from DOJ administrative guidelines so indicating. It repeated and expanded upon reasons it was virtually impossible for male students to defend against, much less oppose discrimination in today’s academic and social environment. It describes how impossible it is to rationally discuss, much less challenge or debate idealisms like “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” and women’s rights; any topic embraced by academia’s prevailing belief system. [See Add’l DOE Complaint—5, middle of page, Social Scientific Materialism.] In other words, it explored how students’ freedom to speak and think is suppressed in higher education and society. It reported that educators now interpret the legal right and duty to eliminate religion from the classroom as license to censor philosophy and manipulate data on any topic the academic community collectively chooses. Finally, it described how such ideas not only gain support in academia, but eventually spread throughout the American culture. The appeal also refers to information previously submitted explaining how the student/author had been denied the benefit of learning experiences. It further argues that our nation’s discrimination laws do not require women to quit their jobs in order to avoid being discriminated against in the workplace. Hence the OCR’s position that being forced to drop-out-of-class by the College’s refusal to stop the discrimination and/or make an exception to its class-audit polices is both illogical and an illegitimate. It also refers to prior memos spelling-out how other male-students—as well as vast majority of men, husbands, fathers, and boys, as well as marriages and families throughout the community—are affected. Note that none of the 1st DOE Appeal Follow-ups were acknowledged by OCR-KC, and its 1st DOE Appeal Denial was dated almost one-year after the appeal. This suggests a lack of respect for, empathy for, and sensitivity to the student/author’s situation, as well as an indirect form of punishment by leaving the student “hanging and swinging slowly in the air” in anticipation. The second denial essentially recapitulates OCR-KC’s reasoning in its Complaint Denial, with the exception of the First Appeals arguments with respect “disparate impact.” The latter extensively addresses and rejects the student’s arguments. The OCR’s reasoning for that rejection would have been conclusively disproven if an actual investigation of the case had taken place, and are in fact refuted by evidence presented in later correspondence addressed to OCR-E, the Secretary of Education, and the U.S. President. Fully grasping these arguments requires carefully digesting almost all of case’s the major written exchanges. At this late stage, OCR revealed that another level of appeal existed, though its Office of Management—Enforcement (-E) in Washington, DC, which reportedly supervises the KC regional office. Upon request and follow-up, OCR-E granted an extension to its 60-day deadline for submitting a second appeal to allow the student/author time for an in depth legal research. A 41-page 2nd DOE Appeal was submitted to OCR-E on November 16, 2006. The Second Appeal was followed by the exchange of nine follow-up communications to and from OCR-E, which can be found at 2nd DOE Appeal Follow-ups—1/4, 2nd DOE Appeal Follow-up—5/7, 1st DOE Secy’s Request, and 2nd DOE Secy’s Request. It took the headquarters office in Washington 10 1/2 additional months, including considerable delays between messages, to finally send its 2nd DOE Appeal Denial, which was thereafter followed by another DOE Secy’s Appeal. The final DOE solicitation was rejected by a low-level OCR staff member, as not being acceptable under its prescribed procedures. [See: DOE Secy’s Appeal Denial.] It is not known if the Secretary even read the last appeal. In the same time period, a President’s Appeal was also delivered to Washington, which was never answered. New information supporting overruling prior OCR denials in contained in all of the requests for help from higher authorities. Letters requesting help from Missouri’s Congressmen was sent a will—only one was even unresponsively acknowledged. For those seeking to understand most of the legal issues in this case from the student’s and, to some extent, the OCR’s perspective, as well as assess the OCR’s veracity and responsiveness, the lengthy 2nd DOE Appeal is the most important document on the website. It cannot practically be summarized or excerpted, but the DOE Secy’s Appeal explored many of the reasons for the student’s very negative perceptions of nature and legal significance of the second appeal denial. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Requests to Intercede: On Aug. 8, 2005, a few days after submitting the appeal to the complaint denial, a request was also sent to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C. The appeal asked the DOJ to take over, or at least oversee, the DOE’s evaluation of the complaint against StLCC because its practices and interpretations of the law discriminated against males. The student/author believed the OCR’s rush to judgment, changes in legal arguments, and reasons for denial indicated they were unable and/or unwilling to evaluate the case in a neutral and balanced manner. Several communications between the student and DOJ occurred thereafter. This series of exchanges can be found at DOJ Appeals/Refusals - 1-4, DOJ Appeals/Refusals - 5-8, and DOJ Appeals/Refusals - 9-12. The DOJ botched its submissions. Five months later the DOJ sent a brief form letter that was peculiarly rubber stamped dated and referred to the wrong offending agency, type of case, and year. The letter refused to review other agencies determinations, which is not at what it was asked to do. Similar equally confused and delayed communications reoccurred thereafter with the answer and results. The DOE Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Complaint, Appeals, and Denials: After OCR-KC’s denial of first appeal denial, the student/author began to believe that office may have had prior communications with the College, most likely during its preparation of the initial complaint denial. Why? First, OCR policies give great emphasis to schools being required to have and use a grievance process with all types of discrimination claims, not just sex. In addition, this case was obviously extraordinary, if not completely unprecedented. It therefore seemed inexplicable that StLCC administration could know that OCR-KC would let them get-away with not applying such a procedure to this case ahead of time unless they had been so counseled by the Agency. In addition, OCR seemed to indicate they had been independently informed that the student/author had talked with the subject class after submitting the grievances. Finally OCR rush to judgment suggested it may have done work and research on the initial complaint on behalf of the College at an early date. Again there were several exchanges of communications between the student/author and the DOE/OCR. Contrary to what seems to be sound, as well as standard legal practice, the designated adjudicator of the initial FOIA Claim and Denial was the OCR’s Kansas City Regional Office’s manager—the person who supervised the staff that allegedly violated the FOIA, as well as personally prepared the first appeal denial. It is noteworthy that the law indicates answers to FOIA complaints are to be delivered within 20 work-days, but OCR-KC’s manager took 75-days to send a denial, and it arrived several days after OCR-E’s extension to file a second appeal had expired. An FOIA 1st Appeal and Denial was then handled by that same manager, fully expecting that a 2nd FOIA Appeal and Follow-ups would have to be submitted to higher authority within the DOE/OCR as well. The 2nd FOIA Appeal Denial and Final FOIA Letter where thereafter exchanged between the parties. The FOIA aspects of this case is of value to readers who want to see for themselves how at least one federal agency—the U.S. Dept. of Education, and perhaps many other agencies at both the federal and state level, misinterpret and misrepresent the language of the FOIA law to undermine its actual spirit and intent in ways that enable them to deny students, and perhaps many other individuals, free access to appropriate government information, and thus cover-up actions that are unprofessional or potentially illegal. The complaint was finally dropped because the student/author was unwilling to invest more time and unable to expend resources required to hire an attorney to pursue the matter further. The media, publishers, lobbyists, “think-tanks,” sociopolitical researcher groups, and other similar organizations would not likely to face, as well as have the means to overcome such impediments. THE DOE/OCR’s FREE-SPEECH POSITION The OCR’s free-speech argument is the most untenable and erroneous of all. In taking the position that it was defending educator’s free-speech, the agency fails to fulfill its primary responsibility—to enforce discrimination regulations (34CFR 106) within the education system, providing equal protection against discrimination for both covered groups—including the male minority. Beyond that, the OCR’s staff is also sworn to enforce the U. S. Constitution—but that pledge relates to every Article and Amendment equally. From the very beginning, the DOE/OCR refused to recognize this complaint's non-sexuality-based fundamental nature. Instead, it reinterpreted the content as they saw fit so it would appear to legitimately be adjudicating the case under the First Amendment rights on behalf of educators and under its Sexual Harassment Guides for the sole purpose of denial. OCR was legally obligated to evaluate the case based on criteria appropriate to its actual content, but it refuse to do. It also is not authority to give priority to the 1st Amendment over the 14th Amendment, or give priority to educators over students’ rights in any domain. The OCR only looked at how the case might affect educator’s collective freedom to teach and say just about anything they please in the classroom—but refused to do so from student’s perspective. It is important to note the DOE’s views do not distinguish between an individual teacher’s rights and those of educators collectively or the administration. Systematically implementing a male-discriminatory sex-stereotyping curriculum campus-wide is very different than a teacher independently choosing to teach certain content. The Supreme Court Rulings in Tinker/Hazelwood indicates even individual teachers may not have the right to escape censorship and restriction by the school’s administration. Nor does the OCR make any distinction between educators “academic freedom” to do research and communicate their peers, as well as express themselves personally without restraint, verses teacher’s limited and censorable speech and academic freedoms in their dealings with students and when they are representing their institutions with the media and in public. While they “on duty,” teachers are temporary custodians of societies most precious long-term resources—its next generation of children. Their self-interests and liberties are secondary at best. The author suggests that StLCC’s and the DOE/OCR’s failure to respond to the actual content of this case indicates the extensive control Feminists influence have over America’s entire educational system. It also mirrors the same level of disregard for any point-of-view contrary to widely accepted group-thinking in academia. Their actions also replicates many of the ways educator’s go about “silencing the voices” of topically naive students and instructors in academia—especially by employing the “silent treatment”. This case was submitted as a male-discrimination complaint. It primarily argued that Feminist ideology and erroneous data was incompatible with the public’s delegated charter for education in America. Initially, it more or less coincidentally reported violations of student’s speech and academic freedom’s as a tangential issue. When the OCR’s turned the case a First Amendment issue, considerable information was thereafter submitted on that topic. The basic argument was: If the case is to be adjudicated on the basis of freedom-speech, the DOE must do so on behalf of students’ freedoms to inquire, think, and speak without being manipulated, indoctrinated, and suppressed by the faculty and College. The DOE’s interpretation of educator’s speech and academic freedom is simply not determinative in this case. The limitations on OCR’s legal authority and Tinker/Hazelwood rulings mean students’ rights would prevail over educators’ liberties. Within the social sciences and their vast array of applied sciences, neither students nor individual teachers are effectively free to challenge academia’s “conventional wisdom” or society’s “politically correct” thinking. This observation is especially true with respect to information originated by its Feminism’s “activist-expert” specialist minority. Such groups make the institutional, career, and peer group consequences of opposition far too severe and repressive for most students or instructors to risk resisting. Student’s in these disciplines are also required to study and feedback that same repressive information in the form citations in the papers they write because data not supported by references to other academics are unacceptable. Of course little non-conforming academic literature gets published, so there are not many opportunities for opposing citations. This process is, figuratively speaking, little more than a form of programming, mind-control, and brain-washing. [See: Discrimination Cycle for more.] It is almost impossible for male students to avoid or refute this form of discrimination. Eluding, challenging, or resisting it is particularly difficult in social science related and derived courses, where educators habitually censor-out any philosophies and facts that contradict their beliefs. Such classes habitually “edit-out” philosophies and facts that contradict widely accepted views in academia: limited information to that confirming such views; force-feed students masses of predigested theorems and one-sided data that later gets regurgitated from short-term memory onto multiple-choice quizzes and then buried in their subconscious; and fails to encourage and often suppresses student’s independent observations or thinking and inconvenient questions, expressions of doubt, or debate. The academic group-think or “conventional wisdom”, as well as the forcing and deceptive means by which it is communicated thereafter spread to the public domain by students where it “matures” into “politically correct” thinking. This raises certain questions like, “How can a men in society—much less males in colleges—possibly defend their sex in an atmosphere where disagreeing with and citing evidence contradicting such “received wisdom” about the sexes is condemned as being the product of ignorance or misogyny; is instantly ignored or rejected; and is severely socially chastised? If the only practical answer is something like, “That’s easy! Do what the Feminists have done, become activists.” Is the only way to attain justice and equality in America today through the divisive polarization and anarchy of activism? Considering the way that culture socializes men (i.e. to provide for, protect, and respect women), is that even feasible? WHY NO CIVIL ACTIONS? If StLCC’s and the DOE’s actions were effectively illegal, why weren’t civil actions successfully brought against the College and Agency? During the period in which the Cabinet Request letters were submitted, every legal firm in the St. Louis Metropolitan area that reportedly having “civil rights” expertise (~50) at various published legal referral sources, as well as several that had national notoriety, were contacted by the author. They receive a cover letter and several overview pages describing the case as it was then understood. Only three firms bothered to respond and none indicated interest in taking the case or offered explanations for their decisions. The author admittedly did not fully grasp all of the legal parameters and specific arguments in the case at that time, but counted on attorney’s to have such understandings. A similar exercise was repeated with a dozen or so firms that claimed expertise in “education law” in early 2008. Copies of the DOE’s three denials and the student/author’s 41-page second DOE Appeal were enclosed. Four disinterested firms responded, explanations that they were too busy to take another cases, as well as being unable to do so because they were employed by school districts or colleges and feared losing that business. Several other reasons might explain attorney’s unwillingness to get involved. Further explanations might include the case having no direct precedents, the issues involved are highly multifaceted, and might therefore require testimony from costly “experts”. Such factors measurably increase the time the case would require to prosecute, the groundbreaking research that must to be completed, and the costs and risks of success. The “easy money” in the legal profession comes from well-precedented, run-of-the-mill cases. In addition, the case had to be taken on a contingent-fee basis, which means the firm had a major investment of time and resources, potentially including a costly trial. Finally, the case was certain to be incredibly controversial and meet with substantial resistance at every turn. Even attorney’s wives and female staff’s opinions would play a part in acceptance and prosecution of the case. In addition to the NEA, organizations like the NOW and ACLU are likely to mount a major counter-attack against many of the primary issues raised by the case as well, which measurably increases the difficulties and costs as well. Considerations like these would make other cases far more attractive to tackle. WHAT ABOUT MEDIA COVERAGE? A “Media Release” was widely distributed periodically during 2005 and 2006 to almost any one in that might potentially be interested. First, a PR firm delivered the message to 100,000 targets. Second, the news or city desk of many of the local radio, most of the TV stations, and the area’s only major—very leftwing—newspaper were contacted by mail and telephone. Individuals like Bill O’Reilly, Heraldo Rivera and Rush Limbaugh were contacted as well. No interest resulted from any of these efforts. Why? The only general explanation that seems to make sense is the media, even more than our colleges and the DOE/OCR, is likely permeated with “true-believers” in Feminism and the other activist causes. After all, the media became their greatest supporters by turning each of them into a popular cause. If that observation is legitimate, it would lead them to be even more unable and unwilling to recognize, accept, and act upon the realities pointed-out throughout this case than the College, DOE/OCR, and DOJ. In addition, we also need to attribute causation to the blindness to the reality of inequality in sex/gender that accompanies men’s acculturation to provide for/protect women, which O’Reilly seems to exemplify. Another explanation may be the profit motive. For example: The only books about President Bush being published and selling in any volume now are critical of him and his administration—“What savvy publisher would invest millions in a book praising his work today? Similarly: How many reporters would be receptive and willing to face the social pressures from staff members that would result from objectively reporting the anti-feminist and disconfirming evidence presented in this case? How many media executives would risk the turmoil among their staff; the potential loss in readership by people they had previously convinced of the causes’ righteous; and the other ripple-effects from now broadcasting such information?

Last Updated: 7/19/08