DOE 2nd Appeal p1

The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

Second DOE Appeal—Page 1

EmasculationOfAmerica.com

Text Box: Street Address City, State, & Zip Phone & Fax Email Address November 16, 2006 (R) David Black Deputy Asst. Secretary for Enforcement Office of Civil Rights U.S. Dept. of Education 400 Maryland Ave. S.W. Washington D.C. 20202-1100 Ref: Docket # 07052042 Dear Mr. Black: This is a Second Appeal of a claim I filed as a student with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in Kansas City (OCR-KC). The Federal funds “recipient” is St. Louis Community College (the College or StLCC). This appeal asks OCR Enforcement (OCR-E) to: 1. Reverse the prior complaint “closures” or denials to investigate because: (a) OCR-KC used a contrived and legally erroneous form of sex-discrimination that is not formally recognized, established, and developed in OCR published policies and standards as a basis for deny this compliant – “different treatment based on sex.” (b) OCR-KC failed to evaluate the case under the only form of sex-discrimination related to the content of this claim that is recognized and established (but undeveloped) in OCR policies – “gender-harassment… or hostility based on sex-stereotyping.” 1 (c) OCR-KC illegitimately denied a nonsexual complaint because it was not sexual (i.e. not “sexual harassment”), and permeated its other rationale for denial with concepts and language from OCR’s Sexual Harassment Guidances (SHGs); policies that state their content is not intended to be applied to nonsexual or sex-stereotyping claims. 2 (d) OCR-KC failed to recognize and evaded the loss of educational participation and benefits; the affected groups; and the detrimental effects reported to it in this case. (e) OCR-KC withdrew its position that “the materials are not discriminatory” without explanation; “cherry-picked” (i.e. selectively chose) which content and legal issues to address; and reinterpreted or misrepresented essential aspects of this complaint. (f) OCR-KC erroneously determined the claim does not substantiate “disproportionate impacts that result in disparate effects” or “intentional discrimination resulting in disparate treatment” for male-students, the male-sex in general, and females as well. (g) OCR-KC failed respond to extensive legal arguments that its position misconstrues the Federal Court’s precedents related to freedom-of-speech in education; and that it either exceeded OCR’s delegated legal authority by enforcing educator’s First Amendment rights or failed to perform its duty to give greater priority to addressing the reported violations of student’s speech and academic freedoms by educators. (h) OCR-KC did not address StLCC’s failure to implement sex-discrimination grievance procedures in this case, which OCR policies indicate it sees being vitally important. (i) OCR-KC has effectively set itself and its legal staff up as StLCC’s legal advocate and defender; gave educator’s rights priority over those of students; and took the untenable position that public schools and their faculties may systematically and purposefully promulgate male-discriminatory sex-stereotypical data as they see fit. Proposition #1: In many vital respects OCR-KC’s determinations would be like allowing employers and their staffs to adopt policies, post bulletins, publish literature, and teach their employees (and thus the public) that females are less analytical, tough-minded, competitive, achievement-oriented, and committed than males, and therefore far less likely to be competent professionals or managers. At StLCC (and other colleges) similar practices with respect to males are commonplace, are readily observable, and their harmful effects are clearly detectable. Question #1: if I understand the myriad of laws under Title’s VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 correctly, weren’t employers effectively prohibited from such female-discriminatory sex-typecasting decades ago? Proposition #2: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hazelwood (and probably other rulings as well), as well as basic logic suggests that educational institutions and their faculties occupy positions of far greater public trust and responsibility with respect to students than employers and their management relative to their employees; and greater public accountability than certain industries and careers (e.g. journalism and reporters) – perhaps equal to some of the highly regulated “professions” (e.g. CPAs and attorneys). The exercise of educator’s personal liberties in their duties with respect to students would thus be limited and restrained consistent with to the level of their fiduciary obligations to the public. 2. Initiate a full sex/gender-neutral 3 investigation (or compliance review) of systemic male-discrimination based on gender- and/or sex-stereotyping” at StLCC. 3. And – either instead of or after fulfilling the above requests – specifically respond to the Propositions (#1, #2, #3…) and Questions (#1, #2, #3…) presented herein. This format has been chosen and request is made in hopes that by doing so all of my input will actually be considered, and all of the issues I raise will be addressed this time. This appeal follows OCR’s Case Resolution and Investigation Manual instruction, which states, “Requests for reconsideration should be as specific as possible, focusing on factual and legal concerns that could change the disposition of the case.” Unfortunately, the “factual and legal concerns” are extensive because the case itself raises complex and new issues, and much of its content was not considered, has been misinterpreted, or was misevaluated by OCR-KC. Ms. Bennett’s Appeal Denial sought to impose a limitation for this appeal that is probably common in actual judicial proceedings. She states that OCR-E “… will only consider issues or concerns… raised in (the first appeal) and subsequent correspondence…” I have disregarded this restriction, which is apparently not documented in OCR policies, for the following reasons: Question #2: Why should such a constraint be imposed when: (1) the Appeal Denial briefly repeats most of the positions Complaint Denial, thus the topics discussed in the latter would be acceptable in any event; (2) this is not an actual adversarial, criminal, or judicial situation; (3) the complainant was not advised or required to seek legal representation; (4) the limitation is detrimental to the claimant, and beneficial of OCR-KC (the College is not yet affected at all); and (5) this Second Appeal asserts that OCR-KC’s handling of this case has not satisfied the basic standards of legal objectivity or fulfilled OCR’s accountabilities, thus the claimant should not have to comply with such legalistic constraints? The Initial Complaint reported many complex, far-reaching, and as yet unrecognized psychosocial, political, and legal issues. Everything presented was analogous to arguments used to support claims of female-discrimination in employment and culture-wide. But much of the input had no direct legal bearing on the case. Offering such information may have helped make the case difficult to assess. This Second Appeal, like OCR-KC’s “closure” letters, will thus begin with a Background Summary of the case’s key legal-oriented attributes. It will then explain certain concerns that emerged during the evaluation process, and next briefly characterize the applicable laws and OCR policies. It will finally challenge all of OCR-KC’s justifications for denial in considerable depth – all, to the extent possible, primarily from a legal perspective. BACKGROUND Case Legal Abstract: The specific incident of sex-discrimination involves the assignment of male-discriminatory sex-typecasting literature to a single male-student (me), as well as other male-students in a specific course at one school. The College’s curriculum required students of both sexes to learn information contained in 96-pages of a specific textbook in preparation for a class lecture. Studying the subject data had the effect of rendering the student (me) unable to continue to perform academically in two classes. When the instructor was notified verbally of the nature and effects of the data, she took no action to deal with the sex-discrimination in that course or classroom. When the College was notified twice in writing: (1) it refused to respond to the incident [i.e. did not use a grievance procedure]; (2) its counselor rejected the student’s request to audit two courses [i.e. denied limited benefits]; and (3) thus gave no practicable choice but to attend classes and inevitably fail or withdraw [i.e. denied all educational benefits]. The Initial Complaint also reports several additional levels of Discrimination Based on Gender-/Sex-Stereotyping that affects the protected group (i.e. male-students) attending StLCC (and other colleges). It explains that the first level occurs because the College’s faculty adopts curriculums that teach similar data in certain, and many other generally specified courses. This results in the replication of sex-discriminatory events campus-wide, which creates an educational environment that systematically disparages and degrades 4 male-students. A second level occurs when the data the College’s students learn gets conveyed to the community by its graduates in their roles as professionals. The College’s male-students (as well as most other males) therefore also face the same discriminatory sex-typecasting in the public domain. A third level emerges because most other colleges propagate the same data and environments on their campuses and in the communities their graduates serve, which fosters an unrecognized climate of male-discriminatory sex-stereotypical “politically correct” thinking nation-wide that has detrimental psychosocial and legal effects for male students and the male-sex in general. In other words, this form of sex-discrimination involves educators systematically promulgating sex-stereotypical data that discriminates against male students. It also arises from most other college’s implementing the same sort of thematic curricula, which students are required to study and learn from textbooks, other publications, and in lectures. These are not spontaneous, isolated, or unplanned events, or the result of a teacher independently expressing his or her views. Nor do such incidents often occur in a context of fact-based discussion or debate with or among students. These are orchestrated institution-wide campaigns of spoon-feeding bigoted sex-typecast data to students in settings where challenge is most unlikely or impossible (e.g. studied in private); where student’s are impeded, not encouraged, and typically discouraged from raising questions (i.e. in classrooms subject to instructor control and peer pressure); and, most of all, were the force of academia’s and the college’s tacit endorsement stifles disputation. Neither human sexuality nor sexual behaviors are mentioned or even implied anywhere in this complaint. It describes educator’s teaching male-prejudiced and female-biased comparisons of the sexes that are cunningly disguised under a façade of false scientific integrity and fictitious social observations. This data teaches students that the male-sex is (either inherently or acculturated to be) more violent/aggressive, a sexual predator, and wife-beaters; that men are less parental, committed, emotional, generous, and loving – thus fathers are callous family abandoners, “deadbeat dads,” and child abusers; and that males are socially positioned as the economically and politically empowered sex – hence are superior, dominant, and exploitive of the women. On the other hand, students are also taught that the females are the positive mirror image of each of the male-sexes’ negative attributes and traits. Thus the females and women are typically portrayed as the dependent, weaker, inferior, or the passive victims of men, and as predominantly assaulted, raped, abused, exploited, and marginalized by the male-sex. The following excerpts from the referenced textbook only represent the “tip-of-the-iceberg” of the male-discriminatory sex-typecasting being widely taught to students at StLCC and most other colleges. Much of it will be familiar because, as described above, most such data has now become conventional wisdom. The Initial Complaint and this Second Appeal accurately describe its nature in general, but the full breadth and depth of this data can only be evaluated in a thorough gender-neutral campus-wide investigation. Entire “gender-psychology” and “women’s studies” books are filled with far more discriminatory data, which then finds its way piecemeal into the more mainstream psychosocial and other educational texts, like the subject course. To appreciate how male-discriminatory the following truly is requires awareness that, regardless of what popular opinion and most well-educated people may believe, 5 gender-balanced basic research overwhelmingly finds females perpetrate physical violence and sexual assaults with intimates as often and severely as males. The sexes’ equality is reported within the subject text, but it would take a vigilant and skeptical reader with an advanced degree in the social sciences to detect and grasp such facts. 6 Objective analysis of our culture over the last 75-years also finds the “patriarchy” and “male-supremacy” hypotheses to be little more than inflammatory conjecture. 7 To be specific, every assertion below about women could be substituted with equivalent data about the victimization of men, if only our colleges and their faculties required the actual research and sex-balanced data to be uniformly collected and equally taught. …physical abuse… is not limited to husband-and-wife… single, separated, and divorced women are…at greater risk of battering… women form the major target group of severe domestic violence…domestic violence injures more women than automobile accidents, muggings, and rapes… every 15 seconds… a woman is beaten… about 4 million women are abused every year… (our) cultural norms tolerate… and condone family violence… a history of abuse… is (now) a valid… legal defense for battered women who kill their husbands. Clearly a great deal of violence by women is retaliatory or in self-defense… (sustaining the) battering of women is the belief in male supremacy… the result of a long-term sexist paternalistic social order that rewards oppressive behavior in men, but expects women to be submissive… the woman’s position is to obey, conciliate, perform traditional domestic duties… be subservient… conjugal terrorism is used to break the victims resistance and bend her to the will of the terrorist/batterer… (and) brainwashing… isolation, torture, sleep deprivation, malnourishment… bondage… belittling… are all standard (male) procedures… 683,000 women were raped in 1990, and 12.1 million women… at least once in their lives… one in four women will be raped in their lifetime… 250,000… children, most(ly) girls, are sexually molested… each year… the majority of (sexual) assaults are perpetrated on children and females—etc., etc. (Italics added.) Question #3: How would most factually-informed and gender-neutral persons 8 describe the above data? Is it anything more than flagrantly one-sided, male-detrimental, and female-beneficial sex-typecasting? Is it anything more than inflammatory diatribe hidden under the guise of scientific and empirical integrity, designed to provoke the emotions and aggression rather than develop the intellect and a reasoned response? If the above does not constitute male-discriminatory stereotyping based on sex, how might it better be described? The complaint spells-out the effects (not affects) that educators teaching such data have on male-students. But it often does so by referring to the male-sex and men in general. Reasonable and sex-objective persons would know that most such indications also apply to the individual student, other male-students in the subject class, and/or male’s in other courses. The claim also explores why educator’s free-speech does not empower them to teach the subject data, and it explains how educator’s and researcher’s academic freedom would not be affected by prohibiting such practices. Both would still be able to conduct male-discriminatory studies, publish sex-typing data, and archive or read one-sided social speculations as they see fit. They would just no longer be permitted to use their positions, credentials, or college’s status to force-feed such data to inexperienced and vulnerable students, without also giving equal emphasis to the actual sex-balanced scientific facts and “the-other-side-of-the-sex/gender-story.” Finally, the claim discusses how this data also serves no legitimate educational purpose. In sum, this case describes a systemic male-disparaging and -degrading nonsexual form of discrimination based on gender- and/or sex-stereotyping. The data students learn is primarily originated by academia’s “sex/gender specialists.” It is mostly being taught by teachers not fully-informed in these fields and who have accordingly been misled into believing that the innate and socialized distinctions between the sexes proclaimed by the “sex/gender experts” are not only scientific facts, empirical truths, and reality – but socially and morally righteous as well. Question #4: Is OCR-E actually willing to take the position that when: (1) Congress passed The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its derivative or related laws; and (2) the Supreme Court ruled on Tinker, Hazelwood, and related legal precedents, they intended to allow colleges and their faculties to systematically exploit their position power, academic authority, and institution’s status to teach intellectually developing, topically-naïve, and trusting students sex-typecasting data that produces campus-/culture-wide discrimination against the males? Case Processing Anomalies: Certain indicators about the way OCR-KC handled this case need to be considered, as reflected in the following series of exchanges and events: (A) Initial Complaint (IC): The discriminatory incident occurred between 2/17-24/05. Two written grievances were then submitted to College: (1) a one-page complaint was hand-delivered to a counselor on 3/2 when she denied the student’s request to audit classes; and (2) a 13-page claim was mailed to the College on 3/24. The College did not respond to these two grievances, or to two later follow-up letters. An OCR Complaint Questionnaire (CQ) was then emailed on 5/8. A copy of student’s second complaint to StLCC was then sent to OCR-KC on 5/18, but the first claim was not sent until 5/31/05 (B) Follow-Up Data or (PDA): Telecoms occurred on 5/23 and 6/8 with OCR-KC’s liaison, Mr. Moynihan, which basically involved OCR-KC informing the student of its “tentative” and then “final determinations” that this case would be denied for two reasons (in priority order): (1) the content of the cited text – the messages that data conveyed and results it produced – were not inherently sex-discriminatory; and (2) prohibiting educator’s from teaching such data violated their Constitutional rights to free-speech/expression and academic freedom. This led me to ask a lot of questions, and follow-up with more input on these issues in the form of “Pre-Denial-Appeals” (PDAs) on 5/31, 6/10, and 6/13.