The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

DOE Secretary’s Final Appeal

EmasculationOfAmerica.com
Text Box: Margaret Spellings Secretary of Education U. S. Department of Education (DOE) 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Reference: OCR Docket # 07052042 The Case Against the Systematic Teaching of Male-Discriminatory Sex-Stereotyping Confidential Dear Ms. Spellings: Thank you for expediting the third denial of the above. However, the educational statistics and cultural facts I sent you resulted in even more blatantly sex-discriminatory evaluation of my complaints against St. Louis Community College and the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights by Mr. Black. Mr. Black’s missive simply: (1) perpetuates Ms. Bennett’s misrepresentation, “cherry-picking,” and evasions of the case’s content and legal issues; (2) defends and expands upon her legal distortions, fabrications, and unresponsive case law citations; and (3) augments her subtle mocking style with overt hostility and mendacity. Both denials are designed to lead third-parties unfamiliar with the details of the case and the law to believe their positions are based on the facts and sound legal principles. The following are examples of Mr. Black’s false and misleading statements: Page 1: “OCR noted that you had not alleged that you had been denied any benefit or service … provided to others...” This assertion is nothing but evasive nonsense. Neither Ms. Bennett nor Mr. Black has ever explained how the following fails to constitute a denial of benefits by the College: 1st Appeal: “… as a result of college’s actions, ‘I was no longer able to remain focused and adequately motivated,’ and… the school’s rules prohibited me from auditing the course. Thus my only remaining choices were to either withdraw or inevitably fail the class. 2nd Appeal: “When the instructor was notified verbally... 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 (verbal) 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... benefits].” 1st Appeal: “OCR’s position is analogous to telling a women subjected to sexual aggression by men in the workplace that her claims of harassment cannot be supported because the employer gave her the opportunity to: (1) verbally confront the offenders, (2) file a formal complaint about the treatment... and, when these options failed, (3) quit her job if she was still dissatisfied...” that the employer allowed sex-discrimination to continue. Page 2: “You stated that… OCR had the authority to alter legal standards articulated in its policy guidance… to include ‘sex-stereotyping,’ and that the office should do so.” This is an outright lie. I did not ask the OCR to alter its policies. I asked it to evaluate this case based on a form of discrimination already “articulated” in its published policies—”sex-stereotyping.” Mr. Black is also evading my argument that the OCR wrongfully denied this complaint because it failed to satisfy any of the standards in its Sexual Harassment Guidelines (SHGs). This case does not involve sexuality or sexual aggression, and OCR’s SHGs state that such cases cannot be adjudicated under their parameters, as follows: Section II of SHG 2001: “Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature… (and) can include sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, and physical conduct…” “It is important to recognize that… (SH) does not extend to… nonsexual conduct.” Section III: “Though beyond the scope of this guidance, gender-based harassment, which may include acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping, but not involving conduct of a sexual nature, is also a form of sex-discrimination to which a school must respond…” Hence, with the exception of “educator’s free-speech,” most of Ms. Bennett’s, and thus Mr. Black’s rationale for denying this complaint are not applicable and invalid because the principles and wording they have applied originates from the OCR’s SHGs. I also argued—and got no response—that those policies are, in themselves, inherently male-discriminatory (see 2nd appeal). “You disagreed that the First Amendment protects teacher’s choice of course content and appeared to imply that the College’s choice of course curriculum was part of a discriminatory policy toward males.” (p. 2) I disagreed with no such thing, and these practices do constitute a discriminatory policy toward the male-sex. My appeal states that teacher’s self-initiated choice of educational materials, as well as their collective “academic” freedom to exchange sociopolitical opinions and ideas among themselves is undoubtedly protected free-speech. But this complaint also describes how teaching such information involves the overt and covert manipulation, force-feeding, and suppression of student’s freedom to speak, study, and think for themselves. Thus this case challenges the 1st Amendment empowering the College and faculty leadership’s (not individual teacher’s) right to select male-discriminatory sex-stereotyping materials disguised as scientific and observational facts, and direct instructors to systematically teach and effectively indoctrinate naïve and trusting students with such data. (D. Horowitz’s Weekly Standard article (11/12/07) attached FYI.) The OCR has offered no legal principles or Federal case law that comes close to applying to this situation. For example, the only case OCR’s SHG’s cite to support teacher’s free-speech is Tinker—which Mr. Black himself decries in his denial. He also discusses other cases involving student’s—not teacher’s free-speech—but offers no legal standards or specific precedents supporting the school’s or faculty’s rights to partake in any of the activities involved in this case. In addition, OCR rejected several of my legal arguments because it claimed to only have the authority to enforce Title IX and 34CFR 106 in sex-discrimination cases, and it cites no Executive Orders affecting such cases. This statute and regulation only authorize OCR to protect student’s from sex-discrimination and limits the rights of educational institutions and educators in that domain. They do not delegate the OCR the power of to protect other student’s civil rights or educator’s rights in any legal area. And if the OCR is assuming it can protect of educator’s free-speech under the theory that all officials and attorneys swear to honor the Constitution, it must, if not give first priority to, at least also evaluate violations of student’s academic freedom by the College and faculty. Thus what my appeals challenge is the OCR’s authority to protect educator civil rights at all, as well as give such rights priority over those of students—much less under the First Amendment. Mr. Black’s denial fails to respond to these legal positions. “Your 42-page appeal provides no new information, but takes issue with OCR’s legal standards concerning sex discrimination on the basis of policy considerations.” (p. #2) Ms. Spellings, the first allegation is simply incredible at face-value. How could anyone possibly prepare such a lengthy appeal and fail provide any new input? Secondly, my second appeal in fact well-researched, and offers : (1) offers five major legal arguments [A-E], each of which is primarily supported by new information; and (2) presents dozens of sub-arguments [1, 2, 3…]; and (3) includes 45 not previously submitted factual, policy-based, and legal “Propositions,” plus 29 specific “Questions” at the regulatory, legislative, and Constitutional level. As illustrated elsewhere herein, Mr. Black refused to respond to almost all of these basically new inputs, and the few he did chose to address are accomplished with erroneous and unresponsive legalistics. “The gist of your appeal is not that you were treated differently…” (p. #2) This is perhaps the position that most clearly reveals the OCR’s male-discriminatory mindset. It is simply untenable to assert that this case is not about me and other male-students being treated differently. Mr. Black and Ms. Bennett are apparently so blinded by or intent upon covering up the Agency’s female-biased policies (see appeal for details) and 30-40 years history of grossly one-sided interpretations of the law that they fail to see that this entire complaint is about male-students being treated differently than females. I describe such “different treatment” in dozens of ways throughout the complaint’s documentation, but for now please consider the following except from my second appeal. If this is not treating the sexes differently, what is? 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. [See pages 4-5 for actual excerpt.] How can the above rationally be seen as not treating the sexes differently? Females are not being taught they are spouse abusers, sexual predators, etc. and then regarded as such. While it may not matter from legally, and contrary to Mr. Black’s fallacious footnote (p. 7), that I “did not supply evidence supporting your claim of scientific inaccuracy”—my complaint to the College (3/24/05) and later submissions provide ample proof that significant fundamental differences (>4%) between the sexes—e.g. intelligence, aggression, dominance, emotionality, cultural power, etc.—are not supported by the preponderance of dual-gender research and objective observations of modern society. The complaint also describes how the subject textbook itself contained data proving the sexes are in fact equally violent and sexual aggressive, but such information was either shrewdly buried in the text, causally mentioned “in-passing,” or camouflaged in such a way that only a most vigilant reader knowledgeable gender-psychology could detect it. Since it seems self-evident that males are being described one way and females another by the subject teaching “materials,” my 2nd appeal only took legal issue with Ms. Bennett’s incredible position that “Different Treatment” (DT) is: (1) an adequately established; and (2) the only legally legal alternative to “Sexual Harassment” (SH). DT is not identified in 34 CFR 106; no published DT Guidance exists; it is not “articulated” as a form of discrimination in OCR’s SHGs; and no policy-like discussion of DT exist in OCR’s archives. In sum, DT is similarly not an appropriately established or documented form of sex-discrimination, and not the only option to SH because “Sex-Stereotyping” is in fact so “articulated” (see p. 2 above). In sum, “Sex-Stereotyping” is obviously a legitimate form of sex-discrimination, while DT is not, but Mr. Black, without any explanation or justification refused to address these legal and major policy-level propositions. I believe an objective and generally well-educated person who reads this complaint will believe the OCR is discriminating against males in the processing of this case and administration of 34 CFR 106 for the last 30-40 years. They may also realize that OCR’s legal and management staff—who have been trained to know better and pledged not to do so—have participated in, if not proactively advocated such practices. It may be equally obvious that OCR’s rulings are unconsciously, if not consciously designed to assure that this case to “never see the light of day.” But as a layman, I will never be able to “out-lawyer lawyers” determined to continue and/or cover-up prior male-discriminatory practices, thus I will waste no more of your or my time “trying to reason with the unreasonable” from a legal perspective. There is only one way for the DOE to determine the validity of my claims of male-discrimination of against the OCR and College. One, or hopefully more, gender-neutral and legally competent professionals, but not necessarily discrimination specialists, who do not have a vested interest in protecting themselves or the agency from the consequences of prior sex-discrimination need to evaluate at least my 2nd appeal and make such a determination. Such reviewers should be skeptically predisposed toward at least some of the major discriminatory claims because “true-believers” are unlikely be able to accept the “politically incorrect” gender-neutral scientific facts and cultural realities underlying the case. A typo corrected copy of my 2nd appeal and both OCR appeal denials is enclosed for your convenience. Most earlier documentation can be found at www.TheEmasculationOfAmerica.com. If this request is denied, I ask the DOE to respond my appeal’s major arguments and valid propositions/questions. Ms. Spellings, the first half of DOE’s mission is “to ensure equal access to education…” America’s mothers (and fathers) do not want their son’s to have less of an opportunity for a higher education and rewarding careers than their daughters. But the DOE’s own data I sent you proves that significantly more females complete high school and substantially more have “access” to college. In fact, only 42.7% of college students are males today, compared to 45.4% in the 1960’s when the “discrimination-against-women” was purportedly at its peak. Nor do America’s parents want their son’s to die 6-years prematurely, have 20% more mental illnesses, or have unequal parental and marital rights because our colleges systematically indoctrinate students with denigrating and divisive sex-stereotypical information; only teach women’s health; and discriminate against the male-sex in research funding. I submit that this case offers you and the current Administration the opportunity to take the first vital step toward eliminating the male-discrimination that now permeates our education system—and culture. All you need to do is see to it that this case is adjudicated objectively based on its actual legal merits. It will thereafter establish a precedent that the OCR and other colleges will have to follow thereafter. You may personally disagree with, and even openly condemn the broader sociopolitical positions expressed by me in this complaint. But I submit that taking this step is not only an opportunity, but your duty to President Bush, Congress, the public, and under Title IX, 34 CFR 106, and the Constitution as well. The second half of the DOE’s mission is “… to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.” I suggest that one of the key reasons our schools are failing to educate the majority of students in a globally competitive manner is our educational energies have increasingly been diverted from pursuing such ends by activist causes and special interest needs during the 20th century. For example, attention was first diverted by what became the totally improper anti-religion/spirituality movement—erroneous because censorship violates the most basic tenet of education; it effectively eradicated the study and open discussion of philosophy; and violates the majority’s free-speech. Further evolution became little more than another “creation hypothesis” once science accepted the “Big Bang.” Then came the legitimate racial equality cause, followed by the basically imaginary “need” for “women’s liberation”— both of which overwhelming inculcated by family life and the overall culture, rather than our schools, and are only minimally alterable by education—at best. Whether worthy or not, such diversions have contributed greatly to America failing to provide a first class education for the majority of students. Thus this case also offers an unparalleled opportunity to make an indelible positive mark on educational history, with a minimum of adverse personal consequences by simply having this case adjudicated objectively. Finally, I believe Ms. Bennett, and now Mr. Black as well, have discriminated based on sex in their handling and written denials of this case. I also believe Ms. Bennett violated the FOIA by failing to respond to such requests in a timely manner. If the DOE should refuse to reevaluate or decide my complaint against the College is not enforceable, I would like to know the disposition of these allegations. Your help would certainly be instrumental, but my actions to date indicate that I will not just “give up and go away.” I want this case to be adjudicated without reverting to civil action and public appeals unless forced to do so. I look forward to hearing from the DOE with respect to these matters soon. If your office has questions or requires further information please contact me at your earliest convenience. This letter will remain confidential if I feel this case is reevaluated legitimately, even if it is again denied. Sincerely, Doug Baker Enclosures: 2nd Appeal & 1st/2nd Appeal Denials

`

Street Address

City, State & Zip

Phone & Fax

Email Address

November 11, 2007 (R)

Doug Baker

SEEKING

UNCOMMON TRUTH...