The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

EmasculationOfAmerica.com
Text Box: `

Street Address

City, State & Zip

Phone & Fax

Email Address

June 10, 2005

Ref. Case # 07052042

Doug Baker
Text Box: James Moynihan U. S. Dept. of Education Office of Civil Rights—Region VII 8930 Ward Parkway—Ste. 2037 Kansas City, MO 64114—3302 Dear Mr. Moynihan: Thanks for your call of June 8 advising that your staff has decided not to support my claim against St. Louis Community College. What I understood you to say was that your legal counsel sees this “as a First Amendment issue.” Needless to say, I was both shocked and very disappointed—not for myself, but for our society and nation’s future. You indicated the decision was based on the information contained in the complaint I had filed on May 8, my one-page cover letter to you of May 18, and the attached13-page letter to StLCC dated March 24. Neither you nor your staff had read my three-page letter of May 31 or the attached March 2 note to StLCC. Thus you had not considered the First Amendment issues I described from a student’s point of view in my communication of May 31. I am confused by OCR’s decision for several reasons. First, your conclusion seems to imply that you do not see the material in the referenced text book being discriminatory; that such information is not a violation of my or any other male student’s civil rights. I find it impossible to comprehend how anyone armed with the actual objective evidence could possibly read such content and fail to see it as patently discriminatory. I look forward the forthcoming letter explaining exactly why, from OCR’s perspective, such text is not a violation of a male’s civil rights; how you could conclude that flagrantly disregarding the facts of science and cultural truths in such manner is not discriminatory; how that data is not so blatantly prejudiced against males and biased in favor of women as to constitute prima facie discrimination. I found that Feminist true-believers and followers pervade academia. I would expect the situation in an agency like yours to be similar. Considering your staff’s incredible conclusion, I obviously can’t help but be suspicious. Are any of the legal advisors or staff decision-makers involved in reviewing this case committed supporters Feminism? If so, how confident are you that such people can in fact be totally free of all prejudice and bias about the sexes? My experience in higher-education—and from hundred’s of research studies—is that it is virtually impossible for people to sustain scientific objectivity and intellectual detachment in any area in which they hold deep political, psychosocial, or religious convictions; in virtually every case—myself not excepted—it is inevitably erroneous to become convinced otherwise. Second, I was surprised that your office’s charter includes enforcing laws in any domain other than civil rights legislation. Based on the data your staff considered at that time (i.e. pre-5/31 letters), I can only conclude that your decision was based on the assumption that StLCC would take the position that educator’s First Amendment rights would be infringed upon if schools were forced to alter offending content like that referenced in my letter of March 24 from their curricula. Is it truly your offices role to adjudicate and enforce every aspect of Constitutional law in the educational setting? Are you indeed accountable for protecting teachers and/or administrators freedom-of-speech, as well as teacher’s and students’ civil rights? If not, it is impossible for me to understand why the OCR would fail to put a stop to discrimination just because the violator will inevitably claim freedom-of-speech rights as a defense. Has there ever been a civil rights case in which the respondent didn’t try to hide behind the right granted in other laws as an excuse for continuing to discriminate? I remain convinced that I was a student specifically and systemically discriminated against in an educational institution; that the civil rights of every male was similarly being violated. If so, isn’t the OCR primarily accountable—not for defending the free-speech rights of teachers (or schools)—but for vigorously seeking to protect the civil rights of all the various parties in that setting? In any event, does such an assertion by a respondent, in itself, establish a adequate defense for continuing such discrimination? As indicated below, the precedent-setting rulings of the Supreme Court certainly do not support such a contention. And should OCR be adjudicating non-civil rights laws on a defendant’s behalf at all—much less when the case involves navigating in uncharted legal waters? I think not!. Yes, I know. The ACLU and other activists are mudding the waters by using the First Amendment as a threat to invade every other human right imaginable. But Tinker, and especially Hazelwood make it clear, given the opportunity, our Justices would inevitably rule that—while personal freedom-of-speech must be maximized in every situation—teachers and administrators, in their role as professionals and student custodians, are subject to censorship and control by school officials and the state respectively. In other words, accountability for the information taught in America’s classrooms has always resided, not with teachers, but with administrators, who are in turn are accountable to the public will. Despite conventional wisdom among the nation’s intelligentsia to the contrary, the actual Supreme Court precedent-setting case law is not at all supportive of teacher’s having unlimited rights to freedom-of-speech. It is the school, not the instructor, who is finally answerable for what happens in classrooms. And the language in the rulings indicates that educators are held an even higher standard than other comparable professionals and institutions (i.e. the press). I attach “First Amendment Precedents in Education” for your consideration. Finally, I simply cannot believe that, if same flagrant disregard for the facts and truths and discrimination was focused on Blacks or women your agency would fail to help such complainants pursue their grievances. Even if you are absolutely convinced you would not act initially, public relations pressure would certainly force OCR’s hand; you would have to support such group’s similar claims for political reasons. Thus, if you do not act now—basically due to men having no activist organization to enforce their rights—aren’t you failing in your duty to enforce the spirit/intent of our civil rights laws, and discriminating against men yourselves? For the OCR to assert that no violation of civil rights exists is unfathomable. I request that you first evaluate the evidence presented to you solely on the basis of civil rights laws— disregarding the ramifications with respect to any other remote legislation. If you do that, I believe you can only arrive at the conclusion that StLCC (and other colleges) is violating my and every other male student’s civil rights. I then request that OCR fulfill its accountability by putting a stop to all similar forms of discrimination at StLCC, and thus set a new precedent. If free-speech issues are involved at all, it is the student’s rights, not instructor’s that will continue to be invaded until the discrimination stops. And if your administrative charter in fact embraces the First Amendment, would not protecting such rights for students “trump” those of teachers? Should the Dept. of Education’s Office of Civil Rights be using an unspecific, speculative interpretation of non-civil rights laws—particularly one contradicting the impetus of the primary legal precedents—as a reason for not proceeding? Isn’t doing so, not only a violation of my civil rights, but an invasion of my rights under section #1 of 14th Amendment as well? I look forward to receiving your formal reply in the near future. Sincerely, Doug Baker Enclosure (3 pages) Text Box: `

Doug Baker

Street Address

City, State & Zip

Phone & Fax

Email Address

June 13, 2005

Ref. Case # 07052042
Text Box: James Moynihan U. S. Dept. of Education Office of Civil Rights—Region VII 8930 Ward Parkway—Ste. 2037 Kansas City, MO 64114—3302 Dear Mr. Moynihan: ADDENDUM TO JUNE 10 LETTER Under American civil rights laws, listing jobs in the Want Ads under separate Male and Female headings is considered discriminatory and thus a violation of the civil rights of females. How then could degrading and defaming males with lies and distortions; stereotyping men and fathers as violent brutes and rapists; and fallaciously portraying females as more refined and superior than males in college texts and classroom discussions be anything but horrendous by comparison? Aren’t such demeaning acts a vastly more devastating invasion of civil rights than the oblique effects of advertising headings? If contradictions exist within or between portions of our civil rights laws that actually end up authorizing such gross unequal treatment, wouldn’t those sections, in themselves, be discriminatory? Wouldn’t any such authorization be invalid because it results in denying males their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law? I am confident that, if the OCR concludes that—regardless of “letter-of-the-law” in any specific area—this complaint is within the spirit/intent underlying the DOE’s broader civil rights mission; and then decides it must find a way to vigorously enforce those broader principles; a legal and viable means of implementation will be found—up to and including civil action by the Attorney General’s office. I have submitted many specific issues and considerable concrete evidence for your consideration. I have also described how teaching sex-imbalanced data in classrooms has affected gender and family relations in America. But there are other, even more serious results of the prejudice against males and bias in favor of females; some of which even involve life and death issues. The following are several additional problems to which discrimination in research and coursework in our colleges and universities has made a primary contribution: Men’s average life expectancy has declined five to six years compared to women’s since the 1800’s. Thus, during the 20th century, about 75 million men died 135 billion days prematurely. * Where is the massive research to avoid this needless waste of American men’s lives? Meanwhile, prostrate cancer is about as deadly for men, yet our energy is disproportionately invested in breast cancer in women. Males suffer about 20% more severe psychological illnesses. Yet we now have a new specialty focused solely on female emotional problems, but none for men’s. Virtually unnoticed and unattended to, males are the victims of 100% more overall violence than females. And while the women perpetrate at least equal physical, psychological, and sexual aggression against men and boys, our efforts are overwhelmingly focused on preventing and dealing with male abuses against females. Single women—who have unilateral rights—choose to give birth and rear 1.3 million fatherless children, and also abort about one million potential lives each year for birth control reasons. The natural father—who is an equal creator and financially responsible—is not equally protected under our laws. He does not participate equally in such decisions; does not have the right to be a single parent for his child if unwanted by the mother; cannot choose adoption over abortion. Men are now typically portrayed in the most insulting and denigrating manner in the media, especially in advertising. For example, men are often shown as self-absorbed airheads or as dawdlers in childish male pastimes; and fathers as uncaring or insensitive with their loved ones or as wimpy and irresponsible laggards. The theme or plot of programs also commonly reinforces the Feminist view of gender realities rather than the sex-balanced facts of science and objective cultural truths. In addition to the destructive trends in gender-relations, family life, and childrearing described in my letter to StLCC of March 24, social realities like the above originate, are being reinforced, or are failing to be addressed in higher education today. Discrimination becomes a paramount concern when its results include the shortening or loss of people’s lives, doesn’t it? Isn’t it in the best interests of both the Department of Education and the public to begin working to resolve problems like these in our schools; to start promoting equality and balance between the sexes Vs. separatism and gender-divisiveness? Yes, I know! The issues I am raising are a sociopolitical “hot-potato.” But by failing to support this claim, won’t the DOE/OCR face greater public relations difficulties on the long- term? Be assured that I am willing to take the brunt of the enmity that will likely arise from surfacing these issues. Equally, with or without your help, I intend to do whatever I can to have these problems brought to the attention of decision-makers and the public. But those efforts will be easier with, rather than without your support at this juncture. Your aid now will avoid delays and wasted effort making appeals to other government authorities; as well as avoid financial liabilities for St. Louis Community College and other schools complying with the precedent. My complaint has nothing to do with “sour-grapes” on behalf of men. In the final analysis, the mainstream of American men and women are equally accountable for what has happened in our schools and culture since the 1960’s. I pursue these goals because it is the right thing to do for all concerned, not out of desire for personal benefit. Isn’t it time to start fixing all of the polarization and political imbalances; time to begin work—not for women’s or men’s best interests—but for those of our children; time to re-infuse the freedom-to-think; and time to pursue the majority’s will, not that of a group of activists housed in American higher education? In closing, I can only encourage the DOE/OCR to give first priority to the principles underlying America’s civil rights legislation; to the overall mission of enforcing equality among all groups rather than enforcing the details of any particular subpart or phrase in our laws; to analyze the complex matrix of issues involved in this submission and find a way to avoid being rule-bound, and do what’s truly right for our students, schools, and thus the nation as a whole. Regardless of how things work out, I would like to thank you and your agency’s entire staff for their time, attention, and courtesy. I look forward to receiving OCR’s reply and comments at everyone’s convenience. I sincerely hope you find a way to support my position. Sincerely, Doug Baker