WE BELIEVE IN TRUTH & TRANSPARENCY AT ALL LEVELS OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN LOUISIANA
WE BELIEVE IN TRUTH & TRANSPARENCY AT ALL LEVELS OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN LOUISIANA
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Part of the regulatory process is a requirement for comments to be addressed. Your Comment Matters!
Please list the docket number- Docket (ED-2021-OCR-0166-0001)
First, be extremely clear in the outcome you want. For Example- "please cancel docket...and retain the 2020 rule." or "Please eliminate the expanded definition of sex, as it misinterprets the Supreme Court Case Bostock v Clayton Cty, and is a broad overreach of the regulatory process. This type of expansive regulatory change should be done by the legislature"
If you have experienced or seen the impact of this type of rule, at school, work, or in the community, be sure to tell your story. If you want to include documentation it is extremely helpful.
The Title IX draft regulation expands the definition of "sex" to include "sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity"
By broadening the definition of sexual harassment to include "unwelcome sex-based conduct" that can be evaluated "subjectively and objectively"
By eliminating multiple due process protections for accused students and faculty members, this draft makes a return to the notorious "Kangaroo Courts" on college campuses.
Under the Obama's Administration, many colleges failed to abide by the 14th amendment, which provides for DUE PROCESS FOR ALL. The draft Title IX regulation seeks to remove key due process protections for persons accused of violating campus sexual misconduct policies.
If the legal definition of "sex" is expanded to include gender identity, students can demand that teachers and other students call them by their preferred pronouns. Mandated speech is NOT free speech. In a recent Wisconsin case, a 13-year-old boy refused to use a fellow student's preferred "they" and "them" pronouns, resulting in a Title IX complaint against him.
The new regulation will impose significant burdens on religious institutions finances and time, in order to defend their Constitutionally guarenteed right to a free practice of religion. It creates intentional uncertainty about whether the expanded definition of sex, including gender identity, will be in conflict with the free practice of religion, without litigation. Numerous legal cases confirm this concern. Learn More
On June 30, the District Court of Idaho handed down a decision against the University of Idaho re: 3 Christian law students who objected to Title IX "no contact orders" The Court noted that the university's actions, "were designed to repress specific speech" Learn More
Some Lessons from the Sorry History of Campus Speech Codes by Greg Lukianoff and Talia Barnes Learn More
This showdown didn't start with the TItle IX proposal. In July of 2021 21 State AGs sent a letter outlining the overreach that the Biden Administration was undertaking. Learn More
The Civil Rights Division, of the USDOJ, appears to have led federal agencies, like horses to water. Utilizing a contrary intrepretation of Bostock v Clayton County and the view of Executive Order 13988, as holding broad legislative powers, their memorandum illuminates many of the potential problems. Learn More
This is already happening. OCR isn't waiting. Learn More
A succinct outline of the way OCR has twisted the narrative to make the Supreme Court's decision Clayton v Bostock fit their goals. Learn More
20 state attorney generals are suing, as the guidance infringes on state's rights. Learn More
88 Groups Call on Dept. of Education to Cancel Plans for New Title IX Regulation Learn More
On July 12, 2022, State Superintendent Dr. Cade Brumley sent a letter to the Department of Education. He asked for clarification on the impact of the Title IX draft regulation. Learn More
On July 20, 2022, Twenty-One US Senators sent a letter to Secretary Cardona opposing the draft regulation. Learn More
What does the Federal Department of Education say about the proposal? Learn More
Plaintiffs represented that the alleged injury to their sovereign interests is the most direct injury that confers standing. The Court agrees. Learn More
240-893-9501
P.O. Box 247 Covington, LA 70434
Mon | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Tue | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Wed | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Thu | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Fri | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Sat | Closed | |
Sun | Closed |
Louisiana Save Our Schools SOS
Copyright © 2022 Louisiana Save Our Schools SOS - All Rights Reserved. We are a registered non -profit with the State of Louisiana
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.