Lhamon’s Whiplash

As expected, the 50th Anniversary of Title IX wasn’t merely a day to remember when women got to play sports and men’s teams were eliminated because there weren’t enough women interested to align the numbers. It was the day Joe Biden’s renominated head of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights would have her last hurrah. As expected, Catherine Lhamon introduced her new rules designed to undo the regulations instituted by Betsy DeVos to provide minimal due process to the nightmare of campus sex inquisitions.

You see, Lhamon has dedicated her public service to the nightmare of campus sex inquisitions.

When Lhamon was able to impose her idiosyncratic view of how to protect women by destroying accused men when she served in the Obama administration, it was easily done with a letter and Q&A that passed no muster except the one inside her head. She was the law, as she informed a senator, and she could ram what she wanted down the throats of every school in America. And she did. Stop her, Senate. It didn’t.

But federal courts did, as expelled students brought suit and court upon court, even the ones who bought into the campus argument that it wasn’t “sex” discrimination since it wasn’t the colleges’ fault that men always seemed to be the rapist, ruled in their favor. Schools just favored “survivors” over rapists, not women over men. Lhamon smiled, as the courts simultaneously found that her rules “railroaded” innocent boys at the mere accusation, the almost laughable lies of some accusers.

And after a bit, courts came to realize that they had been scammed by colleges, putting forth the scheme to which Lhamon dedicated her life and career. Piece by piece, they tore down her scheme as an unconstitutional denial of due process, from the denial of real notice of charges, the ability to actually know the evidence against the accused, a live hearing to both defend and present the case, competent representation, and, of course, cross-examination. So Lhamon’s new rules rids colleges of this meddlesome due process.

It’s unclear exactly what the ultimate rules will be, after the vast array of women allies submitting insipid arguments about their safety and how they desperately need a savior like Lhamon to protect them from mean, evil men who don’t expect them to change their mind a year or two after sex when they break up and guy finds a new girlfriend, and the old one, the “survivor,” feels scorned, What is abundantly clear is that they will undo the minimal protections afforded under the DeVos regs and ignore the law with abandon.

Still, the proposal “has flaws that sets it up on a collision course with the courts,” said Joe Cohn, the legislative and policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan civil liberties group.

Mr. Cohn said that the administration’s backtracking on live hearings and cross-examinations, as well as its deviation from the Supreme Court definition of sexual harassment used by Ms. DeVos, ignore free speech and due process rulings that have already found such measures essential to Title IX case deliberations. The rule also reinstates a “single investigator” model that courts have found problematic, he said, under which one person acts as judge and jury.

“This rule acts as if that body of case law does not exist,” Mr. Cohn said. “They need to make significant revisions if they want the regulation to survive.”

Robby Soave runs through some of the major objections, which go beyond the deliberate deprivation of basic due process to include the flagrant infringement of free speech as well.

Cardona would define unwelcome conduct harassment as “conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, that, based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively, denies or limits a person’s ability to participate” in their education. This would open the door to Title IX investigations of speech that is sexual in nature and subjectively offensive to another person, without it needing to be severe and pervasive. The free speech implications are significant; legitimate classroom speech that was subjectively offensive and occurred repeatedly could now become a matter for the campus Title IX cop.

Beyond this, the new rules would affirmatively require the use of students’ preferred pronouns upon pain of sexual harassment by explicitly expanding the authority of Title IX to cover gender orientation as part of sex.

“It is the Department of Education’s responsibility to ensure all our students can learn, grow and thrive in school no matter where they live, who they are, whom they love, or how they identify,” Education Secretary Miguel A. Cardona told reporters on Thursday morning.

Over the past decade, bureaucrats have seized the opportunity to “reinvent” the social dynamic between boys and girls on campus by turning women into “survivors” and any accusation into their irrefutable “truth,” no matter what. While the new regs under DeVos were imperfect, they at least provided some opportunity for the accused to defend himself. Neither Biden (ironically), Cardona nor Lhamon can tolerate the accused being afforded the opportunity to challenge the accusation and perhaps prevent the ruin of his life and future.

Others can be less hyperbolic about this, can parse the details as I will eventually do once the rules are finalized, calmly explaining why the denial of due process, free speech and subjugation of a significant portion of society to the radical whims of Catherine Lhamon is improper. What’s so wrong about due process? The accused might not be found responsible and expelled because he’s innocent. That outcome is unacceptable. If he’s accused, he’s guilty and her word is sacred and unchallengeable. That’s all this is about. That’s all this ever was about.

11 thoughts on “Lhamon’s Whiplash

  1. B. McLeod

    She has only a few years to destroy the lives of as many toxic males as possible, as this opportunity likely goes when Biden goes. Basically, every career player in the Big Tent got their own fiefdom, and this is the one awarded to Lhamon.

  2. Pedantic Grammar Police

    I think you are misinterpreting Lhamon’s intentions. I don’t believe that she hates men. This is an opportunity to impose arbitrary rules that are obviously unfair, enforced by people who are unaccountable, and to be applauded for it by approximately half of the population. The goal is not to destroy men. The goal is to implement and normalize tyranny.

  3. orthodoc

    When Ms. Lhamon was approved by the Senate in a 50.Harris to 50 vote, I was mad at SineManchin for not rescuing us, and I was mad at the DIVA (the Deceitful Ignoramus who is Vulgar and Amoral) whose petulance gave us the gift of Warnock and Ossoff in Georgia, but ultimately the person to be mad it is President Biden. So you are absolutely correct to list the blame in that order: Biden, Cardona and only then, Lhamon. The radical whims of Catherine Lhamon are official Biden Administration policy, and that gives me more motivation, not that I needed it, to vote for a course correction this fall.

  4. Derek Wilson

    Will those who voted Biden because they can’t stand Trump, and who simultaneously decry these proposed regulations now step up and publicly comment to reject them, denounce them publicly to friends and acquaintances, and contribute generously to FIRE, FACE, and other accused students’ advocacy, or will they say “tisk, tisk, sucks to be you”?

  5. Mark Schirmer

    Lhamons is a perfect example of modern “progressivism.” Instead of seeking to expand freedom and ensure individual rights, she seeks to curtail individual rights to achieve a public good. Progressives used to believe in freedom of speech, due process, nondiscrimination and greater economic equality. Now, they believe in curtailing “bad” speech, undermining due process where the process doesn’t get the results they want, treating people as if race is the key to everyone, and economic equity — when that doesn’t undermine the push for whatever the flavor of the day is — then its support big tech, big everything, to let them help push their favorite cause.

    Before he died, my dad wondered what had become of the left and Democrats who respected the dignity of everyone and supported the middle and working class. Why, he wondered, do so many “liberals” appear to hate many of the things that make middle class life worthwhile: supporting self determination, fairness in the law (and he didn’t mean fairness as a thumb on the side of one group), religion, family, pride in one’s country. He would ask: why is treating my granddaughter if she has no agency and solely as a victim treating her with respect and human dignity. Why must she be viewed and treated differently than my grandson? Sorry Dad, I got nothing for you here…

    1. LY

      I don’t see any “public good” in what she’s doing, if there was any good it would at least be an arguable mitigation for the overwhelming public bad in all the progressive policies.

  6. AJD

    > Progressives used to believe in …

    No, they really didn’t. Liberals did. For a while they have been aligned on many issues, but they’re not the same groups, and a lot of people who aren’t liberals self-describe as if they were.

Comments are closed.