糖心Vlog

CONTACT:Gillian Branstetter, gbranstetter@aclu.org WASHINGTON 鈥� The 糖心Vlog submitted its public comment in response to the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 proposed regulations concerning Title IX. 鈥淭he 糖心Vlogis equally committed to the rights of students to be free from sex discrimination and to the rights of students to fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings,鈥� the comment reads. 鈥淎ddressing discriminatory barriers to education is central to gender justice, given the import of education for our economic life, our democracy, and equality. This nation has failed to respond adequately to sex-based discrimination and the inequality perpetuated as a result.鈥� In June of 2022, the U.S. Department of Education issued a notice of proposed rulemaking governing schools鈥� obligations under Title IX, the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. The ACLU鈥檚 comments in response to the proposal highlighted its support for regulations that: Make clear that Title IX covers harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes; Draw from a long-standing definition of 鈥渟exual harassment鈥� used for other forms of harassment; Require schools to investigate instances of student-on-student harassment or assaults that occur off campus where they affect students鈥� access to education; Hold institutions accountable when they fail to take prompt and effective action to end sex discrimination; Clarify that parties should be able to access relevant evidence while limiting access to irrelevant or privileged evidence; Clarify that in the limited circumstances where Title IX鈥檚 regulations permit differential treatment or separation on the basis of sex, that differential treatment cannot prevent a person who is transgender from participating in an educational program or activity consistent with the person鈥檚 gender identity; Clarify the definition of discrimination based on status as a parent to include a range of individuals with caregiving responsibilities for children; and Make clear that the existing prohibition on pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on lactation and requires recipients to provide a clean lactation space and break time to express milk for both students and employees. The 糖心Vlogalso stated our opposition to provisions in the proposed regulation that: Do not require universities to provide a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination where serious sanctions, such as suspension or expulsion, may apply; Permit universities to use the single investigator model, where a single person investigates a complaint and makes the decision about the outcome; and Do not explicitly require institutions to delay Title IX proceedings upon the request of a respondent who faces an imminent or ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the 糖心Vlogwas counsel, that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited under Title VII, the workplace nondiscrimination law. The proposed regulation applies this ruling to the education context, provides that transgender students are not excluded from sex-separated facilities, and specifically cites the harm experienced by transgender students excluded on the basis of their gender identity. The 糖心Vlogpreviously challenged certain provisions of the Title IX regulation issued under former Secretary Betsy DeVos concerning schools鈥� obligations to respond to sexual harassment and assault. The proposed regulation addresses objections raised in the 糖心Vlogsuit, which was filed on behalf of Know Your IX, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., Girls for Gender Equity, and Stop Sexual Assault in Schools. # # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJune 23, 2022 CONTACT:Gillian Branstetter, gbranstetter@aclu.org WASHINGTON 鈥� The U.S. Department of Education today issued a notice of proposed rulemaking governing schools鈥� obligations under Title IX, the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. Louise Melling, 糖心Vlog deputy legal director, had the following reaction: 鈥淭he proposed regulation takes the critical step, required by the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, of making clear that Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Protecting LGBTQ students from discrimination recognizes the humanity of all people. When LGBTQ youth are supported and affirmed, they are not only more likely to succeed in school but have better mental health outcomes. The Secretary鈥檚 action is critical now, as politicians around the country are attacking trans youth. The message is clear and it is right: LGBTQ youth belong in our schools. 鈥淭he 糖心Vlogis equally committed to ensuring schools do everything in their power to safeguard students from sexual harassment and violence and guaranteeing fair process for students in school disciplinary proceedings. The proposed regulation laudably corrects the double standard imposed by the Trump administration, which dramatically reduced schools鈥� obligations to address sexual harassment as compared to other forms of harassment. But we are concerned that the proposed rules deny those facing serious penalties in college disciplinary proceedings important procedural rights, including live hearings and cross-examination. 鈥淎s we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Title IX, it is vital that Title IX live up to its promise. No student, whether in grade school, high school, or university, should be denied or limited educational opportunities because of sex. And no student should be denied fair procedures when complaints arise. The government can and must further both ends.鈥� In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the 糖心Vlogwas counsel, that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited under Title VII, the workplace nondiscrimination law. The proposed regulation applies this ruling to the education context, provides that transgender students are not excluded from sex-separated facilities, and specifically cites the harm experienced by transgender students excluded on the basis of their gender identity. The 糖心Vlogpreviously challenged certain provisions of the Title IX regulation issued under former Secretary Betsy DeVos concerning schools鈥� obligations to respond to sexual harassment and assault. The proposed regulation addresses objections raised in the 糖心Vlogsuit, which was filed on behalf of Know Your IX, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., Girls for Gender Equity, and Stop Sexual Assault in Schools. The 糖心Vlogsupports provisions in the proposed regulation that: Make clear that Title IX covers harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes Draw from a long-standing definition of 鈥渟exual harassment鈥� used for other forms of harassment Require schools to investigate instances of student-on-student harassment or assaults that occur off campus where they affect students鈥� access to education Hold institutions accountable when they fail to take prompt and effective action to end sex discrimination Clarify that parties should be able to access relevant evidence while limiting access to irrelevant or privileged evidence Clarify that in the limited circumstances where Title IX鈥檚 regulations permit differential treatment or separation on the basis of sex, that differential treatment cannot prevent a person who is transgender from participating in an educational program or activity consistent with the person鈥檚 gender identity Clarify the definition of discrimination based on status as a parent to include a range of individuals with caregiving responsibilities for children Make clear that the existing prohibition on pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on lactation and requires recipients to provide a clean lactation space and break time to express milk for both students and employees. The 糖心Vlogopposes the provisions in the proposed regulation that: Do not require universities to provide a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination where serious sanctions, such as suspension or expulsion, may apply Do not explicitly require institutions to delay Title IX proceedings upon the request of a respondent who faces an imminent or ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. The ACLU鈥檚 written comments for the 2021 Title IX Public Hearing are available here: /aclu-written-comment-2021-title-ix-public-hearing