Tag: enforce

  • After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    FRESNO, Feb. 10, 2025 — After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression challenged regulations mandating the evaluation of professors based on their commitment to “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA), the California Community Colleges system and a community college district attested in court that the regulations do not require community college professors to teach and endorse the state’s pro-DEIA views in the classroom.

    In March 2023, the California Community College system amended its tenure and employee review guidelines to “include diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility standards in the evaluation and tenure review of district employees.” The new regulations stated that faculty members “shall employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” and mandated they “promote and incorporate culturally affirming DEIA and anti-racist principles.”

    That August, FIRE filed suit against California Community Colleges and the State Center Community College District on behalf of six Fresno-area community college professors who oppose the highly politicized concepts of “DEIA” (more often called “DEI”) and “anti-racism” and thus did not want to incorporate them into their teaching.

    Forced to defend the regulations in court, the state chancellor and district quickly disclaimed any intention to use the state guidelines or the district’s faculty contract to police what professors teach in the classroom or to punish them for their criticism of DEI. 

    Specifically, the Chancellor’s Office “disavowed any intent or ability to take any action against Plaintiffs” for their classroom teaching. The district likewise confirmed that none of the plaintiffs’ “proposed future actions” for their courses violate the rules or the faculty contract. It added that plaintiffs are not “prohibited from presenting” their “viewpoints or perspectives in the classrooms” and will not “be disciplined, terminated, or otherwise punished for doing so.” 

    In particular, the Defendants denied they would punish Plaintiffs for any of their proposed speech, including “assigning certain literary works, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letters from Birmingham Jail,” using “methodologies and course materials in their classroom” intended to encourage debate and discussion about the merits of DEI viewpoints, criticizing concepts like “anti-racism,” or supporting a color-blind approach to race in their self-evaluations. 

    On Jan. 28, U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff relied on those assurances to hold as a legal matter that because of the college officials’ disavowals, the professors had not suffered a harm sufficient to challenge the regulations’ constitutionality. In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Sherriff emphasized that neither the DEI Rules nor the faculty contract “mandate what professors teach or how any DEIA principles should be implemented.”

    “FIRE filed suit to prevent California’s community colleges from evaluating our faculty clients on the basis of their classroom commitment to a political ideology, and that’s exactly the result we’ve achieved,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “As a result of our suit, the state and the district promised a federal judge they won’t interfere with our clients’ academic freedom and free speech rights. The classroom is for discussion and exploration, not a top-down mandate about what ideas must take priority. We’ll make sure it stays that way.”

    “FIRE will be watching like a hawk to ensure that the state chancellor and district live up to their word,” said FIRE attorney Zach Silver. “If they force any professors to parrot the state’s DEI views, or punish them for criticizing the state’s position, we’ll be ready to stand up for their rights.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PLAINTIFFS FOR MEDIA USE

    Despite unobjectionable-sounding labels, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “anti-racism” frameworks often encompass political topics and ideology that are contested and controversial. The glossary of DEI terms put out by California Community Colleges, for example, stated that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial,” while denouncing “colorblindness” as a concept for “perpetuat[ing] existing racial inequities.”

    DEI requirements are also highly controversial within academia. FIRE’s most recent faculty survey indicated that half of faculty think it is “rarely” or “never” justifiable for universities to make faculty candidates submit statements pledging commitment to DEI before being considered for a job (50%) or to be considered for tenure or promotion (52%).

    Since FIRE filed its lawsuit in 2023, many top universities and university systems have voluntarily moved away from mandatory DEI, including Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Arizona system. Most recently, the University of Michigan dropped the use of diversity statements in hiring and firing in December 2024 following a viral New York Times article that detailed how the school’s DEI practices stifled academic freedom and discourse at the school.

    FIRE sued on behalf of six professors, James Druley, David Richardson, Linda de Morales, and Loren Palsgaard of Madera Community College, Bill Blanken of Reedley College, and Michael Stannard of Clovis Community College. (Professors Stannard and Druley withdrew from the case in 2024 upon retiring from teaching.)

    “Wherever you stand on the debate over DEI, the important thing is there is a debate in the first place,” said Palsgaard. “I’m happy that thanks to our lawsuit, we know that debate will continue in California, both inside and outside the classroom.”


    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

    Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education has told colleges and school districts they should follow the 2020 Title IX rule for investigating sex discrimination in schools, closing the chapter on a Biden administration rule that faced much legal turmoil. 
    • In a Friday “Dear Colleague” letter, Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said that under the 2020 rule, the interpretation of “sex” means being born male or female. 
    • The letter also clarified that any open Title IX investigations initiated under the 2024 Title IX Rule should be immediately reevaluated to comply with the requirements of the 2020 rule.

    Dive Insight:

    Trainor said the change is based on a federal judge’s decision in early January that struck down the 2024 rule as unconstitutional across the country. That Biden administration rule for the first time extended Title IX civil rights protections to LGBTQI+ students and employees at federally funded schools and colleges — including by prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation

    Released in April 2024, the rule drew legal challenges, and courts blocked the regulations in at least 26 states.

    Trainor also stated that the 2024 rule conflicts with a Jan. 20 executive order from President Donald Trump that requires all federal agencies and departments to recognize just two sexes — male and female — when it comes to “sex-protective” laws. 

    “As a constitutional matter, the President’s interpretation of the law governs because he alone controls and supervises subordinate officers who exercise discretionary executive power on his behalf,” Trainor’s letter said.

    Supporters of the 2020 rule, developed under the first Trump administration, praised the letter.

    Chad Wolf, executive vice president of the America First Policy Institute, said that under the 2020 rule, women and girls were “unjustly and illegally” denied access to sex-segregated athletic opportunities and intimate spaces. Linda McMahon, President Trump’s nominee for U.S. education secretary, is chair of the board at AFPI. 

    “Female athletes were seriously injured competing against males, and many were forced to undress in front of males,” Wolf said in a statement. “It was a misguided policy that did real harm, and this new guidance puts an end to it.”

    But opponents to the 2020 rule voiced concern, saying it puts students at greater risk of harassment and discrimination.

    This is an incredibly disappointing decision that will leave many survivors of sexual violence, LGBTQ+ students, and pregnant and parenting students without the accommodations critical to their ability to learn and attend class safely,” said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Know Your IX, in a statement. “Schools must step up to protect students in the absence of adequate federal guidance.”

    Source link

  • Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

    Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education has told school districts and colleges they should follow the 2020 Title IX rule for investigating sex discrimination in schools, closing the chapter on a Biden administration rule that faced much legal turmoil. 
    • In a Friday “Dear Colleague” letter, Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said that under the 2020 rule, the interpretation of “sex” means being born male or female. 
    • The letter also clarified that any open Title IX investigations initiated under the 2024 Title IX Rule should be immediately reevaluated to comply with the requirements of the 2020 rule.

    Dive Insight:

    Trainor said the change is based on a federal judge’s decision in early January that struck down the 2024 rule as unconstitutional across the country. That Biden administration rule for the first time extended Title IX civil rights protections to LGBTQI+ students and employees at federally funded schools and colleges — including by prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation

    Released in April 2024, the rule drew legal challenges, and courts blocked the regulations in at least 26 states.

    Trainor also stated that the 2024 rule conflicts with a Jan. 20 executive order from President Donald Trump that requires all federal agencies and departments to recognize just two sexes — male and female — when it comes to “sex-protective” laws. 

    “As a constitutional matter, the President’s interpretation of the law governs because he alone controls and supervises subordinate officers who exercise discretionary executive power on his behalf,” Trainor’s letter said.

    Supporters of the 2020 rule, developed under the first Trump administration, praised the letter.

    Chad Wolf, executive vice president of the America First Policy Institute, said that under the 2020 rule, women and girls were “unjustly and illegally” denied access to sex-segregated athletic opportunities and intimate spaces. Linda McMahon, President Trump’s nominee for U.S. education secretary, is chair of the board at AFPI. 

    “Female athletes were seriously injured competing against males, and many were forced to undress in front of males,” Wolf said in a statement. “It was a misguided policy that did real harm, and this new guidance puts an end to it.”

    But opponents to the 2020 rule voiced concern, saying it puts students at greater risk of harassment and discrimination.

    This is an incredibly disappointing decision that will leave many survivors of sexual violence, LGBTQ+ students, and pregnant and parenting students without the accommodations critical to their ability to learn and attend class safely,” said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Know Your IX, in a statement. “Schools must step up to protect students in the absence of adequate federal guidance.”

    Source link