Tag: Gender

  • American Sororities: Class, Race, Gender, and the Return of "Tradition"

    American Sororities: Class, Race, Gender, and the Return of "Tradition"

    At flagship universities across the United States, predominantly white sororities remain popular institutions. They offer young women a ready-made community, social capital, and access to alumni networks. But behind this appeal lies a system that reinforces race, class, and gender hierarchies—at a time when women’s rights are being rolled back nationally.
    Race and Class Tradition: Who Belongs, Who Does Not
    Sororities are not only racially homogeneous but also heavily skewed by class. Recruitment practices, legacy ties, and financial obligations ensure that sorority life remains a domain for the affluent.
    At Princeton University, 77% of sorority members are white, compared with 47% of the student body overall.
    Socioeconomic trends are even starker. In 1999, 31% of Greek-affiliated students at Princeton identified as middle-class, but by 2024 that number had dropped to 14%. Over the same period, those identifying as upper-class doubled from 14% to 28%.
    At the University of Mississippi, 48% of high school graduates in the state were Black in 2021, but only 8% of first-year students at Ole Miss were Black. White-dominated Greek life continues to thrive in this climate of underrepresentation.
    A multi-campus study found 72% of Greek members identified as middle- or upper-middle class, compared with just 6% from low-income families.
    These figures reveal how sororities work to reproduce the advantages of affluent white families. Membership offers exclusive networking, internships, and social connections—often denied to working-class students, students of color, and first-generation college students.
    Gender Tradition

    Sororities also sustain a vision of femininity rooted in conformity, beauty standards, and heteronormativity. Social events are structured around fraternities, placing men as hosts and leaders, while sorority women serve as companions or supporters.
    While some sororities claim empowerment through philanthropy and sisterhood, the cultural framework continues to emphasize women’s value through appearance and deference, not leadership. This pattern reflects broader societal pressures to restore traditional gender roles.
    The Broader Context: The Right to Choose Lost
    The Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade has had profound consequences for women in the U.S.
    More than 25 million women of reproductive age now live in states with abortion bans or severe restrictions.
    States with the most restrictive abortion laws show a 7% increase in maternal mortality overall, and 51% higher rates where laws require procedures only from licensed physicians.
    The loss of Roe’s protections especially harms women of color and low-income women, who already face barriers to healthcare and mobility.
    Against this backdrop, sororities’ popularity at flagship universities is revealing. These organizations celebrate conformity to class privilege and traditional gender expectations, while millions of women outside those circles see their reproductive freedoms curtailed. The alignment of sorority culture with conservative visions of femininity makes them more than relics of tradition—they become cultural reinforcers of the very inequalities deepening in U.S. society.
    Why Class Matters
    Social class is at the heart of the issue. Sororities provide access to powerful networks that translate into internships, job placements, and lifelong advantages. These networks overwhelmingly serve the wealthy and exclude those already disadvantaged by race, class, and gender.
    At a time when women’s bodily autonomy is under political attack, the popularity of predominantly white sororities signals how elite spaces continue to consolidate privilege for a narrow group of women—while the majority face shrinking freedoms and growing precarity.
    Sources
    Princeton Greek life demographics (tcf.org)
    Princeton Class of 2024 socioeconomic trends (dailyprincetonian.com)
    University of Mississippi racial disparities (hechingerreport.org)
    National Greek life class survey (vox.com)
    Women under abortion bans: 25 million affected (americanprogress.org)
    Abortion bans and maternal mortality (sph.tulane.edu

    Source link

  • DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    Japan needs to admit that long-running efforts to address gender inequality in higher education aren’t working, experts say, with antidiversity sentiment spreading from the U.S. and threatening to gain traction.

    Despite government policies spanning nearly two decades, women remain severely underrepresented across Japanese universities, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

    As of 2022, women made up just 26.7 percent of faculty nationwide and fewer than half of all students, with even starker disparities in senior academic roles and male-dominated disciplines.

    Sayaka Oki, a professor at the University of Tokyo, described the situation as “terrible.”

    “Gender equality doesn’t really exist here,” she added.

    As of 2022, only 11 percent of professors at Oki’s university were female, with particularly low representation in engineering. In undergraduate programs in physics and engineering, women typically make up only about 15 percent of the student population.

    “The gender imbalance starts at the student level and gets worse in higher positions,” she said. The university has launched repeated initiatives that have attempted to address the problem and has reported that it has “steadily increased the number of women in faculty positions.”

    Since 2006, Japan’s government has implemented a “goal and timetable” policy aimed at increasing women researchers in natural sciences, setting numerical hiring targets every five years.

    However, these targets have remained largely unchanged because the proportion of women earning doctoral degrees—the main feeder for research roles—has not significantly increased.

    Ginko Kawano, professor of gender equality at Kyushu University, said that, “after nearly two decades, the policy has not produced significant results, and it appears we are now at a turning point in terms of policy design.”

    Kawano noted recent government encouragement for universities to adopt admission quotas for women in STEM to improve applicant numbers.

    Yet “while this sends a positive message that women are welcome in these disciplines, it is unlikely to serve as a fundamental solution to the underlying issues,” she said.

    She also acknowledged strong opposition from students and faculty: “Institutions that choose to introduce this system should clearly explain the reasoning behind it.

    “At the same time, it is crucial for university faculty to have access to the information and knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of such quotas.

    “For example, they should be aware of the historical exclusion of women from science, and recognize the persistent bias that suggest[s] women are not suited for STEM fields—biases that continue to shape the choices women feel able to make,” Kawano said.

    Adding to the complexity is a political environment increasingly wary of diversity initiatives.

    Kawano warned that antidiversity sentiment similar to that in the U.S. could gain traction in Japan, although opposition to gender equality policies has existed independently for years.

    Akiyoshi Yonezawa, professor of higher education in the Global Strategy Office at Tohoku University, highlighted demographic pressures pushing universities toward diversity.

    “Since around 1990, the number of 18-year-olds has continuously declined and is expected to continue until at least 2040,” he said.

    In response, women and international students have been framed as essential for sustaining Japan’s knowledge economy.

    Yonezawa criticized how diversity initiatives in Japan are often framed: “DEI initiatives in Japanese universities and society tend to be promoted as a ‘catch-up’ Western mindset rather than intrinsic value formation through daily experience. This makes DEI activities in Japan’s higher education fragile in the long term when faced with controversy.”

    Institutional barriers also persist. Oki described how her university’s collegial governance system complicates efforts to implement top-down diversity policies and secure funding, which often comes with centralized control conditions.

    “To access the fund, we’re required to adopt a more top-down management style,” she said. “That’s difficult because our university traditionally follows a collegial governance model.”

    Oki agreed that there was a risk that international developments had made the situation potentially more difficult—particularly in the U.S., where things like the ban on affirmative action had made colleagues “more cautious about what might happen here.”

    Source link

  • Can you eliminate a gender gap by segregating genders?

    Can you eliminate a gender gap by segregating genders?

    In her 23 years as an educator at Hunter College High School, a highly-competitive coeducational high school in New York City, Jana Lucash has found that boys in her class will often participate even when they are not prepared. Her female students, in contrast, seem to be unwilling to participate unless they absolutely know the correct answer. 

    This is one reason that many parents choose to send their daughters to all-girls schools. These schools are known for fostering connections and developing academic success. 

    But do social pressure, competition and other negative consequences outweigh the benefits of a predominantly female environment?

    I attend an all-girls school and so I decided to explore the positive and negative aspects of being a part of this type of environment.

    All-girls schools are educational institutions catering exclusively to female students, allowing them to grow intellectually and socially in a single-gender environment. 

    Gender segregation

    These schools generally have a reputation for creating a supportive and empowering atmosphere for young girls and women. The purpose of an all-girls school is to encourage academic excellence, build confidence and teach leadership skills to their students. 

    While these institutions around the world often leave positive impacts on their attendees, like increased participation in class and eliminating distractions, they are also critiqued for their competitive nature, which could negatively affect student mental health. 

    These issues raise serious concerns and questions about how beneficial and positively impactful these all-girls schools truly are for the population that they serve.  

    Research has shown that all-girls schools increase student participation in the STEM field and other male-dominated fields after graduation. A study conducted by Goodman Research Group, back in 2005 asked some 1,000 recent graduates of all-girl schools to participate in a survey, which focused on the academic and social impact of single-gender institutions. 

    After conducting the survey, the authors found that 74% of the grads felt more encouragement in math, science and technology by attending an all-girls school. Additionally, they found that all-girls school graduates were six times more likely to major in science, math and technology, in comparison to girls attending coeducational schools. 

    Girl empowerment

    All-girls institutions cultivate an environment where female students feel empowered to explore their interests and academic pursuits, specifically in male-dominated fields. This not only encourages young women to follow their aspirations, but allows them to challenge the stereotypical gender barriers in professional fields where women are underrepresented. 

    All-girls schools also offer students a social environment with a strong sense of community and an emphasis on building strong relationships. Many young women feel more connected to their peers and lose the social pressures that are typically present in coeducational schools. 

    A 2013 survey, which was conducted on behalf of the National Coalition for Girls Schools, asked a series of questions to 2,000 students from schools that were all-girls, with an additional 5,000 girls who attended coed private schools and another 5,000 girls who attended coed public schools. 

    The study concluded that almost 97% of all-girls school students felt their ideas and opinions were more respected at their single-gender school compared to 58% of girls at coeducational schools.

    Without feeling pressure and judgement from their male counterparts, female students tend to feel more safe and are more inclined to express themselves and their ideas. This environment allows students to feel a sense of belonging, confidence and power that is not always found in a coed environment.

    Coed education versus single-gender schools

    At coeducational schools, girls’ voices and opinions might be self silenced or silenced by the more rambunctious boys in the room. In addition, these institutions and faculty can further undermine the confidence and self-worth of their female students.

    Lucash at Hunter College High School, for example, found that girls tend to self-silence and boys have no trouble expressing themselves throughout class. 

    This sentiment is echoed by a 10th-grade student at The Hewitt School, which I attend. Abby Potenza attended a coeducational school prior to switching to Hewitt.

    “Being at an all-girls school has given me both confidence and a sense of comfort to express my opinions and ask questions, which I did not receive at a coed school,” Potenza said. “I feel the environment, both social and educational, is stronger and more supportive at an all-girls school.”

    When I was an elementary school student in a progressive, coeducational environment, I too experienced the detrimental impact of being silenced, both institutionally and by an educator. 

    Being silenced and self-silencing

    In an advanced math class in fourth grade, I found myself one of three girls in a class of 20 students. For a school which valued diversity and equity, it was disturbing that the institution itself could not see that as a problem.

    This shows that many institutions in the 21st century do not prioritize creating a supportive and empowering environment for girls.

    Most positive associations with single-gender education can be countered by certain challenges and all-girls schools are no exception. While these schools empower young women and can foster a supportive environment, a sense of competition can often emerge.

    Miriam Walden teaches English at The Hewitt School and sees a similar competitive nature. 

    “Even when you take away the boys in the classroom, there is still competition between girls, a lot of competition,” Walden said. “It’s very subtle and it’s very insidious and so there is a lot of harm that happens at the school, socially, around status, academic success, wealth, where you are going to college. All of this stuff becomes extremely damaging to many students.”

    The global popularity of single-gender education

    Outside of the United States, single-gender education is popular in many countries. The reasoning for attending these single-gender schools varies from community to community, country to country. Some of the variables that impact the choice to attend these schools include religion, socio-economic status and geography. 

    In 2022, University of Oslo researcher Sadaf Basharat looked at math achievement in Saudi Arabia where single-gender education is mandatory and found that girls do better than boys in math, according to international assessment standards known as TIMSS. 

    Other countries in the Middle East, such as Oman, Iran, Kuwait and Bahrain, which have a high proportion of single-gender schools, have also seen female students in recent years outperforming their male classmates in math.

    While single-gender schools open the opportunity for girls and young women to be educated, countries such as Afghanistan are prohibiting women from attending secondary schools, whether single-gender or coeducational.

    The academic effect single-gender schools in the United States have on their students is equal to the ones at international single-gender schools. A 2016 study in the Caribbean Educational Research Journal found that students at all-girls schools in the Caribbean have a higher passing rate than both girls attending coeducational schools, as well as boys in coeducational schools and single-gender schools.  

    Due to the demographics of the students who attend all-girls schools outside of the United States, the data is not as conclusive as to the negative impact of these types of schools on their students’ competitive nature. 

    For instance, UNESCO published a study by the London Business School’s Global Entrepreneurship Monitor that found that all-girl’s schools in countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and Thailand attract a wealthier subset of the population, which could create a false representation of what the possible positive outcomes are. 

    Competition between girls

    All-girls schools offer an educational environment with both important benefits and possible limitations for students. On one hand, these institutions offer students a supportive atmosphere which encourages them to reach their full potential and cultivate a strong sense of confidence. This environment can lead to higher academic success and a greater likelihood of breaking gender norms in the workplace. 

    They also encourage young women to move past gendered expectations regarding future intellectual pursuits and challenges them to break societal barriers by moving into STEM-based fields specifically. 

    On the other hand, all-girls schools can create a bubble of competition and rivalry that can limit a young woman’s development and aspirations. The focus on academic achievement is only intensified in a single-gender educational environment and can be pressuring and damaging. 

    Weighing out the benefits and drawbacks of an all-girls school is important when making the decision on whether to attend one, or in determining how you perceive single-gender schools in general. The question is, what would be best for you or your daughter?

    The views and citations expressed by this student journalist are their own and not those of their school or any person or organization affiliated or doing business with their school.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why might a parent choose to send a child to a single-gender school?

    2. Why do some teachers think girls don’t do as well when there are boys in the class?

    3. Do you think you would do better or worse by changing to an single-gender school if you attend a coed school now or vice versa? Why?

     

    Source link

  • To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    It’s International Women’s Day. Today on the site, Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris explores the critical role of Black women in academia and industry leadership, particularly in Engineering and STEM, highlighting their groundbreaking contributions and the systemic barriers that persist. Read that piece here.

    Below, HEPI’s own Rose Stephenson challenges us to look at ‘the other side of the coin’ in the fight for gender equality – you can read that piece below.

    Firstly, Happy International Women’s Day 2025.

    The theme this year is ‘Accelerate Action.’ It’s a great theme, and to accelerate action in terms of gender equality, we have got to focus more on ‘the other side of the coin’. Let me explain three examples:

    1. We should do more to ensure that parenting is supportive and inclusive of fathers.

    Joeli Brearly, outgoing CEO of Pregnant then Screwed, recently gave evidence on Shared Parental Leave in parliament. She stated:

    ‘It’s time we asked ourselves a fundamental question about what sort of society we want this to be. Do we want to continue to perpetuate outdated and harmful gender stereotypes that tell us it is women who do the nurturing and the caring and the childrearing and are the homemakers and that men just need to pull their socks up and get back to work? They are strong, stoic breadwinners and don’t need this time [parental leave] to nurture and care for their family. The mental health of men in this country is in crisis. Boys are saying they feel lost and disconnected, and it’s no wonder when our laws are literally telling them: “you don’t need time to nurture and connect with your family.”’

    Inclusive parenting is good for dads, it’s great for kids, and it benefits Mums, too. My mantra is, ‘We will never have equality in the workplace until we have equality in the home’. Until we reach a point where an equal number of dads leave work in time for the school run, take time off for holiday care, or work part-time and flexibly, we will never reach parity in the workplace. And why would we want to? If women collectively reach equal pay, equal status and the resulting equal responsibility at work yet continue to shoulder most domestic and childcare duties, we have significantly undermined progress towards equality.

    The HEPI report I published last year, Show Me the Money, an exploration of the gender pay gap in higher education, demonstrated the importance of increasing paid paternity leave as a lever for narrowing the gender pay gap. If your institution is monitoring the uptake of senior or professorial roles by gender, are they also monitoring the uptake of post-birth parental leave, shared parental leave and statutory parental leave by the same measure? Is there monitoring and reporting on the genderisation of part-time work applications, flexible working requests and the granting of these requests? That is ‘the other side of the coin’ and we should not underestimate the hurdles fathers may have to overcome to ask – or be granted – the flexibility we more commonly expect for mothers.

    2. We should encourage boys and young men to work in teaching and social care roles to the same extent that we encourage women to work in engineering and tech.

    When working as a secondary and sixth-form science teacher, I undertook a project at my school that challenged pupils to critically think about the subject choices they were making at GCSE and A-Level and how this might be affected by gender stereotyping. There was plenty of support and encouragement for female pupils in science and maths subjects (as there should be). However, there was a notable vacuum in the equivalent campaigns to open up opportunities for boys.

    I witnessed first-hand how the gendering of subjects and occupations suppressed the potential of young men. One boy in my tutor group desperately wanted to complete his work experience at a hair salon. This pupil would have benefitted from a ‘hook’ that could have driven his interest in education and the future world of work. Unfortunately, his family disapproved of his choice, and he spent his work experience on a building site. This did nothing to enhance his motivation towards education or work. This was a valuable opportunity for a disengaged young man to pursue something that genuinely sparked his interest, and I have no doubt he would have excelled at. However, this opportunity was lost because it was not deemed ‘masculine’ enough. This was one example, but the boys I taught were quite open about feeling they couldn’t choose the subjects they wanted. There was an element of ‘acceptable’ choices.

    It is tragic that in 2025, UK society is still limiting the possibilities for young men to follow their real interests. As a sector, we should push hard against the narratives perpetuating this. Again, if your institution is monitoring and encouraging the uptake of subjects such as engineering or coding for female students, are they also monitoring the update of nursing courses by male students? Are there considerations of male uptake and completion of courses in your Access and Participation Plans?

    3. We should consider developing ‘Men’s Leadership’ courses.

    I’ve been lucky enough to partake in various forms of ‘Women’s Leadership training’ run by Advance HE and the Women’s Higher Education Network (WHEN), among others. Of course, non-gender-specific leadership training is available. However, women’s leadership courses have existed due to the historic and ongoing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Further, they provide a female-only space for women to develop their leadership skills.

    I vividly remember being told by a presenter on the Advance HE Aurora programme to ‘have heft’ and ‘take up space’. (I replay this memory regularly in all the privileged but occasionally intimidating speaking and media events I undertake in my current role.)

    But as we move closer towards gender parity – and I know there is more work to do – should we be thinking about the other side of the coin? Women’s leadership courses can often focus on developing traits deemed to be held by traditional, therefore male, leaders. Having more confidence, making your voice heard, etc. Now that most of society accepts that women can also make great leaders – and there are many stand-out examples in the higher education sector – where is the equivalent training for men?

    Where are the male leadership courses that teach men the skills of making space for others, speaking inclusively, building relationships, the importance of being a mentor, and using coaching techniques to build confidence in their colleagues? Surely, some male colleagues who wish to become leaders can learn skills that may be (stereotypically) more prevalent in female colleagues, and developing these skills would benefit everyone.

    And sure, some men will already possess these skills, just like some women have a natural ability to take up space. My question is, if we accept that women are socialised in a particular way to be missing some leadership or workplace skills, then can we accept that for men? Do we value stereotypically ‘female’ leadership skills enough to offer a platform for developing these skills in male colleagues? Further, should leadership courses for men include panels discussing how to balance leadership roles with childcare responsibilities? (And yes, those panels exist in women-in-leadership courses) Perhaps when we get to this point, we really will be considering the other side of the coin.

    If you found this blog interesting, you may wish to look back at some of our previous International Women’s Day blogs:

    HEPI has also published the report:

    HEPI will soon publish an updated report on educational achievement by boys and young men, a significant and long-standing issue that has been largely ignored by policymakers. The report considers the consequences for individuals and societies and proposes several levers that could be used to drive change. This report will be published this month – March 2025. If you haven’t already, sign up for our blog below to get this report hot off the press.

    If you wish to write a blog for International Men’s Day on November 19th, submissions are very welcome.

    Source link

  • Education Department to end internal “gender ideology” programs

    Education Department to end internal “gender ideology” programs

    The Department of Education is ordering an end to all spending and programs that “promote gender ideology,” according to an internal email sent to all department employees and obtained by Inside Higher Ed. 

    The email lays out steps the department will take to uphold President Trump’s executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Those steps include a “thorough review and subsequent termination of Departmental programs, contracts, policies, outward-facing media, regulations and internal practices that fail to affirm the reality of biological sex.”

    The email also prohibits employee resource groups that “promote gender ideology” from meeting on government property or during work hours. 

    The email appears to be targeted primarily at internal department activities and spending, as opposed to schools and universities that receive federal funding. But the Trump administration has in recent days launched investigations into colleges over the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports, and Trump’s executive order attacking diversity, equity and inclusion could have wide-reaching effects on college programs and curricula.  

    A spokesperson for the department did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for clarification or comment in time for publication.

    Source link

  • The Growing Gender Divide in STEM Education

    The Growing Gender Divide in STEM Education

    Title: The Hidden STEM Gender Gap: Why Progress at Top Universities Masks a Growing Crisis

    Source: Brookings Institution

    Authors: Joseph R. Cimpian and Jo R. King

    A recent Brookings Institution article, “The Hidden STEM Gender Gap: Why Progress at Top Universities Masks a Growing Crisis,” paints a complex picture of the state of gender equity in STEM higher education. While top universities have made notable progress in narrowing the gender gap in physics, engineering, and computer science (PECS) majors, institutions serving students with lower math achievement are falling further behind.

    Over the past two decades, the male-to-female ratio in PECS majors decreased from 2.2:1 to 1.5:1 at universities with the highest average math SAT scores. However, at institutions with the lowest average scores, the gender gap has dramatically widened from 3.5:1 to 7.1:1. This disparity persists even when accounting for differences in math ability, confidence, interests, and academic preparation. The findings point to institutional barriers that disproportionately impact women at less selective schools.

    The institutions struggling most with gender equity serve the majority of American students, particularly students of color and those from lower-income families. PECS degrees offer a path to high-paying careers, and research suggests women may see an even greater earnings premium from these majors at less selective institutions compared to their more selective counterparts. By failing to recruit and retain women in PECS programs, we are denying millions the opportunity to benefit from these rewarding fields.

    The authors propose several strategies to shrink this gap:

    • Allocate resources strategically, directing support to the institutions facing the greatest challenges rather than those already making progress.
    • Adapt proven practices like undergraduate research and peer mentoring to the unique needs and constraints of less-resourced institutions, forging creative partnerships to ensure successful implementation at scale.
    • Mobilize external partners, from nonprofit organizations to industry groups, to strategically focus their outreach and pathway-building efforts on the schools and communities with the most severe gender imbalances.

    Achieving gender equity in STEM will require acknowledging where we are falling short and building the collective determination to change. The success of top universities shows that progress is possible, but it will take targeted interventions and a sustained commitment to extending opportunities to all students. Until then, our celebrations of narrowing gaps will ring hollow for the women left behind.

    To read the full Brookings Institution article, click here. The complete research is also available in the journal Science here.

    —Alex Zhao

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    While running for president, Donald Trump pledged to fight the Biden administration’s efforts to expand protections for transgender students. On day one of his second term in office, he got to work fulfilling that promise.

    In an executive order, which is part of a broader effort to restrict the rights of transgender people, Trump declared that there are only two sexes and banned the federal funding of “gender ideology.” His supporters hailed the move as a return to common sense, while LGBTQ+ advocates saw it as an attack seeking to erase the existence of trans people.

    For colleges and universities, the order raises more questions than it answers, and its immediate implications are unclear. As with other executive orders, it includes many provisions that require the Education Department to take action and issue guidance about how colleges should comply. But depending on how the department responds, the order could complicate institutions’ efforts to accommodate transgender students and eventually change how the federal government enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

    Susan​​​​ Friedfel, a higher education attorney at Jackson Lewis, a New York City law firm that works with colleges and other employers, said more information is needed from the Education Department to determine how the order will affect higher ed institutions, especially since other federal and state laws protect LGBTQ+ students.

    “We have a lot of questions,” she said. “It’s challenging because we have conflicting laws that apply to the same space.”

    In the meantime, she encouraged colleges to revisit their Title IX policies to ensure they are in compliance with the 2020 regulations put in place by the first Trump administration and to think about how best to accommodate everybody.

    The order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” defines “sex,” “male” and “female,” among other terms, and orders federal agencies to use those definitions when “interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.”

    The order is likely to face legal challenges, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, who argues that it’s unlawful.

    “It is important that people not give this executive order more credence than it deserves,” she said.

    Other LGBTQ+ advocates echoed Oakley, emphasizing that executive orders don’t create or change laws.

    “Discrimination based on sex, including discrimination against transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, remains illegal, and it cannot be legalized through this executive order,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement.

    But Republican lawmakers, conservative legal organizations and other anti-trans advocates applauded Trump’s order, saying it would protect women and girls from discrimination and ground federal law in “biological fact.”

    “Blatant and deliberate attempts to redefine our sons’ and daughters’ identities by questioning biology itself has done significant harm to our children and society,” said Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House education committee. “[The] action by the Trump administration acknowledges the biological differences between men and women. In doing so, it is protecting women from discrimination and securing the progress women have made over the decades.”

    What’s in the Order

    In addition to defining “sex” and other terms, the order outlines a plan to combat “gender ideology,” which the Trump administration defines as replacing “the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”

    Federal officials were told to remove any internal or external documents that “inculcate gender ideology” and take “any necessary steps to end the federal funding of gender ideology.” Additionally, agencies will now only use the term “sex” instead of “gender” in all applicable federal policies and documents, according to the order. The Biden administration gave people the option on passport applications to mark their gender as X rather than choose male or female. That option is now being eliminated.

    On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department wouldn’t process any passport applications seeking to change the applicant’s gender from male to female or requesting the X option, The Guardian reported.

    Agencies are required to give an update on their efforts to implement the order in 120 days.

    The Trump administration also directed the attorney general to correct the Biden administration’s “misapplication” of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which said that LGBTQ+ individuals were protected from discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The first Trump administration said that Bostock didn’t apply to Title IX, which bars sex-based discrimination in education settings. But the Biden administration reversed that guidance in June 2021.

    The Bostock decision was key to the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulations, which clarified that the law also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the new Title IX rule was unlawful and wiped the regulations off the books.

    Trump’s executive order also requires the education secretary to rescind a number of guidance documents related to the now-vacated Title IX regulations, as well as resources for supporting LGBTQ+ students. That includes the Education Department’s June 2021 Dear Colleague letter that said Title IX protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    In addition, the Trump administration is rescinding a back-to-school message for transgender students from the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services that provided resources for students who experience bullying or discrimination.

    ‘Nothing Radical’

    Kim Hermann, the executive director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative legal organization that sued the Biden administration over the Title IX regulations, said Trump’s order immediately restores the privacy and physical safety rights of women, so colleges that don’t comply could face federal civil rights investigations or lawsuits.

    “There’s nothing radical about this executive order,” she said. “All it does is solidify Congress’s original intent when they passed the laws … Our girls and our women on college campuses are sick of their rights being eroded.”

    Friedfel said the current Trump administration will likely investigate complaints from cisgender students who are uncomfortable sharing spaces with transgender students.

    “That doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to do anything radically different, but recognize that there’s that risk there,” she said.

    Oakley said that guidance from the department is necessary for universities to understand what’s expected of them and how the Office for Civil Rights will enforce Title IX. She doesn’t expect OCR to take discrimination against LGBTQ+ faculty, staff and students seriously.

    “It’s also going to be very difficult to understand how to be in compliance when the folks who are enforcing the law are not respecting the actual case law,” she said. “So it is going to create a tremendous amount of confusion.”

    Source link

  • Trump Issues Executive Order to Restrict Gender Ideology in the Federal Government

    Trump Issues Executive Order to Restrict Gender Ideology in the Federal Government

    by CUPA-HR | January 22, 2025

    On January 20, the Trump administration issued an executive order (EO) titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The EO was one of several executive orders and actions published by the Trump administration on its first day in office.

    The EO states that the United States government will recognize only two sexes — male and female — and defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.” The definition continues to say that sex is “not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’” The executive order also defines “woman” and “girl” and “man” and “boy” to be adult and juvenile human females and males, respectively.

    The EO orders the secretary of health and human services to provide guidance expanding on the definitions established in the EO. It also directs all federal agencies to use the definitions set forth in the order “when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.” All federal agencies will also be directed to use the term “sex” and not “gender” when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions in applicable federal policies and documents.

    It also appears that the Trump administration hopes to codify these definitions into law through Congressional action. Specifically, the EO directs the assistant to the president for legislative affairs to provide the president proposed bill text to codify the definitions set in the order within 30 days.

    The EO also discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The EO states that the Biden administration argued that the Bostock decision “requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under, for example, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act,” which the Trump administration states is “legally untenable.” As such, the EO directs the U.S. attorney general to issue guidance to federal agencies to “correct the misapplication” of Bostock to “sex-based distinctions in agency activities.” The EO also directs the attorney general to issue guidance and assist federal agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions.

    The EO directs all federal agencies to submit an update to the Trump administration on implementation of this order within 120 days. The update is required to include information on changes to agency documents and agency-imposed requirements on federally funded entities, including federal contractors, that were implemented to comply with the order. The head of each federal agency is also directed to rescind all guidance documents inconsistent with the requirements of the order, and the EO includes a partial list of documents that the administration deems as inconsistent, including several Department of Education guidance documents on Title IX and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

    Finally, the EO directs agencies to take “all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the federal funding of gender ideology” and to “assess grant conditions and grantee preferences” to “ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

    Federal agencies will soon begin to take action and announce guidance to comply with the EO requirements. Institutions should therefore be aware of forthcoming guidance from the Department of Education on Title IX as a result of this EO. There could also be future ramifications for institutions that receive federal funds, including grants and contracts. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for agency actions as well as any additional updates from the Trump administration as it relates to sex and gender-related policy.



    Source link

  • More Gender Breakouts of Admission Data

    More Gender Breakouts of Admission Data

    I’ve written a lot about yield rates over time, and I’ve also written about differences in admission patterns among male and female applicants here and here; I’ve decided to take a fresh look at both based on some continuing discussions I’ve heard recently. 

    You have, of course, heard about the crisis of male enrollment in American colleges, which, if you look at the data, is really a crisis of enrollment at Community Colleges.  Far be it from me to insist on data, however.

    Here is the same data for women, just to point out that there are differences.  Whether we should celebrate increasing attainment among young women or decry the inability of young men to keep up is your choice. 

    Regardless, here is a detailed breakout of these patterns as they show up in admissions over time.  There are four views here: A summary on tab one (using the tabs across the top); ratios of women to men at all stages of the process and estimated applications per student; gender-specific admission rates at the highly rejectives over time; and, for anyone who wants to download the data using the little icon at the bottom, a spreadsheet format.  Note: IPEDS just started collecting application data on non-binary students, so it will be a while before any trend analysis is possible.  For 2022, I only included students who self-identified as male or female.)

    Rather than explain the interactivity, I’ve put two buttons on the first view: Hover over the Orange Plus Sign to read some caveats about the data; and hover over the lightbulb for information about how to interact.

    As always, I’d love to hear what you see.

    Source link