Republican Virginia gubernatorial candidate Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears quickly called on Jones to drop out of the race on Friday, linking him with his ‘running mate’ Spanberger.

As voters prepare to vote on a school choice ballot initiative in Kentucky, one school district in the state found itself in hot water this week after it used public resources to express its political opinion on the ballot initiative fight.

Pulaski County Schools used its social media platform to advocate voting “no” on a ballot initiative that would expand school choice in Kentucky to allow the state’s General Assembly to fund private school options for students.

“No on Amendment 2. Public Funds for Public Schools!” the school district posted to Facebook, causing consternation among school choice advocates for using public funds for political purposes.

“The Pulaski County Kentucky school system is blatantly breaking the law by using public resources to campaign against a ballot initiative,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on Tuesday in a social media post. “This is ongoing: it’s still on their websites.”

Many states have been moving toward expanding school choice options, whether legislatively or through ballot measures, for the past several years. Often, public school districts oppose school choice policies because they typically allow parents a wider breadth of choices for sending their children to school, allowing them to use tax dollars previously required for public schools to go toward public, private, or homeschooling options, if the parents so choose.

School choice policies are on the ballot in several states this year, including in Kentucky.

Advocates of school choice say that one of the biggest benefits of expanding the opportunity is that doing so allows parents to pull their children out of underperforming or failing public schools and send them somewhere that emphasizes education over ideology and aligns more with their values.

Opponents of the initiatives believe reallocating funding will leave public schools without enough money to function. A since-removed graphic posted by Pulaski County schools claimed a school voucher program would reduce the district’s budget by 16%, cut 143 teaching positions, and reduce funding by nearly $15.5 million.

Kentucky’s Amendment 2 would allow public funds to go toward private schools in the form of vouchers and comes after similar legislation, which included a tax credit for private school scholarships, was struck down by the state’s supreme court.

Patrick Richardson, the Pulaski County School District’s superintendent, was forced to take down the political activism from school district websites after state Attorney General Russell Coleman, a Republican, published an official opinion stating public entities cannot spend money on political advocacy.

Richardson, however, vowed some degree of defiance, writing in a statement, “I do not agree with the Attorney General’s opinion, however I respect the office and will follow this advisory until it is overruled. … I believe the Attorney General’s advisory is partisan politics at its worst. When elected officials work to silence people, that is a red flag and we should all take notice.”

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) also defended the school district, saying, “These school districts, I believe, have First Amendment rights. It needs to be done in a certain way. But this is a public school district fighting for the future of public schools.”

Kentucky is not the only state with the potential for significant school choice changes in November.

Colorado also has a school choice amendment that may appear on the ballot if it becomes certified by state officials.

The Colorado amendment would enshrine a constitutional right to school choice in the state and also includes provisions protecting parental rights.

“The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education; that parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education,” the proposed amendment states, adding, “Each K-12 child has the right to school choice.”

Backers of the proposed amendment submitted 201,784 signatures to obtain ballot access, more than the 124,238 needed. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, has until Aug. 23 to certify the signatures and either allow or deny ballot access.

Arizona became the first state in the country to offer education savings accounts, a kind of school choice that provides a fund for students to pay for various forms of education, in 2011. While Arizona does not have a ballot initiative in the fall, and while most school choice initiatives are opposed by Democrats who are typically aligned with teachers unions, the Grand Canyon State’s statewide elections could decide which party is in control of administering the ESA program.

Arizona has shifted to a battleground state in recent years, but Democrats could see their party take complete control of state government for the first time since 1966. If that happens, Democrats would likely either weaken or entirely scrap school choice in the state.

Republican majorities in both state houses are slim, with two people making a majority both in the state House and Senate. According to the 74, only two to three seats per chamber are considered competitive.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) is approaching the start of her third year in office and could see her party in control to close out her first term. Hobbs already proposed repealing an expansion of school choice in her first budget proposal, but it died in the legislature.

Eligibility for school choice in Arizona has become universal since its initial passing, and participation has grown from 12,000 to 75,000 students.

2024-08-16 08:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Feducation%2F3123160%2Fschool-choice-fights-land-state-ballots-2024%2F?w=600&h=450, As voters prepare to vote on a school choice ballot initiative in Kentucky, one school district in the state found itself in hot water this week after it used public resources to express its political opinion on the ballot initiative fight. Pulaski County Schools used its social media platform to advocate voting “no” on a,

As voters prepare to vote on a school choice ballot initiative in Kentucky, one school district in the state found itself in hot water this week after it used public resources to express its political opinion on the ballot initiative fight.

Pulaski County Schools used its social media platform to advocate voting “no” on a ballot initiative that would expand school choice in Kentucky to allow the state’s General Assembly to fund private school options for students.

“No on Amendment 2. Public Funds for Public Schools!” the school district posted to Facebook, causing consternation among school choice advocates for using public funds for political purposes.

“The Pulaski County Kentucky school system is blatantly breaking the law by using public resources to campaign against a ballot initiative,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on Tuesday in a social media post. “This is ongoing: it’s still on their websites.”

Many states have been moving toward expanding school choice options, whether legislatively or through ballot measures, for the past several years. Often, public school districts oppose school choice policies because they typically allow parents a wider breadth of choices for sending their children to school, allowing them to use tax dollars previously required for public schools to go toward public, private, or homeschooling options, if the parents so choose.

School choice policies are on the ballot in several states this year, including in Kentucky.

Advocates of school choice say that one of the biggest benefits of expanding the opportunity is that doing so allows parents to pull their children out of underperforming or failing public schools and send them somewhere that emphasizes education over ideology and aligns more with their values.

Opponents of the initiatives believe reallocating funding will leave public schools without enough money to function. A since-removed graphic posted by Pulaski County schools claimed a school voucher program would reduce the district’s budget by 16%, cut 143 teaching positions, and reduce funding by nearly $15.5 million.

Kentucky’s Amendment 2 would allow public funds to go toward private schools in the form of vouchers and comes after similar legislation, which included a tax credit for private school scholarships, was struck down by the state’s supreme court.

Patrick Richardson, the Pulaski County School District’s superintendent, was forced to take down the political activism from school district websites after state Attorney General Russell Coleman, a Republican, published an official opinion stating public entities cannot spend money on political advocacy.

Richardson, however, vowed some degree of defiance, writing in a statement, “I do not agree with the Attorney General’s opinion, however I respect the office and will follow this advisory until it is overruled. … I believe the Attorney General’s advisory is partisan politics at its worst. When elected officials work to silence people, that is a red flag and we should all take notice.”

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) also defended the school district, saying, “These school districts, I believe, have First Amendment rights. It needs to be done in a certain way. But this is a public school district fighting for the future of public schools.”

Kentucky is not the only state with the potential for significant school choice changes in November.

Colorado also has a school choice amendment that may appear on the ballot if it becomes certified by state officials.

The Colorado amendment would enshrine a constitutional right to school choice in the state and also includes provisions protecting parental rights.

“The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education; that parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education,” the proposed amendment states, adding, “Each K-12 child has the right to school choice.”

Backers of the proposed amendment submitted 201,784 signatures to obtain ballot access, more than the 124,238 needed. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, has until Aug. 23 to certify the signatures and either allow or deny ballot access.

Arizona became the first state in the country to offer education savings accounts, a kind of school choice that provides a fund for students to pay for various forms of education, in 2011. While Arizona does not have a ballot initiative in the fall, and while most school choice initiatives are opposed by Democrats who are typically aligned with teachers unions, the Grand Canyon State’s statewide elections could decide which party is in control of administering the ESA program.

Arizona has shifted to a battleground state in recent years, but Democrats could see their party take complete control of state government for the first time since 1966. If that happens, Democrats would likely either weaken or entirely scrap school choice in the state.

Republican majorities in both state houses are slim, with two people making a majority both in the state House and Senate. According to the 74, only two to three seats per chamber are considered competitive.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) is approaching the start of her third year in office and could see her party in control to close out her first term. Hobbs already proposed repealing an expansion of school choice in her first budget proposal, but it died in the legislature.

Eligibility for school choice in Arizona has become universal since its initial passing, and participation has grown from 12,000 to 75,000 students.

, As voters prepare to vote on a school choice ballot initiative in Kentucky, one school district in the state found itself in hot water this week after it used public resources to express its political opinion on the ballot initiative fight. Pulaski County Schools used its social media platform to advocate voting “no” on a ballot initiative that would expand school choice in Kentucky to allow the state’s General Assembly to fund private school options for students. “No on Amendment 2. Public Funds for Public Schools!” the school district posted to Facebook, causing consternation among school choice advocates for using public funds for political purposes. “The Pulaski County Kentucky school system is blatantly breaking the law by using public resources to campaign against a ballot initiative,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on Tuesday in a social media post. “This is ongoing: it’s still on their websites.” Many states have been moving toward expanding school choice options, whether legislatively or through ballot measures, for the past several years. Often, public school districts oppose school choice policies because they typically allow parents a wider breadth of choices for sending their children to school, allowing them to use tax dollars previously required for public schools to go toward public, private, or homeschooling options, if the parents so choose. School choice policies are on the ballot in several states this year, including in Kentucky. Advocates of school choice say that one of the biggest benefits of expanding the opportunity is that doing so allows parents to pull their children out of underperforming or failing public schools and send them somewhere that emphasizes education over ideology and aligns more with their values. Opponents of the initiatives believe reallocating funding will leave public schools without enough money to function. A since-removed graphic posted by Pulaski County schools claimed a school voucher program would reduce the district’s budget by 16%, cut 143 teaching positions, and reduce funding by nearly $15.5 million. Kentucky’s Amendment 2 would allow public funds to go toward private schools in the form of vouchers and comes after similar legislation, which included a tax credit for private school scholarships, was struck down by the state’s supreme court. Patrick Richardson, the Pulaski County School District’s superintendent, was forced to take down the political activism from school district websites after state Attorney General Russell Coleman, a Republican, published an official opinion stating public entities cannot spend money on political advocacy. Richardson, however, vowed some degree of defiance, writing in a statement, “I do not agree with the Attorney General’s opinion, however I respect the office and will follow this advisory until it is overruled. … I believe the Attorney General’s advisory is partisan politics at its worst. When elected officials work to silence people, that is a red flag and we should all take notice.” Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) also defended the school district, saying, “These school districts, I believe, have First Amendment rights. It needs to be done in a certain way. But this is a public school district fighting for the future of public schools.” Kentucky is not the only state with the potential for significant school choice changes in November. Colorado also has a school choice amendment that may appear on the ballot if it becomes certified by state officials. The Colorado amendment would enshrine a constitutional right to school choice in the state and also includes provisions protecting parental rights. “The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education; that parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education,” the proposed amendment states, adding, “Each K-12 child has the right to school choice.” Backers of the proposed amendment submitted 201,784 signatures to obtain ballot access, more than the 124,238 needed. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, has until Aug. 23 to certify the signatures and either allow or deny ballot access. Arizona became the first state in the country to offer education savings accounts, a kind of school choice that provides a fund for students to pay for various forms of education, in 2011. While Arizona does not have a ballot initiative in the fall, and while most school choice initiatives are opposed by Democrats who are typically aligned with teachers unions, the Grand Canyon State’s statewide elections could decide which party is in control of administering the ESA program. Arizona has shifted to a battleground state in recent years, but Democrats could see their party take complete control of state government for the first time since 1966. If that happens, Democrats would likely either weaken or entirely scrap school choice in the state. Republican majorities in both state houses are slim, with two people making a majority both in the state House and Senate. According to the 74, only two to three seats per chamber are considered competitive. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) is approaching the start of her third year in office and could see her party in control to close out her first term. Hobbs already proposed repealing an expansion of school choice in her first budget proposal, but it died in the legislature. Eligibility for school choice in Arizona has become universal since its initial passing, and participation has grown from 12,000 to 75,000 students., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/kids-in-school-school-choice-2024-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

The Virginia Department of Education released draft guidance Thursday afternoon for school districts to implement measures to remove cellphones from “bell to bell” in classrooms.

The guidance comes after Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) signed an executive order directing the department to find ways for schools to achieve a “cellphone-free education.”

“This draft guidance is the result of Virginians coming together and saying, ‘enough.’ Virginia parents and teachers have witnessed first-hand the damage cellphones in schools has had on our youth’s academic, mental and physical health and social development,” Commonwealth Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera said. “Communities are committed to implementing common sense approaches to restore vibrant and healthy learning environments for all our children throughout the Commonwealth. The Youngkin administration stands ready to support public schools, families, and communities as we change the culture around cellphones.”

The goal of the guidance is for students to have their cellphones off and stored away from “bell to bell,” meaning from the moment the first class bell rings in the morning to the last bell in the afternoon.

The guidance also varies for different age groups. If parents determine that elementary children should bring a cellphone to school, the device must be off and stored away all day and should not be used in the school building or on campus before or after school.

Middle school students should not have their device “easily accessible” during the school day, and the guidance leaves it up to individual school districts to determine cellphone use policies in the school building and on campus both before and after school.

High school students have a similar requirement during the school day, but they are permitted to use the devices in the school building and on campus before and after school.

The guidance makes exceptions for students who have certain medical needs.

While removing cellphones from class time is relatively popular among most parents, one of the major sticking points for some parents who are skeptical of such policies is being able to contact their child in the case of an emergency.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The guidance requires school districts to create family contact plans for both school emergencies and family emergencies.

The guidance is not final and is open for feedback for the next 30 days. Final guidance will be issued Sept. 16.

2024-08-15 22:14:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Feducation%2F3123504%2Fvirginia-schools-receive-guidance-cellphone-free-classrooms%2F?w=600&h=450, The Virginia Department of Education released draft guidance Thursday afternoon for school districts to implement measures to remove cellphones from “bell to bell” in classrooms. The guidance comes after Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) signed an executive order directing the department to find ways for schools to achieve a “cellphone-free education.” “This draft guidance is the,

The Virginia Department of Education released draft guidance Thursday afternoon for school districts to implement measures to remove cellphones from “bell to bell” in classrooms.

The guidance comes after Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) signed an executive order directing the department to find ways for schools to achieve a “cellphone-free education.”

“This draft guidance is the result of Virginians coming together and saying, ‘enough.’ Virginia parents and teachers have witnessed first-hand the damage cellphones in schools has had on our youth’s academic, mental and physical health and social development,” Commonwealth Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera said. “Communities are committed to implementing common sense approaches to restore vibrant and healthy learning environments for all our children throughout the Commonwealth. The Youngkin administration stands ready to support public schools, families, and communities as we change the culture around cellphones.”

The goal of the guidance is for students to have their cellphones off and stored away from “bell to bell,” meaning from the moment the first class bell rings in the morning to the last bell in the afternoon.

The guidance also varies for different age groups. If parents determine that elementary children should bring a cellphone to school, the device must be off and stored away all day and should not be used in the school building or on campus before or after school.

Middle school students should not have their device “easily accessible” during the school day, and the guidance leaves it up to individual school districts to determine cellphone use policies in the school building and on campus both before and after school.

High school students have a similar requirement during the school day, but they are permitted to use the devices in the school building and on campus before and after school.

The guidance makes exceptions for students who have certain medical needs.

While removing cellphones from class time is relatively popular among most parents, one of the major sticking points for some parents who are skeptical of such policies is being able to contact their child in the case of an emergency.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The guidance requires school districts to create family contact plans for both school emergencies and family emergencies.

The guidance is not final and is open for feedback for the next 30 days. Final guidance will be issued Sept. 16.

, The Virginia Department of Education released draft guidance Thursday afternoon for school districts to implement measures to remove cellphones from “bell to bell” in classrooms. The guidance comes after Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) signed an executive order directing the department to find ways for schools to achieve a “cellphone-free education.” “This draft guidance is the result of Virginians coming together and saying, ‘enough.’ Virginia parents and teachers have witnessed first-hand the damage cellphones in schools has had on our youth’s academic, mental and physical health and social development,” Commonwealth Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera said. “Communities are committed to implementing common sense approaches to restore vibrant and healthy learning environments for all our children throughout the Commonwealth. The Youngkin administration stands ready to support public schools, families, and communities as we change the culture around cellphones.” The goal of the guidance is for students to have their cellphones off and stored away from “bell to bell,” meaning from the moment the first class bell rings in the morning to the last bell in the afternoon. The guidance also varies for different age groups. If parents determine that elementary children should bring a cellphone to school, the device must be off and stored away all day and should not be used in the school building or on campus before or after school. Middle school students should not have their device “easily accessible” during the school day, and the guidance leaves it up to individual school districts to determine cellphone use policies in the school building and on campus both before and after school. High school students have a similar requirement during the school day, but they are permitted to use the devices in the school building and on campus before and after school. The guidance makes exceptions for students who have certain medical needs. While removing cellphones from class time is relatively popular among most parents, one of the major sticking points for some parents who are skeptical of such policies is being able to contact their child in the case of an emergency. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The guidance requires school districts to create family contact plans for both school emergencies and family emergencies. The guidance is not final and is open for feedback for the next 30 days. Final guidance will be issued Sept. 16., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/glenn-youngkin-cell-phones-schools-2024-scaled-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

Despite a growing perception that artificial intelligence-powered hiring tools are being used to discriminate against certain races and genders, the civil rights framework around employment discrimination may not be equipped to take on the technology.

AI platforms are well known for having diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology written into their algorithms. If a user asks most AI tools what it thinks if DEI, it will respond with a glowing report about how important the ideology is in the modern workplace and society. That ideological dedication could mean that, when it comes to using the tools for employment decisions, DEI may be in the driver’s seat.

“If not carefully designed or properly used, these tools — they could be used to discriminate,” Commissioner Keith Sonderling of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told the Washington Examiner. “The access to the data and the ability to act on it through AI allows discrimination to be scaled to the likes we’ve never seen before.”

DEI has become increasingly controversial in recent years and has taken significant public relations blows this year in particular — from the ouster of former Harvard President Claudine Gay to the security failures under former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to GOP criticisms of Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic nominee for president.

While DEI programs became popular particularly among corporations during the 2020 George Floyd riots as a way to curry favor with supporters of a “racial reckoning” in American society, recent political pushback and the perception that DEI is inherently discriminatory against certain groups, such as white and Asian people or men, has resulted in many corporations paring back their dedication to the ideology.

However, even as corporations claim to be scaling down their DEI bureaucracies, many companies still use AI, with DEI ideology ingrained in the core of its functionality, to aid hiring decisions.

“Let’s say you do not want to hire a woman for a role (which of course is unlawful),” Sonderling said. “Before the AI technology, you have to go through every resume and say ‘is this a female sounding name?’ ‘Did they go to a women’s college?’ versus these algorithms that can look at millions of resumes in a millisecond, and separate them all quickly by race, sex, and ethnicity or really any other protected characteristic that the EEOC says you are not allowed to factor into a hiring decision and with a few clicks, eliminate all those applicants from the hiring pool.”

“You can also find candidates unlawfully using these tools to include them unlawfully in the hiring pool based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, national origin, etc., which is just as unlawful as excluding them — so it goes both ways,” the commissioner added.

A recent Freedom Economy Index study revealed that over 75% of employees or job seekers surveyed believe that AI tools are being used to screen out certain applicants who do not fit “preferred” DEI profiles being used to fulfill corporate diversity quotas.

Over 37% of respondents believe they have experienced DEI-related discrimination, and only 23.8% do not believe they have. Some who responded to the survey recalled personal experiences with DEI in hiring.

“I have a Hispanic last name but am white,” one respondent said. “I have encountered disappointment when I get on a Zoom or Teams video call and my interviewer sees I am not Hispanic.”

“Been rejected for employment for being a straight white man,” another job seeker said. “Almost every time I’d gotten an interview was when I opted out of identifying my race or sex on my application.”

While political ideology is not a protected characteristic under federal civil rights law, 63% of respondents feared that if they were found to be Republican or conservative, the information would have a negative impact on their careers.

Nearly 77% of the respondents said they would take less money in order to avoid a DEI-oriented workplace.

But there is a disconnect between the perception of discrimination and the ability for workers to seek justice through the civil rights framework provided by the EEOC. It is not clear whether there are any cases before the EEOC regarding AI-fueled discrimination, as the commission’s law enforcement function does not allow disclosure of pending cases, but there are also no private causes of action regarding AI-DEI discrimination, either.

While Sonderling maintains that the EEOC will get to the bottom of any potential employment discrimination, one major issue with DEI discrimination through an AI tool is that most employees will never even know if they have been subjected to the technology in the first place.

“For the EEOC to take action if there is discrimination, employees have to complain. Generally, we do not start our own investigations. Employees have to basically know or feel like they’re discriminated against, and then bring a case to us where we would investigate,” Sonderling explained. “And the tricky part of this [is] without consent, without employees knowing that they’re being subject to these algorithms, it is unlikely they will be able to know they are potentially discriminated by AI. It’s very hard for them to bring a case of discrimination against an algorithm when they have no idea that they were even subject to an algorithm during their interview process.”

There are no federal consent requirements affording applicants or employees the knowledge that they are being evaluated in part with the assistance of an AI tool. Aside from some states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, most do not require companies to disclose that they are using the technology either.

“Without such a requirement, it would be very hard for the employees or the EEOC to know that AI’s involved to then investigate if there is discrimination,” Sonderling said. “So when asked about enforcement, the biggest issue is disclosure.”

Disclosure requirements bring with them a whole host of other issues as well, including the likelihood of rampant litigation at the sign of any employment decision that does not go in favor of the candidate.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“For companies and for AI vendors, it doesn’t necessarily make sense for them to voluntarily disclose what technology you’re using,” Sonderling said. “They could be setting themselves up for a lawsuit if the candidate who doesn’t get the job wants to blame the AI and not the actual business’s reasons for not making the hire.”

Whatever private lawsuits might occur challenging the use of AI, Sonderling explained that the EEOC’s purview is with the company itself, not the AI vendor, leaving all liability for hiring decisions at the feet of the employer.

2024-08-15 07:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3121520%2Femployee-civil-rights-protections-at-risk-ai-dei-hiring-discrimination%2F?w=600&h=450, Despite a growing perception that artificial intelligence-powered hiring tools are being used to discriminate against certain races and genders, the civil rights framework around employment discrimination may not be equipped to take on the technology. AI platforms are well known for having diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology written into their algorithms. If a user asks,

Despite a growing perception that artificial intelligence-powered hiring tools are being used to discriminate against certain races and genders, the civil rights framework around employment discrimination may not be equipped to take on the technology.

AI platforms are well known for having diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology written into their algorithms. If a user asks most AI tools what it thinks if DEI, it will respond with a glowing report about how important the ideology is in the modern workplace and society. That ideological dedication could mean that, when it comes to using the tools for employment decisions, DEI may be in the driver’s seat.

“If not carefully designed or properly used, these tools — they could be used to discriminate,” Commissioner Keith Sonderling of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told the Washington Examiner. “The access to the data and the ability to act on it through AI allows discrimination to be scaled to the likes we’ve never seen before.”

DEI has become increasingly controversial in recent years and has taken significant public relations blows this year in particular — from the ouster of former Harvard President Claudine Gay to the security failures under former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to GOP criticisms of Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic nominee for president.

While DEI programs became popular particularly among corporations during the 2020 George Floyd riots as a way to curry favor with supporters of a “racial reckoning” in American society, recent political pushback and the perception that DEI is inherently discriminatory against certain groups, such as white and Asian people or men, has resulted in many corporations paring back their dedication to the ideology.

However, even as corporations claim to be scaling down their DEI bureaucracies, many companies still use AI, with DEI ideology ingrained in the core of its functionality, to aid hiring decisions.

“Let’s say you do not want to hire a woman for a role (which of course is unlawful),” Sonderling said. “Before the AI technology, you have to go through every resume and say ‘is this a female sounding name?’ ‘Did they go to a women’s college?’ versus these algorithms that can look at millions of resumes in a millisecond, and separate them all quickly by race, sex, and ethnicity or really any other protected characteristic that the EEOC says you are not allowed to factor into a hiring decision and with a few clicks, eliminate all those applicants from the hiring pool.”

“You can also find candidates unlawfully using these tools to include them unlawfully in the hiring pool based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, national origin, etc., which is just as unlawful as excluding them — so it goes both ways,” the commissioner added.

A recent Freedom Economy Index study revealed that over 75% of employees or job seekers surveyed believe that AI tools are being used to screen out certain applicants who do not fit “preferred” DEI profiles being used to fulfill corporate diversity quotas.

Over 37% of respondents believe they have experienced DEI-related discrimination, and only 23.8% do not believe they have. Some who responded to the survey recalled personal experiences with DEI in hiring.

“I have a Hispanic last name but am white,” one respondent said. “I have encountered disappointment when I get on a Zoom or Teams video call and my interviewer sees I am not Hispanic.”

“Been rejected for employment for being a straight white man,” another job seeker said. “Almost every time I’d gotten an interview was when I opted out of identifying my race or sex on my application.”

While political ideology is not a protected characteristic under federal civil rights law, 63% of respondents feared that if they were found to be Republican or conservative, the information would have a negative impact on their careers.

Nearly 77% of the respondents said they would take less money in order to avoid a DEI-oriented workplace.

But there is a disconnect between the perception of discrimination and the ability for workers to seek justice through the civil rights framework provided by the EEOC. It is not clear whether there are any cases before the EEOC regarding AI-fueled discrimination, as the commission’s law enforcement function does not allow disclosure of pending cases, but there are also no private causes of action regarding AI-DEI discrimination, either.

While Sonderling maintains that the EEOC will get to the bottom of any potential employment discrimination, one major issue with DEI discrimination through an AI tool is that most employees will never even know if they have been subjected to the technology in the first place.

“For the EEOC to take action if there is discrimination, employees have to complain. Generally, we do not start our own investigations. Employees have to basically know or feel like they’re discriminated against, and then bring a case to us where we would investigate,” Sonderling explained. “And the tricky part of this [is] without consent, without employees knowing that they’re being subject to these algorithms, it is unlikely they will be able to know they are potentially discriminated by AI. It’s very hard for them to bring a case of discrimination against an algorithm when they have no idea that they were even subject to an algorithm during their interview process.”

There are no federal consent requirements affording applicants or employees the knowledge that they are being evaluated in part with the assistance of an AI tool. Aside from some states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, most do not require companies to disclose that they are using the technology either.

“Without such a requirement, it would be very hard for the employees or the EEOC to know that AI’s involved to then investigate if there is discrimination,” Sonderling said. “So when asked about enforcement, the biggest issue is disclosure.”

Disclosure requirements bring with them a whole host of other issues as well, including the likelihood of rampant litigation at the sign of any employment decision that does not go in favor of the candidate.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“For companies and for AI vendors, it doesn’t necessarily make sense for them to voluntarily disclose what technology you’re using,” Sonderling said. “They could be setting themselves up for a lawsuit if the candidate who doesn’t get the job wants to blame the AI and not the actual business’s reasons for not making the hire.”

Whatever private lawsuits might occur challenging the use of AI, Sonderling explained that the EEOC’s purview is with the company itself, not the AI vendor, leaving all liability for hiring decisions at the feet of the employer.

, Despite a growing perception that artificial intelligence-powered hiring tools are being used to discriminate against certain races and genders, the civil rights framework around employment discrimination may not be equipped to take on the technology. AI platforms are well known for having diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology written into their algorithms. If a user asks most AI tools what it thinks if DEI, it will respond with a glowing report about how important the ideology is in the modern workplace and society. That ideological dedication could mean that, when it comes to using the tools for employment decisions, DEI may be in the driver’s seat. “If not carefully designed or properly used, these tools — they could be used to discriminate,” Commissioner Keith Sonderling of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told the Washington Examiner. “The access to the data and the ability to act on it through AI allows discrimination to be scaled to the likes we’ve never seen before.” DEI has become increasingly controversial in recent years and has taken significant public relations blows this year in particular — from the ouster of former Harvard President Claudine Gay to the security failures under former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to GOP criticisms of Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic nominee for president. While DEI programs became popular particularly among corporations during the 2020 George Floyd riots as a way to curry favor with supporters of a “racial reckoning” in American society, recent political pushback and the perception that DEI is inherently discriminatory against certain groups, such as white and Asian people or men, has resulted in many corporations paring back their dedication to the ideology. However, even as corporations claim to be scaling down their DEI bureaucracies, many companies still use AI, with DEI ideology ingrained in the core of its functionality, to aid hiring decisions. “Let’s say you do not want to hire a woman for a role (which of course is unlawful),” Sonderling said. “Before the AI technology, you have to go through every resume and say ‘is this a female sounding name?’ ‘Did they go to a women’s college?’ versus these algorithms that can look at millions of resumes in a millisecond, and separate them all quickly by race, sex, and ethnicity or really any other protected characteristic that the EEOC says you are not allowed to factor into a hiring decision and with a few clicks, eliminate all those applicants from the hiring pool.” “You can also find candidates unlawfully using these tools to include them unlawfully in the hiring pool based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, national origin, etc., which is just as unlawful as excluding them — so it goes both ways,” the commissioner added. A recent Freedom Economy Index study revealed that over 75% of employees or job seekers surveyed believe that AI tools are being used to screen out certain applicants who do not fit “preferred” DEI profiles being used to fulfill corporate diversity quotas. Over 37% of respondents believe they have experienced DEI-related discrimination, and only 23.8% do not believe they have. Some who responded to the survey recalled personal experiences with DEI in hiring. “I have a Hispanic last name but am white,” one respondent said. “I have encountered disappointment when I get on a Zoom or Teams video call and my interviewer sees I am not Hispanic.” “Been rejected for employment for being a straight white man,” another job seeker said. “Almost every time I’d gotten an interview was when I opted out of identifying my race or sex on my application.” While political ideology is not a protected characteristic under federal civil rights law, 63% of respondents feared that if they were found to be Republican or conservative, the information would have a negative impact on their careers. Nearly 77% of the respondents said they would take less money in order to avoid a DEI-oriented workplace. But there is a disconnect between the perception of discrimination and the ability for workers to seek justice through the civil rights framework provided by the EEOC. It is not clear whether there are any cases before the EEOC regarding AI-fueled discrimination, as the commission’s law enforcement function does not allow disclosure of pending cases, but there are also no private causes of action regarding AI-DEI discrimination, either. While Sonderling maintains that the EEOC will get to the bottom of any potential employment discrimination, one major issue with DEI discrimination through an AI tool is that most employees will never even know if they have been subjected to the technology in the first place. “For the EEOC to take action if there is discrimination, employees have to complain. Generally, we do not start our own investigations. Employees have to basically know or feel like they’re discriminated against, and then bring a case to us where we would investigate,” Sonderling explained. “And the tricky part of this [is] without consent, without employees knowing that they’re being subject to these algorithms, it is unlikely they will be able to know they are potentially discriminated by AI. It’s very hard for them to bring a case of discrimination against an algorithm when they have no idea that they were even subject to an algorithm during their interview process.” There are no federal consent requirements affording applicants or employees the knowledge that they are being evaluated in part with the assistance of an AI tool. Aside from some states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, most do not require companies to disclose that they are using the technology either. “Without such a requirement, it would be very hard for the employees or the EEOC to know that AI’s involved to then investigate if there is discrimination,” Sonderling said. “So when asked about enforcement, the biggest issue is disclosure.” Disclosure requirements bring with them a whole host of other issues as well, including the likelihood of rampant litigation at the sign of any employment decision that does not go in favor of the candidate. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “For companies and for AI vendors, it doesn’t necessarily make sense for them to voluntarily disclose what technology you’re using,” Sonderling said. “They could be setting themselves up for a lawsuit if the candidate who doesn’t get the job wants to blame the AI and not the actual business’s reasons for not making the hire.” Whatever private lawsuits might occur challenging the use of AI, Sonderling explained that the EEOC’s purview is with the company itself, not the AI vendor, leaving all liability for hiring decisions at the feet of the employer., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/eeoc-ai-dei-hiring-2024-scaled-1024×880.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

Chicago Public Schools is criticizing the district’s teachers union for demands it says would create a $4 billion deficit by the 2029-2030 school year, including during a meeting between the district and the Chicago Teachers Union on Tuesday.

The Chicago Teachers Union made over 700 contract proposals to the school district, which included 9% salary increases and the hiring of additional staff, but district budget chief Mike Sitkowski said granting even just 52 of the proposals would spike the projected $509 million deficit for the next fiscal year to $3 billion and reach $4 billion by 2030.

“We believe our educators deserve fair raises, but we must acknowledge what is responsible and sustainable,” Sitkowski said, according to Chalkbeat Chicago. Even without the new proposals, the district is set to see deficits increase over the next five years.

To pay for the additional costs, the union recommended that the school district raise more money by increasing taxes and suing banks for what union officials say has been predatory lending involving the school district. The union also suggested trying to find more federal tax dollars and taxing tech companies for “profiting off our students’ and families’ private data.”

Squabbles over the union demands have continued for several months, when negotiations have hit a bit of a standstill, and comments from the district occurred at a public bargaining session on Tuesday focused on the financial realities of Chicago Public Schools.

Union officials did not directly address the costs of their proposals, with Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jackson Potter saying that mentioning the deficit “sends the message that you can’t meet any of our recommendations,” and President Stacy Davis Gates adding that “the price tag is opportunity for black children, immigrant children, and Latine children.”

“Come hell or high water, and I don’t give a damn who pay,” Davis Gates said of the contract proposals.

Deficit concerns in Chicago and around the country are highlighted by the fact that pandemic emergency relief funding, or ESSER funds, is running out this year, which will force school districts to return to their pre-pandemic funding levels. Many unions are trying to force a continuation of pandemic funding levels and are portraying a return to normal funding as budget cuts.

However, both the Chicago school district and the union have tried to get Illinois to cover costs over the $25 million it already gave, although Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and statewide superintendent Tony Sanders have already shot down the idea of more funding.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

As the Washington Examiner has reported, Chicago Public Schools has spent millions of dollars on a curriculum that attempts to undercut the advances of Western society, teaches children to become political activists and “decolonize,” and reinstates African griot “oral tradition,” sometimes in contravention of reading.

The union is also trying to push hard-left activism in its contract negotiations, such as by making climate-related demands, including using solar panels to power school buildings and purchasing a fleet of electric buses.

2024-08-14 17:54:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3121089%2Fchicago-public-schools-accuses-teachers-union-trying-tank-district-financially%2F?w=600&h=450, Chicago Public Schools is criticizing the district’s teachers union for demands it says would create a $4 billion deficit by the 2029-2030 school year, including during a meeting between the district and the Chicago Teachers Union on Tuesday. The Chicago Teachers Union made over 700 contract proposals to the school district, which included 9% salary,

Chicago Public Schools is criticizing the district’s teachers union for demands it says would create a $4 billion deficit by the 2029-2030 school year, including during a meeting between the district and the Chicago Teachers Union on Tuesday.

The Chicago Teachers Union made over 700 contract proposals to the school district, which included 9% salary increases and the hiring of additional staff, but district budget chief Mike Sitkowski said granting even just 52 of the proposals would spike the projected $509 million deficit for the next fiscal year to $3 billion and reach $4 billion by 2030.

“We believe our educators deserve fair raises, but we must acknowledge what is responsible and sustainable,” Sitkowski said, according to Chalkbeat Chicago. Even without the new proposals, the district is set to see deficits increase over the next five years.

To pay for the additional costs, the union recommended that the school district raise more money by increasing taxes and suing banks for what union officials say has been predatory lending involving the school district. The union also suggested trying to find more federal tax dollars and taxing tech companies for “profiting off our students’ and families’ private data.”

Squabbles over the union demands have continued for several months, when negotiations have hit a bit of a standstill, and comments from the district occurred at a public bargaining session on Tuesday focused on the financial realities of Chicago Public Schools.

Union officials did not directly address the costs of their proposals, with Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jackson Potter saying that mentioning the deficit “sends the message that you can’t meet any of our recommendations,” and President Stacy Davis Gates adding that “the price tag is opportunity for black children, immigrant children, and Latine children.”

“Come hell or high water, and I don’t give a damn who pay,” Davis Gates said of the contract proposals.

Deficit concerns in Chicago and around the country are highlighted by the fact that pandemic emergency relief funding, or ESSER funds, is running out this year, which will force school districts to return to their pre-pandemic funding levels. Many unions are trying to force a continuation of pandemic funding levels and are portraying a return to normal funding as budget cuts.

However, both the Chicago school district and the union have tried to get Illinois to cover costs over the $25 million it already gave, although Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and statewide superintendent Tony Sanders have already shot down the idea of more funding.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

As the Washington Examiner has reported, Chicago Public Schools has spent millions of dollars on a curriculum that attempts to undercut the advances of Western society, teaches children to become political activists and “decolonize,” and reinstates African griot “oral tradition,” sometimes in contravention of reading.

The union is also trying to push hard-left activism in its contract negotiations, such as by making climate-related demands, including using solar panels to power school buildings and purchasing a fleet of electric buses.

, Chicago Public Schools is criticizing the district’s teachers union for demands it says would create a $4 billion deficit by the 2029-2030 school year, including during a meeting between the district and the Chicago Teachers Union on Tuesday. The Chicago Teachers Union made over 700 contract proposals to the school district, which included 9% salary increases and the hiring of additional staff, but district budget chief Mike Sitkowski said granting even just 52 of the proposals would spike the projected $509 million deficit for the next fiscal year to $3 billion and reach $4 billion by 2030. “We believe our educators deserve fair raises, but we must acknowledge what is responsible and sustainable,” Sitkowski said, according to Chalkbeat Chicago. Even without the new proposals, the district is set to see deficits increase over the next five years. To pay for the additional costs, the union recommended that the school district raise more money by increasing taxes and suing banks for what union officials say has been predatory lending involving the school district. The union also suggested trying to find more federal tax dollars and taxing tech companies for “profiting off our students’ and families’ private data.” Squabbles over the union demands have continued for several months, when negotiations have hit a bit of a standstill, and comments from the district occurred at a public bargaining session on Tuesday focused on the financial realities of Chicago Public Schools. Union officials did not directly address the costs of their proposals, with Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jackson Potter saying that mentioning the deficit “sends the message that you can’t meet any of our recommendations,” and President Stacy Davis Gates adding that “the price tag is opportunity for black children, immigrant children, and Latine children.” “Come hell or high water, and I don’t give a damn who pay,” Davis Gates said of the contract proposals. Deficit concerns in Chicago and around the country are highlighted by the fact that pandemic emergency relief funding, or ESSER funds, is running out this year, which will force school districts to return to their pre-pandemic funding levels. Many unions are trying to force a continuation of pandemic funding levels and are portraying a return to normal funding as budget cuts. However, both the Chicago school district and the union have tried to get Illinois to cover costs over the $25 million it already gave, although Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and statewide superintendent Tony Sanders have already shot down the idea of more funding. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER As the Washington Examiner has reported, Chicago Public Schools has spent millions of dollars on a curriculum that attempts to undercut the advances of Western society, teaches children to become political activists and “decolonize,” and reinstates African griot “oral tradition,” sometimes in contravention of reading. The union is also trying to push hard-left activism in its contract negotiations, such as by making climate-related demands, including using solar panels to power school buildings and purchasing a fleet of electric buses., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/jb-pritzker-chicago-public-schools-2024-scaled-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

EXCLUSIVE — Ten House Republicans sent a letter to the Defense Health Agency late last week criticizing its policy of blocking parental access to their children’s medical information, which they say was “obviously enacted to prevent parents from finding out if their child is ‘identifying’ as another gender.”

“Once again, woke political appointees are pushing a radical policy that strips military parents of their rights,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO), who led the letter, told the Washington Examiner. “Shamefully, it could leave parents without the opportunity to engage with their child about a life changing decision until it’s too late. We are calling on DHA to reconsider this reprehensible policy and put the rights of service member parents ahead of politics.”

Under the DHA’s policy, families who use Tricare and have children between the ages of 13 and 17 cannot access their children’s medical records unless the minor child authorizes them to do so. The policy blocks parental access to the full patient records of their children on Tricare’s digital platform, Genesis. According to the letter, parents can still put in a request for paper copies of their children’s health records, but those are not readily available.

Overseas service members are even more hamstrung, according to the letter addressed to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Lester Martinez-Lopez, as policies dealing with “reproductive healthcare” say a doctor can determine whether children can keep their medical decisions secret from their parents and consent to interventions on their own.

“When reproductive health care services are requested by a minor, and the healthcare provider is satisfied the minor meets the definition of a ‘mature minor,’ the consent of the minor is sufficient to provide treatment,” according to the DHA policy. The military defines a “mature minor” as children 15 or older.

“Some complicating circumstances may necessitate the notification of a minor’s parent, legal guardian, surrogate decision maker, or sponsor,” the policy continues. “These include life-threatening conditions, conditions that may require the removal of reproductive organs, and a change in behavior that brings into question the maturity with which the minor is approaching their health care that may result in potential harm to themselves or others.”

If a child is deemed mature enough by a doctor, they could receive a diagnosis that “may require the removal of reproductive organs.” A diagnosis could include gender dysphoria.

“Such a scenario may lead to a situation where servicemember parents stationed overseas have no opportunity to engage with their child about a life changing decision until the point that a provider deems it is required that they have their reproductive organs removed,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “Even then, the provider may not decide it is necessary to notify the child’s parents. This policy is reprehensible.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

As the Washington Examiner reported, on-base doctors will also request or even demand to have “alone time” with minor patients, kicking parents out of the room.

A DHA spokesperson declined to comment on the letter but said the agency will respond to the members of Congress directly.

2024-08-05 12:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3109336%2Fhouse-republicans-military-health-agency-parents%2F?w=600&h=450, EXCLUSIVE — Ten House Republicans sent a letter to the Defense Health Agency late last week criticizing its policy of blocking parental access to their children’s medical information, which they say was “obviously enacted to prevent parents from finding out if their child is ‘identifying’ as another gender.” “Once again, woke political appointees are pushing,

EXCLUSIVE — Ten House Republicans sent a letter to the Defense Health Agency late last week criticizing its policy of blocking parental access to their children’s medical information, which they say was “obviously enacted to prevent parents from finding out if their child is ‘identifying’ as another gender.”

“Once again, woke political appointees are pushing a radical policy that strips military parents of their rights,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO), who led the letter, told the Washington Examiner. “Shamefully, it could leave parents without the opportunity to engage with their child about a life changing decision until it’s too late. We are calling on DHA to reconsider this reprehensible policy and put the rights of service member parents ahead of politics.”

Under the DHA’s policy, families who use Tricare and have children between the ages of 13 and 17 cannot access their children’s medical records unless the minor child authorizes them to do so. The policy blocks parental access to the full patient records of their children on Tricare’s digital platform, Genesis. According to the letter, parents can still put in a request for paper copies of their children’s health records, but those are not readily available.

Overseas service members are even more hamstrung, according to the letter addressed to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Lester Martinez-Lopez, as policies dealing with “reproductive healthcare” say a doctor can determine whether children can keep their medical decisions secret from their parents and consent to interventions on their own.

“When reproductive health care services are requested by a minor, and the healthcare provider is satisfied the minor meets the definition of a ‘mature minor,’ the consent of the minor is sufficient to provide treatment,” according to the DHA policy. The military defines a “mature minor” as children 15 or older.

“Some complicating circumstances may necessitate the notification of a minor’s parent, legal guardian, surrogate decision maker, or sponsor,” the policy continues. “These include life-threatening conditions, conditions that may require the removal of reproductive organs, and a change in behavior that brings into question the maturity with which the minor is approaching their health care that may result in potential harm to themselves or others.”

If a child is deemed mature enough by a doctor, they could receive a diagnosis that “may require the removal of reproductive organs.” A diagnosis could include gender dysphoria.

“Such a scenario may lead to a situation where servicemember parents stationed overseas have no opportunity to engage with their child about a life changing decision until the point that a provider deems it is required that they have their reproductive organs removed,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “Even then, the provider may not decide it is necessary to notify the child’s parents. This policy is reprehensible.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

As the Washington Examiner reported, on-base doctors will also request or even demand to have “alone time” with minor patients, kicking parents out of the room.

A DHA spokesperson declined to comment on the letter but said the agency will respond to the members of Congress directly.

, EXCLUSIVE — Ten House Republicans sent a letter to the Defense Health Agency late last week criticizing its policy of blocking parental access to their children’s medical information, which they say was “obviously enacted to prevent parents from finding out if their child is ‘identifying’ as another gender.” “Once again, woke political appointees are pushing a radical policy that strips military parents of their rights,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO), who led the letter, told the Washington Examiner. “Shamefully, it could leave parents without the opportunity to engage with their child about a life changing decision until it’s too late. We are calling on DHA to reconsider this reprehensible policy and put the rights of service member parents ahead of politics.” Under the DHA’s policy, families who use Tricare and have children between the ages of 13 and 17 cannot access their children’s medical records unless the minor child authorizes them to do so. The policy blocks parental access to the full patient records of their children on Tricare’s digital platform, Genesis. According to the letter, parents can still put in a request for paper copies of their children’s health records, but those are not readily available. Overseas service members are even more hamstrung, according to the letter addressed to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Lester Martinez-Lopez, as policies dealing with “reproductive healthcare” say a doctor can determine whether children can keep their medical decisions secret from their parents and consent to interventions on their own. “When reproductive health care services are requested by a minor, and the healthcare provider is satisfied the minor meets the definition of a ‘mature minor,’ the consent of the minor is sufficient to provide treatment,” according to the DHA policy. The military defines a “mature minor” as children 15 or older. “Some complicating circumstances may necessitate the notification of a minor’s parent, legal guardian, surrogate decision maker, or sponsor,” the policy continues. “These include life-threatening conditions, conditions that may require the removal of reproductive organs, and a change in behavior that brings into question the maturity with which the minor is approaching their health care that may result in potential harm to themselves or others.” If a child is deemed mature enough by a doctor, they could receive a diagnosis that “may require the removal of reproductive organs.” A diagnosis could include gender dysphoria. “Such a scenario may lead to a situation where servicemember parents stationed overseas have no opportunity to engage with their child about a life changing decision until the point that a provider deems it is required that they have their reproductive organs removed,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “Even then, the provider may not decide it is necessary to notify the child’s parents. This policy is reprehensible.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER As the Washington Examiner reported, on-base doctors will also request or even demand to have “alone time” with minor patients, kicking parents out of the room. A DHA spokesperson declined to comment on the letter but said the agency will respond to the members of Congress directly., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/mark-alford-defense-health-2024-scaled-1024×682.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

As the Biden administration’s controversial Title IX rules go into effect Thursday, many due process protections afforded under the Trump era rules are being retracted and returning to what critics called the “kangaroo courts” of the Obama years.

President Joe Biden’s rules have been blocked by federal judges across the country, pausing their implementation in numerous states and hundreds of schools, with more cases pending. But for far more states and schools, the rewritten rules go into effect Aug. 1, and how schools approach handling sexual assault allegations will be dramatically changed.

While most of the court cases and media coverage about Biden’s Title IX rewrite has focused on how it changed the definition of sex to include claimed gender identities — thereby shuttering private spaces for girls and boys to use restrooms and locker rooms separately, for example — the new rules also strip away many major due process protections for alleged Title IX violations on college campuses and diminish the presumption of innocence for the accused.

“The Biden-Harris Title IX rule is a stunning reversal of the due process protections found in the 2020 DeVos rule. Their new regulatory regime does not serve students — not survivors of sexual assault, and not those accused of sexual misconduct,” Bob Eitel, co-founder and president of Defense of Freedom Institute, told the Washington Examiner. “Survivors will be forced to re-live their experiences through repeated court challenges, and the accused will be left with little alternative but to seek redress in court from the Kangaroo-style Title IX campus investigations and disciplinary proceedings encouraged by the rule.”

“Educational institutions should take measures now to increase their liability insurance coverage, because they’re going to need it,” he added.

Eitel served in the Trump administration as senior counselor to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos when the original rules governing Title IX were written, with a distinct focus on ensuring the due process protections of accusers and the accused on college campuses. Prior to those rules, Title IX was governed by a hodgepodge of directives, primarily through a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter which stacked Title IX adjudication heavily in favor of the accusers, without much regard for the accused even in cases where accusations were false.

The “Dear Colleague” letter created a confusing and unfair framework for both men and women, critics say. When DeVos announced her plans to create rules governing Title IX in 2017, she referenced multiple failures under the Obama-era system, which is largely reinstituted under Biden’s overhaul.

For example, at Stony Brook University, a female sexual assault victim reported the incident to her school in 2013 and was told she would have to prosecute the case herself. “Without any legal training whatsoever, she had to prepare an opening statement, fix exhibits, and find witnesses,” DeVos said in a speech.

In a 2017 case from the University of Southern California, a man’s life was turned upside down by a neighbor claiming that he had sexually assaulted his girlfriend. Despite the consensual nature of what the couple described as “playfully roughhousing” and the girlfriend repeatedly telling the Title IX office that she had not been abused in any way, administrators overruled her, kicked her boyfriend off the football team, and expelled him from school.

“When I told the truth,” the girlfriend said. “I was stereotyped and was told I must be a ‘battered’ woman, and that made me feel demeaned and absurdly profiled.”

The upcoming Title IX rules are set to return campuses to the old system, which was rife with examples of mistreatment of the accused and accusers.

“Justice is only possible when hearings are fair for everyone,” Will Creeley, legal director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said when the rules were initially finalized. “Today’s regulations mean one thing: America’s college students are less likely to receive justice if they find themselves in a Title IX proceeding.”

“When administrators investigate the most serious kinds of campus misconduct, colleges should use the time-tested tools that make finding the truth more likely,” Creeley added. “But the new regulations no longer require them to do so.”

Under the Biden framework, a student can be found guilty of sexual assault without ever being able to see the full scope of evidence against them. Instead, the accused student would only have to be provided with a description of what the university considers “relevant evidence,” and the school can deliver that information orally as opposed to in writing.

During the adjudication process, or grievance procedure, conducted by the Title IX office, an accused student’s guaranteed right to a live hearing, with the ability to cross-examine the accuser, has also been taken away.

While the Biden administration argues that the hearing and cross-examination could re-traumatize an alleged victim and dissuade others from coming forward with complaints, the ability to do so is a central component to resolving competing claims fairly, as the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2018.

The new Title IX rules also return the investigation process to what is known as the “single investigator” model, which allows only one Title IX officer to both investigate and decide the outcome of the case — or, critics say, act as judge and jury. Under the Trump-era rules, at least three people — a coordinator who receives reports of misconduct, an investigator, and a decision-maker — were required for each investigation.

The Biden administration defended returning to the single-investigator model by noting that “requiring separate staff members to handle investigation and adjudication is burdensome for some recipients.”

Opponents of the due process change say concerns about fairness should outweigh concerns about administrative resources.

“Considering how vital a neutral and fair final decision-maker is to the fairness of the process, the accuracy of the fact-finding, and the integrity and robustness of the final decision, any additional administrative inconvenience and cost are more than justified (and are likely to save money and headaches down the road),” Perkins Coie attorneys T. Markus Funk and Jean-Jacques Cabou pointed out.

The evidentiary standard for misconduct has also been lowered by the Biden administration, making it much easier for the accused to be found guilty of wrongdoing. Under the Trump rules, a standard known as “clear and convincing” was used, meaning the evidence would have to be strong enough to remove any serious doubts about the legitimacy of the allegations. Under the Biden administration’s “preponderance of the evidence” standard, the evidence must present as more likely than not that the allegation occurred — sometimes compared to an above 50% chance. The only way a school can now use the clear and convincing standard in a Title IX investigation is if they use it in most other comparable proceedings.

Despite the 2020 rules requiring the same high burden of proof for everyone, the Biden rules actually require a greater burden of proof when the accused is an employee than when the accused is a student, making it harder for faculty members to be found guilty of wrongdoing, but easier for students.

As Eitel alluded to, litigation is likely to come from the diminished due process standards under the Biden framework. Some lawsuits have already mentioned the due process issues.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Only days after the Biden administration finalized the ruling, a number of plaintiffs, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, filed a challenge arguing, “The elimination of a parties’ right to a live hearing with cross-examination, even when credibility is a key issue, is arbitrary and capricious. The challenged rule states that college students accused of misconduct — charges that could ruin their academic and professional careers if they are found guilty — no longer have a right to be accompanied by counsel at all proceedings. … The Department has not reasonably considered these concerns.”

The Biden administration did not “adequately consider the significant due-process concerns of a single-investigator model, let alone how its interests militate the grave dangers of allowing a single person [to] investigate, prosecute, and convict,” the lawsuit stated.

2024-08-01 08:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3104372%2Frights-on-title-ix-campus-due-process-biden-harris-overhaul%2F?w=600&h=450, As the Biden administration’s controversial Title IX rules go into effect Thursday, many due process protections afforded under the Trump era rules are being retracted and returning to what critics called the “kangaroo courts” of the Obama years. President Joe Biden’s rules have been blocked by federal judges across the country, pausing their implementation in,

As the Biden administration’s controversial Title IX rules go into effect Thursday, many due process protections afforded under the Trump era rules are being retracted and returning to what critics called the “kangaroo courts” of the Obama years.

President Joe Biden’s rules have been blocked by federal judges across the country, pausing their implementation in numerous states and hundreds of schools, with more cases pending. But for far more states and schools, the rewritten rules go into effect Aug. 1, and how schools approach handling sexual assault allegations will be dramatically changed.

While most of the court cases and media coverage about Biden’s Title IX rewrite has focused on how it changed the definition of sex to include claimed gender identities — thereby shuttering private spaces for girls and boys to use restrooms and locker rooms separately, for example — the new rules also strip away many major due process protections for alleged Title IX violations on college campuses and diminish the presumption of innocence for the accused.

“The Biden-Harris Title IX rule is a stunning reversal of the due process protections found in the 2020 DeVos rule. Their new regulatory regime does not serve students — not survivors of sexual assault, and not those accused of sexual misconduct,” Bob Eitel, co-founder and president of Defense of Freedom Institute, told the Washington Examiner. “Survivors will be forced to re-live their experiences through repeated court challenges, and the accused will be left with little alternative but to seek redress in court from the Kangaroo-style Title IX campus investigations and disciplinary proceedings encouraged by the rule.”

“Educational institutions should take measures now to increase their liability insurance coverage, because they’re going to need it,” he added.

Eitel served in the Trump administration as senior counselor to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos when the original rules governing Title IX were written, with a distinct focus on ensuring the due process protections of accusers and the accused on college campuses. Prior to those rules, Title IX was governed by a hodgepodge of directives, primarily through a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter which stacked Title IX adjudication heavily in favor of the accusers, without much regard for the accused even in cases where accusations were false.

The “Dear Colleague” letter created a confusing and unfair framework for both men and women, critics say. When DeVos announced her plans to create rules governing Title IX in 2017, she referenced multiple failures under the Obama-era system, which is largely reinstituted under Biden’s overhaul.

For example, at Stony Brook University, a female sexual assault victim reported the incident to her school in 2013 and was told she would have to prosecute the case herself. “Without any legal training whatsoever, she had to prepare an opening statement, fix exhibits, and find witnesses,” DeVos said in a speech.

In a 2017 case from the University of Southern California, a man’s life was turned upside down by a neighbor claiming that he had sexually assaulted his girlfriend. Despite the consensual nature of what the couple described as “playfully roughhousing” and the girlfriend repeatedly telling the Title IX office that she had not been abused in any way, administrators overruled her, kicked her boyfriend off the football team, and expelled him from school.

“When I told the truth,” the girlfriend said. “I was stereotyped and was told I must be a ‘battered’ woman, and that made me feel demeaned and absurdly profiled.”

The upcoming Title IX rules are set to return campuses to the old system, which was rife with examples of mistreatment of the accused and accusers.

“Justice is only possible when hearings are fair for everyone,” Will Creeley, legal director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said when the rules were initially finalized. “Today’s regulations mean one thing: America’s college students are less likely to receive justice if they find themselves in a Title IX proceeding.”

“When administrators investigate the most serious kinds of campus misconduct, colleges should use the time-tested tools that make finding the truth more likely,” Creeley added. “But the new regulations no longer require them to do so.”

Under the Biden framework, a student can be found guilty of sexual assault without ever being able to see the full scope of evidence against them. Instead, the accused student would only have to be provided with a description of what the university considers “relevant evidence,” and the school can deliver that information orally as opposed to in writing.

During the adjudication process, or grievance procedure, conducted by the Title IX office, an accused student’s guaranteed right to a live hearing, with the ability to cross-examine the accuser, has also been taken away.

While the Biden administration argues that the hearing and cross-examination could re-traumatize an alleged victim and dissuade others from coming forward with complaints, the ability to do so is a central component to resolving competing claims fairly, as the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2018.

The new Title IX rules also return the investigation process to what is known as the “single investigator” model, which allows only one Title IX officer to both investigate and decide the outcome of the case — or, critics say, act as judge and jury. Under the Trump-era rules, at least three people — a coordinator who receives reports of misconduct, an investigator, and a decision-maker — were required for each investigation.

The Biden administration defended returning to the single-investigator model by noting that “requiring separate staff members to handle investigation and adjudication is burdensome for some recipients.”

Opponents of the due process change say concerns about fairness should outweigh concerns about administrative resources.

“Considering how vital a neutral and fair final decision-maker is to the fairness of the process, the accuracy of the fact-finding, and the integrity and robustness of the final decision, any additional administrative inconvenience and cost are more than justified (and are likely to save money and headaches down the road),” Perkins Coie attorneys T. Markus Funk and Jean-Jacques Cabou pointed out.

The evidentiary standard for misconduct has also been lowered by the Biden administration, making it much easier for the accused to be found guilty of wrongdoing. Under the Trump rules, a standard known as “clear and convincing” was used, meaning the evidence would have to be strong enough to remove any serious doubts about the legitimacy of the allegations. Under the Biden administration’s “preponderance of the evidence” standard, the evidence must present as more likely than not that the allegation occurred — sometimes compared to an above 50% chance. The only way a school can now use the clear and convincing standard in a Title IX investigation is if they use it in most other comparable proceedings.

Despite the 2020 rules requiring the same high burden of proof for everyone, the Biden rules actually require a greater burden of proof when the accused is an employee than when the accused is a student, making it harder for faculty members to be found guilty of wrongdoing, but easier for students.

As Eitel alluded to, litigation is likely to come from the diminished due process standards under the Biden framework. Some lawsuits have already mentioned the due process issues.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Only days after the Biden administration finalized the ruling, a number of plaintiffs, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, filed a challenge arguing, “The elimination of a parties’ right to a live hearing with cross-examination, even when credibility is a key issue, is arbitrary and capricious. The challenged rule states that college students accused of misconduct — charges that could ruin their academic and professional careers if they are found guilty — no longer have a right to be accompanied by counsel at all proceedings. … The Department has not reasonably considered these concerns.”

The Biden administration did not “adequately consider the significant due-process concerns of a single-investigator model, let alone how its interests militate the grave dangers of allowing a single person [to] investigate, prosecute, and convict,” the lawsuit stated.

, As the Biden administration’s controversial Title IX rules go into effect Thursday, many due process protections afforded under the Trump era rules are being retracted and returning to what critics called the “kangaroo courts” of the Obama years. President Joe Biden’s rules have been blocked by federal judges across the country, pausing their implementation in numerous states and hundreds of schools, with more cases pending. But for far more states and schools, the rewritten rules go into effect Aug. 1, and how schools approach handling sexual assault allegations will be dramatically changed. While most of the court cases and media coverage about Biden’s Title IX rewrite has focused on how it changed the definition of sex to include claimed gender identities — thereby shuttering private spaces for girls and boys to use restrooms and locker rooms separately, for example — the new rules also strip away many major due process protections for alleged Title IX violations on college campuses and diminish the presumption of innocence for the accused. “The Biden-Harris Title IX rule is a stunning reversal of the due process protections found in the 2020 DeVos rule. Their new regulatory regime does not serve students — not survivors of sexual assault, and not those accused of sexual misconduct,” Bob Eitel, co-founder and president of Defense of Freedom Institute, told the Washington Examiner. “Survivors will be forced to re-live their experiences through repeated court challenges, and the accused will be left with little alternative but to seek redress in court from the Kangaroo-style Title IX campus investigations and disciplinary proceedings encouraged by the rule.” “Educational institutions should take measures now to increase their liability insurance coverage, because they’re going to need it,” he added. Eitel served in the Trump administration as senior counselor to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos when the original rules governing Title IX were written, with a distinct focus on ensuring the due process protections of accusers and the accused on college campuses. Prior to those rules, Title IX was governed by a hodgepodge of directives, primarily through a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter which stacked Title IX adjudication heavily in favor of the accusers, without much regard for the accused even in cases where accusations were false. The “Dear Colleague” letter created a confusing and unfair framework for both men and women, critics say. When DeVos announced her plans to create rules governing Title IX in 2017, she referenced multiple failures under the Obama-era system, which is largely reinstituted under Biden’s overhaul. For example, at Stony Brook University, a female sexual assault victim reported the incident to her school in 2013 and was told she would have to prosecute the case herself. “Without any legal training whatsoever, she had to prepare an opening statement, fix exhibits, and find witnesses,” DeVos said in a speech. In a 2017 case from the University of Southern California, a man’s life was turned upside down by a neighbor claiming that he had sexually assaulted his girlfriend. Despite the consensual nature of what the couple described as “playfully roughhousing” and the girlfriend repeatedly telling the Title IX office that she had not been abused in any way, administrators overruled her, kicked her boyfriend off the football team, and expelled him from school. “When I told the truth,” the girlfriend said. “I was stereotyped and was told I must be a ‘battered’ woman, and that made me feel demeaned and absurdly profiled.” The upcoming Title IX rules are set to return campuses to the old system, which was rife with examples of mistreatment of the accused and accusers. “Justice is only possible when hearings are fair for everyone,” Will Creeley, legal director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said when the rules were initially finalized. “Today’s regulations mean one thing: America’s college students are less likely to receive justice if they find themselves in a Title IX proceeding.” “When administrators investigate the most serious kinds of campus misconduct, colleges should use the time-tested tools that make finding the truth more likely,” Creeley added. “But the new regulations no longer require them to do so.” Under the Biden framework, a student can be found guilty of sexual assault without ever being able to see the full scope of evidence against them. Instead, the accused student would only have to be provided with a description of what the university considers “relevant evidence,” and the school can deliver that information orally as opposed to in writing. During the adjudication process, or grievance procedure, conducted by the Title IX office, an accused student’s guaranteed right to a live hearing, with the ability to cross-examine the accuser, has also been taken away. While the Biden administration argues that the hearing and cross-examination could re-traumatize an alleged victim and dissuade others from coming forward with complaints, the ability to do so is a central component to resolving competing claims fairly, as the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2018. The new Title IX rules also return the investigation process to what is known as the “single investigator” model, which allows only one Title IX officer to both investigate and decide the outcome of the case — or, critics say, act as judge and jury. Under the Trump-era rules, at least three people — a coordinator who receives reports of misconduct, an investigator, and a decision-maker — were required for each investigation. The Biden administration defended returning to the single-investigator model by noting that “requiring separate staff members to handle investigation and adjudication is burdensome for some recipients.” Opponents of the due process change say concerns about fairness should outweigh concerns about administrative resources. “Considering how vital a neutral and fair final decision-maker is to the fairness of the process, the accuracy of the fact-finding, and the integrity and robustness of the final decision, any additional administrative inconvenience and cost are more than justified (and are likely to save money and headaches down the road),” Perkins Coie attorneys T. Markus Funk and Jean-Jacques Cabou pointed out. The evidentiary standard for misconduct has also been lowered by the Biden administration, making it much easier for the accused to be found guilty of wrongdoing. Under the Trump rules, a standard known as “clear and convincing” was used, meaning the evidence would have to be strong enough to remove any serious doubts about the legitimacy of the allegations. Under the Biden administration’s “preponderance of the evidence” standard, the evidence must present as more likely than not that the allegation occurred — sometimes compared to an above 50% chance. The only way a school can now use the clear and convincing standard in a Title IX investigation is if they use it in most other comparable proceedings. Despite the 2020 rules requiring the same high burden of proof for everyone, the Biden rules actually require a greater burden of proof when the accused is an employee than when the accused is a student, making it harder for faculty members to be found guilty of wrongdoing, but easier for students. As Eitel alluded to, litigation is likely to come from the diminished due process standards under the Biden framework. Some lawsuits have already mentioned the due process issues. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Only days after the Biden administration finalized the ruling, a number of plaintiffs, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, filed a challenge arguing, “The elimination of a parties’ right to a live hearing with cross-examination, even when credibility is a key issue, is arbitrary and capricious. The challenged rule states that college students accused of misconduct — charges that could ruin their academic and professional careers if they are found guilty — no longer have a right to be accompanied by counsel at all proceedings. … The Department has not reasonably considered these concerns.” The Biden administration did not “adequately consider the significant due-process concerns of a single-investigator model, let alone how its interests militate the grave dangers of allowing a single person [to] investigate, prosecute, and convict,” the lawsuit stated., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Harris_Biden_Campaign_771.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

Diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at universities in Alabama, Missouri, and Iowa are shutting down ahead of the fall semester as more schools respond to laws barring the ideology.

Auburn University announced Monday evening that it would be dissolving its DEI office by Aug. 15, following an announcement last week that the entire University of Alabama system would close DEI offices at its three schools as well.

The moves from the Alabama schools come after Gov. Kay Ivey (R-AL) signed a bill in March that outlawed school events and programs that require certain racial or sexual check marks in order to participate. The bill also bars racial or sexual discrimination through favoritism and teaching that “meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist.” All public schools in the state are required to comply by Oct. 1.

While Auburn has not yet announced future plans for offices with similar goals as a DEI office, the University of Alabama system did, simply moving DEI chief Dr. Christine Taylor, whose title was vice president and associate provost for diversity, equity and inclusion, to helm the newly formed Division of Opportunities, Connections and Success.

Schools across the country facing legislative DEI bans have made similar moves, simply moving employees and renaming offices that will ultimately continue to inject DEI ideology into the operation of the university.

The University of Missouri announced Tuesday that it would also be shutting down its DEI division, coming after the school’s DEI Vice Chancellor Maurice Gipson announced he would be departing the school in August.

Mizzou President Mun Choi held a press conference Tuesday announcing a reorganization of the office. In a written statement, Choi said, “In the Missouri Legislature, 13 pieces of DEI legislation were introduced during the past two years. … Our proactive responses played a role in averting the passage of these bills. These responses included the elimination of diversity hiring statements; the ending of race-conscious admissions and scholarships; and ensuring that inclusion means inclusion for all.”

Last week, thanking Gipson for his service, Choi said the two would be speaking about how to keep DEI alive at the school, while responding to political pressure to get rid of the ideology. Choi said no employees will lose their job.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Last week, Iowa State University closed its DEI offices following recommendations from the Board of Regents and state lawmakers, cutting five positions total, though three were already vacant.

The closure followed directives from the board to eliminate DEI offices and restructure them. The directives were passed in the state legislature as well, which added punishments for violations. The law barred DEI offices, DEI-specific employees, and DEI spending, except when the spending is required for accreditation or by law.

2024-07-30 22:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Feducation%2F3104891%2Fmore-campus-dei-offices-shut-down-ahead-of-fall-semester%2F?w=600&h=450, Diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at universities in Alabama, Missouri, and Iowa are shutting down ahead of the fall semester as more schools respond to laws barring the ideology. Auburn University announced Monday evening that it would be dissolving its DEI office by Aug. 15, following an announcement last week that the entire University of,

Diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at universities in Alabama, Missouri, and Iowa are shutting down ahead of the fall semester as more schools respond to laws barring the ideology.

Auburn University announced Monday evening that it would be dissolving its DEI office by Aug. 15, following an announcement last week that the entire University of Alabama system would close DEI offices at its three schools as well.

The moves from the Alabama schools come after Gov. Kay Ivey (R-AL) signed a bill in March that outlawed school events and programs that require certain racial or sexual check marks in order to participate. The bill also bars racial or sexual discrimination through favoritism and teaching that “meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist.” All public schools in the state are required to comply by Oct. 1.

While Auburn has not yet announced future plans for offices with similar goals as a DEI office, the University of Alabama system did, simply moving DEI chief Dr. Christine Taylor, whose title was vice president and associate provost for diversity, equity and inclusion, to helm the newly formed Division of Opportunities, Connections and Success.

Schools across the country facing legislative DEI bans have made similar moves, simply moving employees and renaming offices that will ultimately continue to inject DEI ideology into the operation of the university.

The University of Missouri announced Tuesday that it would also be shutting down its DEI division, coming after the school’s DEI Vice Chancellor Maurice Gipson announced he would be departing the school in August.

Mizzou President Mun Choi held a press conference Tuesday announcing a reorganization of the office. In a written statement, Choi said, “In the Missouri Legislature, 13 pieces of DEI legislation were introduced during the past two years. … Our proactive responses played a role in averting the passage of these bills. These responses included the elimination of diversity hiring statements; the ending of race-conscious admissions and scholarships; and ensuring that inclusion means inclusion for all.”

Last week, thanking Gipson for his service, Choi said the two would be speaking about how to keep DEI alive at the school, while responding to political pressure to get rid of the ideology. Choi said no employees will lose their job.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Last week, Iowa State University closed its DEI offices following recommendations from the Board of Regents and state lawmakers, cutting five positions total, though three were already vacant.

The closure followed directives from the board to eliminate DEI offices and restructure them. The directives were passed in the state legislature as well, which added punishments for violations. The law barred DEI offices, DEI-specific employees, and DEI spending, except when the spending is required for accreditation or by law.

, Diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at universities in Alabama, Missouri, and Iowa are shutting down ahead of the fall semester as more schools respond to laws barring the ideology. Auburn University announced Monday evening that it would be dissolving its DEI office by Aug. 15, following an announcement last week that the entire University of Alabama system would close DEI offices at its three schools as well. The moves from the Alabama schools come after Gov. Kay Ivey (R-AL) signed a bill in March that outlawed school events and programs that require certain racial or sexual check marks in order to participate. The bill also bars racial or sexual discrimination through favoritism and teaching that “meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist.” All public schools in the state are required to comply by Oct. 1. While Auburn has not yet announced future plans for offices with similar goals as a DEI office, the University of Alabama system did, simply moving DEI chief Dr. Christine Taylor, whose title was vice president and associate provost for diversity, equity and inclusion, to helm the newly formed Division of Opportunities, Connections and Success. Schools across the country facing legislative DEI bans have made similar moves, simply moving employees and renaming offices that will ultimately continue to inject DEI ideology into the operation of the university. The University of Missouri announced Tuesday that it would also be shutting down its DEI division, coming after the school’s DEI Vice Chancellor Maurice Gipson announced he would be departing the school in August. Mizzou President Mun Choi held a press conference Tuesday announcing a reorganization of the office. In a written statement, Choi said, “In the Missouri Legislature, 13 pieces of DEI legislation were introduced during the past two years. … Our proactive responses played a role in averting the passage of these bills. These responses included the elimination of diversity hiring statements; the ending of race-conscious admissions and scholarships; and ensuring that inclusion means inclusion for all.” Last week, thanking Gipson for his service, Choi said the two would be speaking about how to keep DEI alive at the school, while responding to political pressure to get rid of the ideology. Choi said no employees will lose their job. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Last week, Iowa State University closed its DEI offices following recommendations from the Board of Regents and state lawmakers, cutting five positions total, though three were already vacant. The closure followed directives from the board to eliminate DEI offices and restructure them. The directives were passed in the state legislature as well, which added punishments for violations. The law barred DEI offices, DEI-specific employees, and DEI spending, except when the spending is required for accreditation or by law., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/diversity-equity-inclusion-dei-2024-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

Public schools in New York City will see a new black studies curriculum in the fall as part of the city’s Education Equity Action Plan.

The coursework, which will span pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, will focus on knowledge of early African civilizations, modern Africa, black American history, the “African diaspora,” and the purported ongoing presence of racial inequality in society. It will also go over the experience of black people in the Americas from the 17th century to present day and black history in New York state and New York City.

“Building a more equitable society begins with education,” Thomas Bailey, president of Teachers College at Columbia University said, according to Staten Island Advance. “The launch of the new Black Studies curriculum, developed by TC’s Black Education Research Center, is a crucial step in this effort. This initiative builds on Teachers College’s long history of adapting teaching methods and curricula to meet the needs of all students in inclusive and supportive educational environments.”

The new curriculum is the product of a collaboration among the city’s Department of Education, the City Council, and the Education Equity Action Plan, and it was created by the Columbia Teachers College’s Black Education Research Center. It is called “Black Studies as the Study of the World: A PK-12 Black Studies Curriculum for New York City Public Schools.”

The curriculum has already been in some schools, as it was taught under a pilot program last year in 120 schools throughout 18 city school districts, making up roughly 6,500 students with access. The program will be available to all schools starting in September.

“Every student should see their identity and history in their education. I am delighted to witness the culmination of this significant initiative in our schools,” city schools Chancellor David C. Banks said. “The Black Studies Curriculum’s comprehensive and integrated approach will deepen our students’ awareness of themselves and their communities. By incorporating pivotal narratives and voices into our arts, English, and history classes, we will enrich their educational experience and understanding of the world around them.”

The Black Education Research Center describes the curriculum as interdisciplinary and “culturally affirming” and is intending for the curriculum to be a model for school districts across the country to implement black studies into their curriculums.

New York City already has a black studies curriculum called “Hidden Voices: Stories of the Global African Diaspora” that was launched in February.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

School districts in other parts of the country have gone down a similar path. Recently, Georgia found itself in controversy after initially denying funding for a black studies Advanced Placement course last week, but ultimately reversed its decision and granted funding within days.

The reversal came after a backlash in Georgia when advocates of the black studies courses claimed leaders in the state were attempting to suppress black history. However, states such as Florida and Arkansas have restricted similar courses, as many are written using a critical race theory lens.

2024-07-29 22:58:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3103247%2Fnew-york-city-public-schools-to-start-new-black-studies-classes-in-the-fall%2F?w=600&h=450, Public schools in New York City will see a new black studies curriculum in the fall as part of the city’s Education Equity Action Plan. The coursework, which will span pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, will focus on knowledge of early African civilizations, modern Africa, black American history, the “African diaspora,” and the purported ongoing presence,

Public schools in New York City will see a new black studies curriculum in the fall as part of the city’s Education Equity Action Plan.

The coursework, which will span pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, will focus on knowledge of early African civilizations, modern Africa, black American history, the “African diaspora,” and the purported ongoing presence of racial inequality in society. It will also go over the experience of black people in the Americas from the 17th century to present day and black history in New York state and New York City.

“Building a more equitable society begins with education,” Thomas Bailey, president of Teachers College at Columbia University said, according to Staten Island Advance. “The launch of the new Black Studies curriculum, developed by TC’s Black Education Research Center, is a crucial step in this effort. This initiative builds on Teachers College’s long history of adapting teaching methods and curricula to meet the needs of all students in inclusive and supportive educational environments.”

The new curriculum is the product of a collaboration among the city’s Department of Education, the City Council, and the Education Equity Action Plan, and it was created by the Columbia Teachers College’s Black Education Research Center. It is called “Black Studies as the Study of the World: A PK-12 Black Studies Curriculum for New York City Public Schools.”

The curriculum has already been in some schools, as it was taught under a pilot program last year in 120 schools throughout 18 city school districts, making up roughly 6,500 students with access. The program will be available to all schools starting in September.

“Every student should see their identity and history in their education. I am delighted to witness the culmination of this significant initiative in our schools,” city schools Chancellor David C. Banks said. “The Black Studies Curriculum’s comprehensive and integrated approach will deepen our students’ awareness of themselves and their communities. By incorporating pivotal narratives and voices into our arts, English, and history classes, we will enrich their educational experience and understanding of the world around them.”

The Black Education Research Center describes the curriculum as interdisciplinary and “culturally affirming” and is intending for the curriculum to be a model for school districts across the country to implement black studies into their curriculums.

New York City already has a black studies curriculum called “Hidden Voices: Stories of the Global African Diaspora” that was launched in February.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

School districts in other parts of the country have gone down a similar path. Recently, Georgia found itself in controversy after initially denying funding for a black studies Advanced Placement course last week, but ultimately reversed its decision and granted funding within days.

The reversal came after a backlash in Georgia when advocates of the black studies courses claimed leaders in the state were attempting to suppress black history. However, states such as Florida and Arkansas have restricted similar courses, as many are written using a critical race theory lens.

, Public schools in New York City will see a new black studies curriculum in the fall as part of the city’s Education Equity Action Plan. The coursework, which will span pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, will focus on knowledge of early African civilizations, modern Africa, black American history, the “African diaspora,” and the purported ongoing presence of racial inequality in society. It will also go over the experience of black people in the Americas from the 17th century to present day and black history in New York state and New York City. “Building a more equitable society begins with education,” Thomas Bailey, president of Teachers College at Columbia University said, according to Staten Island Advance. “The launch of the new Black Studies curriculum, developed by TC’s Black Education Research Center, is a crucial step in this effort. This initiative builds on Teachers College’s long history of adapting teaching methods and curricula to meet the needs of all students in inclusive and supportive educational environments.” The new curriculum is the product of a collaboration among the city’s Department of Education, the City Council, and the Education Equity Action Plan, and it was created by the Columbia Teachers College’s Black Education Research Center. It is called “Black Studies as the Study of the World: A PK-12 Black Studies Curriculum for New York City Public Schools.” The curriculum has already been in some schools, as it was taught under a pilot program last year in 120 schools throughout 18 city school districts, making up roughly 6,500 students with access. The program will be available to all schools starting in September. “Every student should see their identity and history in their education. I am delighted to witness the culmination of this significant initiative in our schools,” city schools Chancellor David C. Banks said. “The Black Studies Curriculum’s comprehensive and integrated approach will deepen our students’ awareness of themselves and their communities. By incorporating pivotal narratives and voices into our arts, English, and history classes, we will enrich their educational experience and understanding of the world around them.” The Black Education Research Center describes the curriculum as interdisciplinary and “culturally affirming” and is intending for the curriculum to be a model for school districts across the country to implement black studies into their curriculums. New York City already has a black studies curriculum called “Hidden Voices: Stories of the Global African Diaspora” that was launched in February. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER School districts in other parts of the country have gone down a similar path. Recently, Georgia found itself in controversy after initially denying funding for a black studies Advanced Placement course last week, but ultimately reversed its decision and granted funding within days. The reversal came after a backlash in Georgia when advocates of the black studies courses claimed leaders in the state were attempting to suppress black history. However, states such as Florida and Arkansas have restricted similar courses, as many are written using a critical race theory lens., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/classroom-1024×598.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,

A court in Fairfax County, Virginia, has recognized a student’s right to sue her school district over its policy requiring her to use other students’ preferred pronouns and share restrooms with students who claim transgender identity.

A judge on Thursday allowed a female Fairfax County Public Schools student, who filed suit anonymously and is represented by America First Legal, to sue after the county attempted to get the case thrown out by saying the student had not alleged harm.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision recognizing that students can, in fact, challenge unconstitutional policies implemented by school boards in Virginia,” AFL counsel Andrew Block said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “We look forward to continuing to work on behalf of our client.”

The female student, filing as Jane Doe, said she was followed into the girls’ restroom by a male student who identified as “gender expansive” and who regularly used both male and female restrooms, according to the complaint. Doe also said the school’s student code of conduct, called the “Students Rights and Responsibilities,” compels her and others to use the preferred pronouns of students who identify as something other than their biological sex.

Fairfax County’s school policies can require girls to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys, saying that “gender expansive and transgender students shall be provided with the option of using a locker room or restroom consistent with the student’s gender identity.” If any student is uncomfortable using a restroom with someone of the opposite sex, such as Doe, it is the responsibility of those students to find alternative private facilities to use, according to the school district’s policies.

Similarly, the code of conduct states that “students who identify as gender-expansive or transgender should be called by their chosen name or pronouns, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent pupil record.”

Doe is challenging the FCPS policies on the basis of sex and religious discrimination, as well as being an alleged violation of her free speech rights.

According to the complaint, Doe was forced to watch a school-provided video that told her students can use whichever restrooms they want, and the school subsequently compelled her to take a test forcing her to affirm the information she had just received. Not following the protocols in the code of conduct would be met with disciplinary action.

Doe was also required to provide her own pronouns in class and was not afforded the opportunity to opt out. She has also been forced to self-censor, according to the complaint.

“Petitioner is a practicing Catholic who believes that God created each person as male or female, that the complementary sexes reflect the image of God, that sex cannot be altered, and that rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God in that person,” it said. “She believes that referring to another person using pronouns that do not correspond with that person’s biological sex is harmful to that person because it is false and harmful to herself because it forces her to lie by denying her religious beliefs and scientific evidence.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Because sharing a restroom with a male would be ‘contrary to [her] sincerely held philosophical and religious beliefs and her desire for modesty and privacy as a woman,’ she exited the bathroom,” the complaint said. “When the Petitioner’s mother brought this to the attention of the principal, he said that Roe was permitted by the SR&R to use the bathroom that corresponded with his gender identity.”

2024-07-26 20:45:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Feducation%2F3100902%2Fvirginia-court-recognizes-students-right-to-sue-over-schools-transgender-policies%2F?w=600&h=450, A court in Fairfax County, Virginia, has recognized a student’s right to sue her school district over its policy requiring her to use other students’ preferred pronouns and share restrooms with students who claim transgender identity. A judge on Thursday allowed a female Fairfax County Public Schools student, who filed suit anonymously and is represented,

A court in Fairfax County, Virginia, has recognized a student’s right to sue her school district over its policy requiring her to use other students’ preferred pronouns and share restrooms with students who claim transgender identity.

A judge on Thursday allowed a female Fairfax County Public Schools student, who filed suit anonymously and is represented by America First Legal, to sue after the county attempted to get the case thrown out by saying the student had not alleged harm.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision recognizing that students can, in fact, challenge unconstitutional policies implemented by school boards in Virginia,” AFL counsel Andrew Block said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “We look forward to continuing to work on behalf of our client.”

The female student, filing as Jane Doe, said she was followed into the girls’ restroom by a male student who identified as “gender expansive” and who regularly used both male and female restrooms, according to the complaint. Doe also said the school’s student code of conduct, called the “Students Rights and Responsibilities,” compels her and others to use the preferred pronouns of students who identify as something other than their biological sex.

Fairfax County’s school policies can require girls to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys, saying that “gender expansive and transgender students shall be provided with the option of using a locker room or restroom consistent with the student’s gender identity.” If any student is uncomfortable using a restroom with someone of the opposite sex, such as Doe, it is the responsibility of those students to find alternative private facilities to use, according to the school district’s policies.

Similarly, the code of conduct states that “students who identify as gender-expansive or transgender should be called by their chosen name or pronouns, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent pupil record.”

Doe is challenging the FCPS policies on the basis of sex and religious discrimination, as well as being an alleged violation of her free speech rights.

According to the complaint, Doe was forced to watch a school-provided video that told her students can use whichever restrooms they want, and the school subsequently compelled her to take a test forcing her to affirm the information she had just received. Not following the protocols in the code of conduct would be met with disciplinary action.

Doe was also required to provide her own pronouns in class and was not afforded the opportunity to opt out. She has also been forced to self-censor, according to the complaint.

“Petitioner is a practicing Catholic who believes that God created each person as male or female, that the complementary sexes reflect the image of God, that sex cannot be altered, and that rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God in that person,” it said. “She believes that referring to another person using pronouns that do not correspond with that person’s biological sex is harmful to that person because it is false and harmful to herself because it forces her to lie by denying her religious beliefs and scientific evidence.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Because sharing a restroom with a male would be ‘contrary to [her] sincerely held philosophical and religious beliefs and her desire for modesty and privacy as a woman,’ she exited the bathroom,” the complaint said. “When the Petitioner’s mother brought this to the attention of the principal, he said that Roe was permitted by the SR&R to use the bathroom that corresponded with his gender identity.”

, A court in Fairfax County, Virginia, has recognized a student’s right to sue her school district over its policy requiring her to use other students’ preferred pronouns and share restrooms with students who claim transgender identity. A judge on Thursday allowed a female Fairfax County Public Schools student, who filed suit anonymously and is represented by America First Legal, to sue after the county attempted to get the case thrown out by saying the student had not alleged harm. “We are pleased with the court’s decision recognizing that students can, in fact, challenge unconstitutional policies implemented by school boards in Virginia,” AFL counsel Andrew Block said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “We look forward to continuing to work on behalf of our client.” The female student, filing as Jane Doe, said she was followed into the girls’ restroom by a male student who identified as “gender expansive” and who regularly used both male and female restrooms, according to the complaint. Doe also said the school’s student code of conduct, called the “Students Rights and Responsibilities,” compels her and others to use the preferred pronouns of students who identify as something other than their biological sex. Fairfax County’s school policies can require girls to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys, saying that “gender expansive and transgender students shall be provided with the option of using a locker room or restroom consistent with the student’s gender identity.” If any student is uncomfortable using a restroom with someone of the opposite sex, such as Doe, it is the responsibility of those students to find alternative private facilities to use, according to the school district’s policies. Similarly, the code of conduct states that “students who identify as gender-expansive or transgender should be called by their chosen name or pronouns, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent pupil record.” Doe is challenging the FCPS policies on the basis of sex and religious discrimination, as well as being an alleged violation of her free speech rights. According to the complaint, Doe was forced to watch a school-provided video that told her students can use whichever restrooms they want, and the school subsequently compelled her to take a test forcing her to affirm the information she had just received. Not following the protocols in the code of conduct would be met with disciplinary action. Doe was also required to provide her own pronouns in class and was not afforded the opportunity to opt out. She has also been forced to self-censor, according to the complaint. “Petitioner is a practicing Catholic who believes that God created each person as male or female, that the complementary sexes reflect the image of God, that sex cannot be altered, and that rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God in that person,” it said. “She believes that referring to another person using pronouns that do not correspond with that person’s biological sex is harmful to that person because it is false and harmful to herself because it forces her to lie by denying her religious beliefs and scientific evidence.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “Because sharing a restroom with a male would be ‘contrary to [her] sincerely held philosophical and religious beliefs and her desire for modesty and privacy as a woman,’ she exited the bathroom,” the complaint said. “When the Petitioner’s mother brought this to the attention of the principal, he said that Roe was permitted by the SR&R to use the bathroom that corresponded with his gender identity.”, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/transgender-flag-2024-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Breccan F. Thies,