Following my requests for federal civil rights compliance reviews, the Boston Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations this week against the following universities for offering, promoting, sponsoring, and hosting programs that I allege violate Title IX‘s prohibition of sex discrimination:
1. Boston University is being investigated by the Boston OCR for these three discriminatory single-gender, female-only (no males allowed) programs:
- Boston University AI4ALL is a program for young women [only] currently in their sophomore or junior year of high school in the Boston area.
- Codebreakers is a new program at Boston University for young women [only] who are currently in their freshmen or sophomore year in a Massachusetts high school.
- The Artemis Project is a five-week summer program at Boston University for 9th grade girls [only] enrolled in a greater Boston area high school and is focused on computer science.
2. The University of Rhode Island (URI) is being investigated by the Boston OCR for the following violation:
The University just accepted $1 million from Karen L. Adams for single-sex, female-only scholarships that will discriminate based on sex (no male students are allowed to apply and that scholarship funding openly excludes male students from participation based on sex, and that scholarship funding openly denies male students from the benefits of that funding in violation of Title IX.
As this website indicates, the “Karen L. Adams Scholarship in Communications….benefits junior or senior female [only] students from Rhode Island who maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher.” Obviously, junior and senior male students from Rhode Island are being discriminated against based on sex by being disqualified from applying for those scholarships funds.
Importantly, the chart above shows that women have earned a majority share of bachelors’ degrees in the field of Communications in every year since 1980. And in the most recent year (2017) the female share of Communications degrees was 64.1%, which means that women earned 178 bachelor’s degrees in Communications in that year for every 100 men. Therefore, if “gender parity” is one goal or expected outcome of Title IX, then there should be no justification for URI providing single-gender, female-only scholarship funding for students at URI’s Harrington School of Communication and Media, since women are already significantly over-represented nationally in Communications compared to men. In contrast, a much stronger case could be made that under-represented men, not over-represented women, at the University of Rhode Island in Communications (assuming its female dominance in Communications degrees reflects the national gender imbalance in favor of women) deserve funding, scholarships, gender preferences, and affirmative action to address and correct the current over-representation of females in Communication.
Quick legal review of Title IX:
Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title IX states that: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
In all cases above, it seems clear that some students at Boston University and URI, on the basis of sex: a) are excluded from participation in the programs, b) are denied the benefits of those programs, and c) are subjected to discrimination in all of those single-gender, girl-only programs.
The complaints request any of the following forms of relief deemed proper by the OCR:
1. The abolition of the gender-discriminatory, single-gender, female-only (no males allowed) programs and scholarships above within a reasonable period of time. Unlikely in the case of URI, since it received $1 million in funding for single-gender, female-only, no males-allowed scholarships.
2. The conversion of the single-gender, female-only programs and scholarships above into gender-neutral, gender-inclusive, gender-blind programs within a reasonable period of time. A more likely outcome for URI.
3. The creation of comparable, single-gender, all-male programs and scholarships to offset the current gender favoritism for females and gender discrimination against males in the programs and scholarships above, in violation of Title IX. A more likely outcome for Boston University than for URI.
Bottom Line: It’s very disappointing that as much as we hear from America’s universities about their pious virtue-signalling commitments to “diversity, equity and inclusion” and their alleged zero tolerance for any type of discrimination based on sex/gender, that there are nonetheless so many universities that so openly practice “gender uniformity, gender inequity and gender exclusion” in programs and scholarships like the one identified above and so openly discriminate based on sex in violation of Title IX. Now that my efforts have resulted in nine universities being investigated for violating Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination (Michigan, Wayne State, Clemson, Brown, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Florida Tech, Boston University and the University of Rhode Island), with several dozen more complaints under review by OCR, let’s hope the hypocritical double standard for selectively enforcing federal civil rights laws in higher education will be successfully challenged and resolved in the coming years. In other words, let’s hope we achieve “civil rights for all, not just for some.”
Q: Aside from the fact that it’s clearly illegal, under what moral code, and under what set of ethical principles of fairness, social justice and equity, has it become so acceptable to promote, fund and sanction so much gender favoritism, gender bias, gender preferences, gender prejudice and gender discrimination in higher education? Even now in fields like Communications where females have outnumbered males earning bachelor’s degrees for nearly 40 years, and currently outnumber male students by 178-to-1oo?