If public schools in Michigan or similar states resist the U.S. Department of Education's reaffirmation of the 2020 Title IX Rule, they face several political, legal, and financial risks.
Risks of Resisting Federal Title IX Mandate
Loss of Federal Funding
Scenario: If a school district explicitly refuses to comply with Title IX as interpreted under the reaffirmed 2020 rule, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) can initiate an investigation. Noncompliant schools risk losing federal funding under Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), which held that Title IX is enforceable by withholding federal financial assistance.
Political Fallout: Parents, conservative lawmakers, and advocacy groups may campaign against school board members who push for noncompliance, arguing that their policies harm students and violate federal law.
Litigation from Parents and Advocacy Groups
Scenario: Parents who believe their child’s rights are being violated (e.g., due process concerns in sexual harassment investigations) may sue the district. Under Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), schools can be held liable for failing to address Title IX violations properly.
Legal Precedence: These cases established that schools must respond appropriately to Title IX violations to avoid liability. Noncompliance can result in damages, policy revisions, and legal fees.
Political Backlash and Public Relations Consequences
Scenario: If a school district resists enforcement and faces legal action or funding cuts, it can become a national news story, affecting local elections and school board credibility.
Example: The backlash against Loudoun County, Virginia’s school board over Title IX-related issues in 2021 resulted in political shifts, parental activism, and the election of school board members opposing the district's policies.
Potential Means of Action for Parents and Students
Parents and students who believe a school is violating the reaffirmed 2020 Title IX Rule have several legal and political avenues to pursue:
1. File a Complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
How: Parents or students can file a formal complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
Legal Basis: Under 34 C.F.R. Part 106, schools are obligated to follow Title IX procedures. If OCR determines a violation, the school must correct it or risk funding loss.
2. Litigation Against the School District
Federal Lawsuit: Parents may sue under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights violations).
Example: In Doe v. University of Kentucky, 971 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2020), courts held that individuals can sue for Title IX violations in federal court.
Potential Outcome: Schools found in violation may be ordered to change policies and pay damages.
3. Political and Electoral Advocacy
Parental Mobilization: Parents can run candidates for school board positions to enforce Title IX compliance.
Legislative Action: Michigan’s legislature could pass laws reinforcing compliance with federal standards, or parental groups could lobby state officials.
4. State-Level Complaints
Michigan Department of Education (MDE) Review: Parents can petition the MDE to investigate a district’s handling of Title IX issues.
Legal Argument: Schools receive both state and federal funding and must comply with applicable laws.
Conclusion
Public schools in Michigan that defy the reaffirmed 2020 Title IX Rule face serious political and legal risks, including loss of funding, litigation, and political backlash. Parents and students have strong legal and advocacy tools to hold schools accountable, including OCR complaints, lawsuits, and electoral strategies. Given past precedent and recent political trends, Michigan schools would be unwise to ignore the rule without facing significant consequences.
Â
References
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979): This Supreme Court case established that Title IX includes an implied private right of action, allowing individuals to sue educational institutions for sex-based discrimination.
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998): In this decision, the Supreme Court held that a school district could be liable under Title IX for teacher-student harassment only if an official with authority to address the misconduct had actual knowledge of the harassment and was deliberately indifferent to it.
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999): This case extended Title IX liability to cases of student-on-student harassment, provided that the school is deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment and the harassment is so severe that it denies the victim access to educational opportunities.
Doe v. University of Kentucky, 971 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2020): The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a non-student who was participating in university programs and utilizing university facilities could bring a Title IX claim against the university for alleged deliberate indifference to her report of sexual assault.
Full Text:Â https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-univ-of-ky-1
Comentários