@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

I'm not sure if there's a better way to defend liberty than to put these restrictions in place and defend them, explicitly, on the Title IX precedents. It probably won't work, they'll probably find some spurious distinguisher. But what else can you do, since both conservatives and liberals will follow those precedents on other speech (for different reasons)?

Honor demands the dishonorable be dishonored. A oathbreaker's word should not be trusted, for instance. There are disadvantages to acting with honor; these can be outweighed by the advantages of being treated as if one is honorable, but only if those advantages exist. If honor requires the dishonorable be treated with honor, honor is self-defeating.

Here is a pretty good breakdown of how Title IX actually works from the congressional research service.

Your link disagrees with you and agrees that schools are required by Title IX to prevent "peer" sexual harassment.

The Supreme Court explained that in Title IX cases alleging peer harassment, a school will not be held liable unless its deliberate indifference “subjects” students to harassment. The school’s response must, “at a minimum, ‘cause students to undergo’ harassment or ‘make them liable or vulnerable’ to it.” The harassment thus must occur when the school has “substantial control” over the harasser and the context in which the misconduct occurs. For example, the standard would be satisfied if misconduct occurs on school grounds during school hours.