Quote:
Originally Posted by Low D Flat
Basically, the law requires coed schools to maintain environments where women have equal access to education. If women are being run off campus, harassed, in fear, etc. due to the prevalence of rape and other kinds of abuse at the hands of their classmates, then they don't have equal access to education at that school. It's no different, from a legal perspective, from a school that requires all the women to take Home Ec and doesn't allow them to major in physics.
This is not just in education law; this is the theory that applies in workplaces, too. If you're being sexually harassed at work, then as far as the institution's responsibility is concerned, it doesn't matter whether it's your co-worker or the CEO that's harassing you. If the bosses know that the environment is toxic and discriminatory, and they don't act to fix it, they're in violation of the law.
|
That seems awfully subjective for a statute that is so concerned with sheer numbers. Say a large number of women leave a school, one of them because of a sexual assault, but the remainder because a formerly all male school nearby has finally opened up to women and it has a better academic reputation. Can that one woman attempt to say this is a title IX violation?
This just doesn't make sense to me - it's like piggybacking one thing on top of another and the 2 things really don't mesh.
Threaded Mode
