Has there ever been someone who hasn’t been blessed with at least one of these -- mother, sister, grandmother, wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, granddaughter or a friend who is a female? What does it tell us about our culture where some are more concerned about the “minority” males, who want acceptance in the women’s bathrooms and showers, than they are about protecting the dignity and safety of their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, other family members and friends? To what cause does one sacrifice the rights of their loved ones?
In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case on discrimination, Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). In that case, it held that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII employment law. The majority opinion explained: “Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.”
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, saying: “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation” (Congress’ exclusive power under the Constitution Art. I, §7, cl. 2). Quoting further: “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: ‘race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.’ 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). Neither ‘sexual orientation’ nor ‘gender identity’ appears on that list. . . Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of ‘sex’ still means what it has always meant. . . If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation––not to mention gender identity, a concept essentially unknown at the time.”
Because child labor laws forbid or limit employment of children, it is unlikely that even the most liberal member of the Supreme Court anticipated that its employment law decision would affect children. But on April 19, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education released a “final rule” to revise federal regulations to “fully effectuate” Title IX. The department overview explains, “The [revised] rule prohibits discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics in federally funded education programs, applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.”
“Title IX” refers to the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S. Code §§1681 – 1688, which state 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.” Recalling Justice Alito’s observation: In 1972, when the law was passed, it would have been hard to find any American who thought that discrimination in educational and athletic programs “on the basis of sex” meant discrimination because of sexual orientation––not to mention gender identity. But that meaning is at the center of the regulatory revision.
Furthermore, Title IX prohibits funding institutions (“recipients”) that subject a person “to discrimination under any education program or activity.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681. The Department of Education can enforce its new regulations by termination of federal funding to public K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities, including most private institutions of higher learning. That is a big stick considering the potential impact on Mississippi. This state and its local programs received over $1.5 billion dollars of Department funding in 2023.
In 2021, Mississippi enacted the Fairness Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 37-97-1, et seq., which prohibits “athletic teams or sports designated for ‘females’, ‘women’, or ‘girls’ from allowing participation by ‘students of the male sex’.” The 2024 Legislature passed the SAFER Act to protect and respect dignity and modesty in traditionally recognized private areas of public spaces. i.e., to protect females, children and grown women, from intrusion of the opposite sex in restrooms, locker rooms, dormitory rooms, etc. (Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly, S.B. 2753.) These state laws guard modest privacy. But since the federal regulations prohibit single-sex bathrooms and locker rooms, enforcement of the state laws would preclude federal funding.
The federal revisions take effect on August 1, 2024. Last month the Mississippi Attorney General joined other states’ attorneys general in a lawsuit to declare the Department of Education’s revisions unlawful. The detailed complaint is worth reading. Access is available in a press release found at attorneygenerallynnfitch.com (under “Press Releases” see April 29, 2024 release).
Radical legislation is regularly called “insane” or “ridiculous.” In my opinion, those descriptions are weak. Uncivilized laws like the revised Title IX regulations are evil.
No public institution can command what is contrary to human dignity. When government authority challenges moral authority it is oppressing the fundamental rights and well-being of its citizens.
Hopefully, sitting on the court that decides the pending lawsuit will be someone, male or female, gay or straight, with a sense of moral duty who has a mother, sister, daughter, niece – loved ones whose own rights they are not willing to sacrifice.
Chip Williams is a Northsider.
