Latest news with #SarahParshallPerry
Boston Globe
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Conservative group targets Smith College in federal complaint alleging Title IX violations for admitting transgender women
At the core of the complaint is an argument that Smith has discriminated against 'biological women' by admitting people who were born as men but now identify as women. People who were born as women but now identify as men, the complaint points out, are not eligible for admission at Smith. Advertisement 'As one of the oldest women's institutions in the country, Smith College continues to hold itself out to be for women only, and yet admits natal males who identify as females,' Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president of Defending Education, said in a statement to the Globe. Advertisement According to Smith's website, the school currently 'considers for admission any applicants who self-identify as women,' including those who are cis, trans, and nonbinary. The Daily Wire first reported on A Smith College spokesperson told the Globe Tuesday that the school had not received any official notification of the complaint. College leadership declined to provide further comment. The complaint surfaces a fundamental ideological rift over the difference between sex and gender, while getting at the question of what it means to be a woman — and, by extension, what it means to be a women's college. Mount Holyoke, for example, calls itself ' Since taking power in January, the Trump's administration has set about dismantling protections for transgender people in the name of 'defending women.' President Trump has signed executive orders aimed at shutting down programs and grants that ' 'Trans students aren't an afterthought right now,' said Heron Greenesmith, deputy director of policy at the Transgender Law Center. 'They are at the heart of the administration's racist, anti-bodily-autonomy agenda.' Advertisement Defending Education argues that Smith's trans inclusion means exclusion for biological females who, as a result, have fewer acceptance slots. In a striking twist, the group also suggests Smith is guilty of 'sex discrimination' for barring self-identified transgender men from admission. 'Smith would be better served by opening its doors to all applicants and becoming a coed institution, rather than play politics with sex and gender identity,' Perry said. It's yet to be seen whether the Education Department will investigate the allegations against Smith, but Risa Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University and a member of the American Association of University Professors Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, said Title IX is now being weaponized against protecting gender-based equality when it was designed to eliminate discrimination. Lieberwitz compared the approach to the way the administration is using Title VI complaints about antisemitism to attempt to exert control over universities including Harvard. 'I think this is a unique claim — they're testing the waters for them going after others,' said Joan Wallach Scott, a gender historian and fellow member of AAUP. 'It certainly is an opening into prosecuting places that tolerate trans women; this is bigger than just trans athletes,' she said. Part of the point is 'to force accommodation or to scare' other higher education institutions, she added. 'Smith becomes the example.' If the Education Department finds Smith in violation of Title IX, the administration could try to go after federal student aid, even though there are protections in place that limit how much funding can be pulled, said Shiwali Patel, Title IX lawyer and senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools at the National Women's Law Center. Advertisement 'This isn't about protecting women and girls,' Patel said. 'It's about forcing the school to discriminate and to not support a vulnerable group of students, and to make them unwelcomed.' Smith changed its admissions policy to include self-identified transgender women in The irony, said Genny Beemyn, director of 'Smith had actively resisted becoming trans-inclusive. It took a concerted campaign by students before the college would agree to admit qualified trans women, and then for years the school still would not knowingly consider nonbinary students assigned female at birth,' Beemyn said. Defending Education characterizes Smith's current policies as either violating or encroaching on the rights of 'biological women' under Title IX, a depiction opponents say is a willful misinterpretation of the landmark civil rights law that's gaining traction. On June 2, the Education Department Advertisement When contacted by the Globe, the department said it does not confirm complaints but reaffirmed the Trump administration's commitment to 'restoring women's civil rights by enforcing Title IX as it is written.' 'The Biden Administration stretched the scope of Title IX beyond its statutory purview to include 'gender identity,' thereby eroding the sex-based protections guaranteed to women,' Education Department spokesperson Julie Hartman said in an emailed statement. The department 'will fight on every front to protect women's sports and intimate spaces, and to reestablish Title IX's application within its lawful boundaries.' Defending Education bills itself as a 'national, grassroots nonprofit empowering parents to advocate for classrooms that educate — not indoctrinate.' Originally called Parents Defending Education, the group Brooke Hauser can be reached at
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Colorado potentially faces a major lawsuit regarding a new law on transgender protections and how it could violate free speech and parental rights. On Friday, Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the Kelly Loving Act, a bill that expands state anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals by allowing a person's "chosen name" to qualify as a form of "gender expression" that is protected under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Now that the bill has passed, the group Defending Education (DE) has sued the state on behalf of the Do No Harm, The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network and Protect Kids Colorado groups out of concerns that the law could violate their free speech rights. "The Act's new definition of 'gender expression' is unconstitutionally overbroad," the lawsuit provided to Fox News Digital reads. "Because it covers any treatment based on the use of a 'chosen name' or other forms of preferred 'address,' it punishes many forms of constitutionally protected speech." Colorado's 'Totalitarian' Transgenderism Bill Sparks Concerns From Parents It continued, "When speakers refer to transgender-identifying individuals using biologically accurate terms, they advance a viewpoint about a hot-button political issue: gender ideology. That kind of speech lies at the core of the First Amendment. But the Act's definition of 'gender expression' makes all such speech discriminatory and unlawful." Read On The Fox News App The lawsuit added that since CADA prohibits the "publishing of discriminative matter," the new act could prohibit and potentially penalize individuals, including parents, for publicly disapproving of changing one's name and gender. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President of Defending Education, said the law "muzzles" parents and doctors to protect the state's "preferred gender orthodoxy." "Colorado can't seem to stop losing at the Supreme Court on constitutional challenges to its anti-discrimination laws. And yet, Governor Polis has nevertheless signed another patently unconstitutional iteration of its Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act—something that can only be described as an exercise of remarkable hubris," Perry said. DE is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction on enforcing this new definition as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments for using "unconstitutionally overbroad" language and enforcing "compelled speech." "Do No Harm is proud to challenge Colorado's absurd so-called anti-discrimination act. Abridging American's constitutional right to freedom of expression in the name of radical gender ideology is wrong. We expect the court to reaffirm that the Constitution trumps progressive dogma," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. Fox News Digital reached out to the governor's office for comment. The Kelly Loving Act has come under fire by conservatives and Colorado parents since it was introduced in March. Among the protections in the original bill included a ruling that "deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services" could be considered forms of "coercive control" that could affect a parent's custody over children. After facing backlash, Colorado lawmakers eventually removed language regarding "deadnaming" and child custody, although opponents still criticized elements of the bill for broad language. Colorado Parents Unload On Liberal Lawmakers, Prompting Changes To Controversial Gender Bill Colorado has been at the center of several high-profile cases based on its anti-discrimination laws over the past few years. Most infamously, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips has been sued multiple times over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding or a gender transition. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the state, finding that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws could not force a graphic designer to create wedding websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her article source: Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court likely to side with parents in letting them opt out of LGBTQ storybooks, expert says
Several Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy Tuesday toward Maryland parents who are seeking to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed classroom materials. One education expert said the case could lead to a ruling that expands parental rights in public schools nationwide. "This looks pretty promising for the parent petitioners in this case," said Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow of the grassroots organization Defending Education. "I heard a lot of very aggressive questioning from the three liberal justices, but no matter how you slice this apple, it looks to be a very clear violation of the First Amendment, as exercised through the 14th Amendment's right to direct a child's religious upbringing." Perry previously served as the lead lawyer to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education from 2020 to 2021, where she drafted the Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) annual report to Congress. The Supreme Court Appears To Side With Parents In Religious Liberty Dispute Over Storybooks "They're very malleable," Perry said of the 4-and 5-year-olds in the case. "They're very much shaped by their environment, by what they're exposed to, and they don't have the meaningful agency to be able to opt out or object or push back. And so these individuals are learning their own familial values while being exposed to material that is, as Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett and Justice [Neil] Gorsuch pointed out, designed to influence their thinking." At the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor is a lawsuit brought by religious parents—Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox—who argue that the school district's policy violates their First Amendment rights by forcing their children to engage with instruction that contradicts their faith. Read On The Fox News App The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Several conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, appeared sympathetic to the parents' concerns during the two-and-a-half-hour oral debate. Alito questioned the moral messages conveyed by books like "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," suggesting that such content might conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also pressed the school district's attorneys on why opt-out provisions, similar to those in sex education, could not be extended to these storybooks. Parents Tell Scotus: Lgbtq Storybooks In Classrooms Clash With Our Faith Meanwhile, the liberal justices argued that mere exposure to these books may not constitute coercion or a violation of religious freedoms. The school district contended that the policy promotes inclusivity and exposure to LGBTQ viewpoints does not equate to forced belief changes. "I think it was highly sort of predictable," Perry said of the liberal justices' arguments. "They are trying to prove that there is going to be too much of a burden on the school district to allow these children to opt out because the consequences could, for example, be catastrophic for the ability of a public school to manage its own affairs." "The reason we see an issue like this at the Supreme Court is because these are issues directly related to religious liberty and directly related to the very early cognitive stages of development for minor children," Perry said. "And it's very clear … that a burden of religious liberty within public education has to be treated quite seriously by the court and deference must be given to religious parents if the burden is very clear." "I think in this instance, it is indeed crystal clear," she added. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos Among the storybooks at the center of the case is "Prince & Knight," a modern fairy tale aimed at children ages 4 to 8, which tells the story of two men who fall in love after joining forces to defeat a dragon and later marry. Another book frequently referenced during oral arguments was "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which follows a young girl processing her favorite uncle's decision to marry another man. Click To Get The Fox News App "Because parental rights have become sort of the cultural zeitgeist for where we are in this political day and age, I think we are certain to see more litigation, not less, and more pushback," Perry said. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by late article source: Supreme Court likely to side with parents in letting them opt out of LGBTQ storybooks, expert says
Fox News
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court likely to side with parents in letting them opt out of LGBTQ storybooks, expert says
Several Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy Tuesday toward Maryland parents who are seeking to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed classroom materials. One education expert said the case could lead to a ruling that expands parental rights in public schools nationwide. "This looks pretty promising for the parent petitioners in this case," said Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow of the grassroots organization Defending Education. "I heard a lot of very aggressive questioning from the three liberal justices, but no matter how you slice this apple, it looks to be a very clear violation of the First Amendment, as exercised through the 14th Amendment's right to direct a child's religious upbringing." Perry previously served as the lead lawyer to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education from 2020 to 2021, where she drafted the Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) annual report to Congress. "They're very malleable," Perry said of the 4-and 5-year-olds in the case. "They're very much shaped by their environment, by what they're exposed to, and they don't have the meaningful agency to be able to opt out or object or push back. And so these individuals are learning their own familial values while being exposed to material that is, as Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett and Justice [Neil] Gorsuch pointed out, designed to influence their thinking." At the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor is a lawsuit brought by religious parents—Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox—who argue that the school district's policy violates their First Amendment rights by forcing their children to engage with instruction that contradicts their faith. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Several conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, appeared sympathetic to the parents' concerns during the two-and-a-half-hour oral debate. Alito questioned the moral messages conveyed by books like "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," suggesting that such content might conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also pressed the school district's attorneys on why opt-out provisions, similar to those in sex education, could not be extended to these storybooks. Meanwhile, the liberal justices argued that mere exposure to these books may not constitute coercion or a violation of religious freedoms. The school district contended that the policy promotes inclusivity and exposure to LGBTQ viewpoints does not equate to forced belief changes. "I think it was highly sort of predictable," Perry said of the liberal justices' arguments. "They are trying to prove that there is going to be too much of a burden on the school district to allow these children to opt out because the consequences could, for example, be catastrophic for the ability of a public school to manage its own affairs." "The reason we see an issue like this at the Supreme Court is because these are issues directly related to religious liberty and directly related to the very early cognitive stages of development for minor children," Perry said. "And it's very clear … that a burden of religious liberty within public education has to be treated quite seriously by the court and deference must be given to religious parents if the burden is very clear." "I think in this instance, it is indeed crystal clear," she added. Among the storybooks at the center of the case is "Prince & Knight," a modern fairy tale aimed at children ages 4 to 8, which tells the story of two men who fall in love after joining forces to defeat a dragon and later marry. Another book frequently referenced during oral arguments was "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which follows a young girl processing her favorite uncle's decision to marry another man. "Because parental rights have become sort of the cultural zeitgeist for where we are in this political day and age, I think we are certain to see more litigation, not less, and more pushback," Perry said. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by late June.
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Despite Trump's order, a surprising number of DEI programs remain 'active' at colleges and universities
A new investigation tracking the current state of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) at colleges and universities from conservative nonprofit Defending Education found that there are still 383 "currently active" DEI offices and programs, with 243 universities maintaining institution-wide DEI offices or programming. Defending Education, formerly known as Parents Defending Education, is a nationwide grassroots organization that works to "fight indoctrination in classrooms and on campus to promote the reestablishment of a quality, non-political education for all students." In addition to tracking those DEI offices and programs that are still active, the group's investigation also highlighted that Defending Education uncovered dozens of schools that have taken steps to rebrand or reorganize their DEI efforts, as opposed to shutting them down like others have done. Major University Medical Center Accused Of Hiding Dei Programs, Influential Senator Calls Them Out At least 27 universities, colleges or schools within such institutions have taken steps to do this, according to the investigation. Meanwhile, in "a few cases," schools have moved their online DEI resources behind password-protected web pages, Defending Education also pointed out. "DEI evangelists at federally funded institutions are hiding race discrimination in an effort to violate federal law and think they won't be found out. But our latest report demonstrates they already have been," said Sarah Parshall Perry, Defending Education Vice President and Legal Fellow, who has extensive legal experience in the higher education realm. "Despite a very clear directive from the White House to end 'DEI' practices, too many institutions of higher education have simply sent their discrimination underground by renaming or reorganizing race-based initiatives and DEI offices." Read On The Fox News App Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) is an example of one of the universities that has been accused of attempting to hide their DEI resources. In response to the accusations, a VUMC spokesperson told Fox News Digital at the time that it was undergoing "a thorough review" of its programs to figure out "where revisions may be required to remain in compliance, including updating information on websites and other public platforms." However, today, offices such as the Office of Health Equity, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and the Office for Diversity Affairs are seemingly still active, according to Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. Watchdog Group Exposes Red State College Administrator Explaining 'Loophole' Around Anti-dei Law The White House blasted some of the nation's premier universities for "egregious illegal behavior," after Harvard refused to comply with Trump administration demands related to ending their DEI programs. Amid Harvard's refusal to comply, the administration revealed this week that it would freeze more than $2 billion in federal funding for the institution. During a press briefing this week, when asked why federal funding was so available to premier Ivy League institutions like Harvard, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was a question President Donald Trump frequently ponders himself. "It's a question the president has obviously raised in his discussions," Leavitt said. "I think a lot of Americans are wondering why their tax dollars are going to these universities when they are not only indoctrinating our nation's students, but also allowing such egregious illegal behavior to occur." Perry told Fox News Digital that Defending Education will not stop looking for "discrimination" in higher education, in an effort to make the guarantee of a "colorblind education" for every American student a reality "once and for all." Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not hear back by time of article source: Despite Trump's order, a surprising number of DEI programs remain 'active' at colleges and universities
