Topic: Discrimination
“The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools.”
To understand this, you’d have to understand that the Department of Education under the Biden Administration proposed (not imposed) some additional requirements25 for Charter schools to receive federal funding in March 2022. Those requirements were:
- Demonstrate demand for a new charter school by showing evidence of collaboration with local public schools. This would involve demonstrating that the charter school would not negatively affect existing public schools or the community at large by causing over-enrollment or draining resources.
- The proposal included provisions requiring charter schools to show their fiscal and operational transparency. Schools would need to show strong governance practices and clear plans for financial sustainability without relying solely on federal funding.
- Schools would have to outline how they would promote racial and socioeconomic diversity within their student body. This requirement aimed to ensure that charter schools are inclusive and serve a diverse range of students, rather than concentrating on certain demographics (read: rich, white, Christian.) Incidentally, this is the requirement that Burke is most offended by.
- Restrict or reduce federal funding for charter schools run by for-profit management organizations, emphasizing that federal grants need to benefit students, not private entities.
I’m having real trouble figuring out why any of this is a negative thing, unless you are, as Burke seems to be doing, arguing that charter schools should be run by for-profits, allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, and socioeconomic status, and operate without any oversight even if it results in them harming their communities.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority.”
She’s arguing here for stopping the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection (CDRC) from collecting any information on nonbinary students and removing that as an option. Only students identifying as either male or female shall be counted.
This seems arbitrary and discriminatory for no good reason, and is another example of the Bruno Strategy at work. If we don’t count nonbinary students in our statistics, they stop existing!
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic opportunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex.”
This is thinly veiled transphobia. She’s so desperate to discriminate against trans people that the assertion “prohibiting discrimination based on sex has trampled women’s rights” just came out of her mouth. Wow. Just no.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth.”
Well, not everyone HAS a “biological sex recognized at birth.” This claim is science denial at work. Experts estimate that up to 1.7 percent of the population are born with intersex traits, which can mean anatomy, reproductive organs, hormone patterns, and/or chromosomal patterns that do not fit binary notions of “male” or “female.” They’re somewhere in between. 1.7% of the population is about the same amount as people who have red hair. Do you know a redhead? Then you likely know a person with intersex traits, whether they’re aware of it themselves or not (have you seen your own chromosomes? I haven’t.)
Burke is arguing here for federally sanctioning discrimination against people who cannot help their chromosomal, physical, and hormonal makeup. This isn’t a new thing. The conventional wisdom, if the characteristics of being intersex are noticed at birth, is to leave the person alone until they’re old enough to know how they identify, then allow them to live as they wish. As recently as the 1960’s, these people were called “hermaphrodites”, and doctors would simply assign them a sex at birth and perform a surgery to match their genitals to the sex chosen, then their parents would raise them accordingly. Since penises were harder to manufacture or surgically engineer, most infants with intersex characteristics were simply made as feminine as possible and then raised as biological girls. This, as you can imagine, screwed people up. Here’s some history on that. (Or you can look up David Reimer.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the foundational right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights. The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals.”
This is a GROSS misrepresentation (and I do mean gross.) In 2020, the Trump administration introduced changes to Title IX that focused on protecting the due process rights of individuals accused of sexual misconduct. These regulations included the right for the accused (and the accuser) to have a live hearing with cross-examination, a requirement that behavior be “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” to qualify as sexual harassment, and rights for both parties to receive written notice of the allegations, access to the evidence, and an equal opportunity to present their case.
The Biden administration has proposed (not imposed) revising Title IX regulations, potentially shifting the focus back to a broader interpretation of what constitutes sexual harassment and misconduct. The intent is to make it easier for victims of sexual harassment and assault to report incidents and receive support. Burke has made it clear that she does not consider terrorizing transgender students “objectively offensive”, considering she’s trying to codify into law their federally sanctioned discrimination and abuse, so this rollback would simply be in service of that.
And let’s discuss what “severe” and “pervasive” mean in this context. If a person, say, grabs someone by the pussy, but it was only once, and not in a severe manner, does that not count as sexual harassment under the Trump Administration’s interpretation? Do we not find that “objectively offensive”?
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX.”
False. There is absolutely a scientific basis for it including gender identity. See above. As for it not including sexual orientation, this is an argument she’s making for legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ+ students as well. (And there IS a legal basis for it – it’s called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an examination of which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that the word “sex” in Title VII includes sexual orientation and gender identity.) Sounds like Burke is just mad about the ruling. In any case, the ruling was significant because it extended protections under federal law to LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring that they cannot be fired, denied a job, or otherwise discriminated against at work simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Burke is arguing for going back to discriminatory practices here.
She even mentions Bostock in the next sentence, saying that redefining “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity in Title IX regulations “misrepresents Bostock.” It doesn’t. In fact, it’s completely aligned with the spirit of the ruling; she’s just a bigot. (FYI, Bostock was more specifically about discrimination in employment, not in schools, but the point stands.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately.”
“Day one, we’re going to start legalizing discrimination!” No, sex is not a “fixed biological fact.” See above. Just for fun, here’s a link about the Guevedoces, which, roughly translated, means “penis at twelve.” The Guevedoces are a small community in the Dominican Republic where some males are born looking like girls and subsequently grow penises at puberty, when their testicles also descend. Most were brought up as girls until this happened to them. [Source]28 The world is a vast and complicated place, and very little about it is a “fixed biological fact.”
The next few pages are simply blatant racism, which doesn’t bear repeating. Suffice it to say, Burke’s goal is to effectively legalize discrimination of all kinds in K-12 schools. At one point, she even sneers that “the media will see this as an attack on civil rights.” Yes. And rightfully so.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Currently the Department of Education relies on graduation rates and average earnings as proxies for educational quality. Both of those outcomes, however, are highly dependent upon a student’s socioeconomic background, sex, family status, and other factors.”
I only include this to point out the utter hypocrisy. She’s admitting here that socioeconomic background, sex, and other factors DO affect children’s educational outcomes, hence the need for DEI and other programs that she is steadfastly against. She wants to pretend that everyone is equal when it comes time to legalize bigotry and cut funding for children, but she’ll admit that there is a systemic issue if it helps her make a point that it’s difficult to actually gauge educational quality. I see you, Ms. Burke.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its founders state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate – necessary, even – making the theory more than merely an analytical tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school assignments in which students must defend the false idea that America is systemically racist, the theory is actively disrupting the values that hold communities together such as equality under the law and colorblindness.”
Words almost fail. She’s arguing that Critical Race theorists posit that racism is “appropriate and necessary.” I can tell she hasn’t read the assignment, or if she has, she is such a virulent racist that it prevents her from being truthful about reality.
Once again, CRT isn’t taught in elementary schools, it’s taught in law schools. She’s conflating actual CRT theory with teacher training programs that touch on insights from CRT in order to promote equality. Its purpose is to to examine how race and racism intersect with laws and institutions. It does NOT advocate for treating individuals differently based on race, nor does it promote racism. Instead, it seeks to highlight how historical and systemic racism have shaped inequalities in society. The claim that CRT “believes racism is necessary and appropriate” is a gross mischaracterization of its purpose, and a lie.
Suggesting that CRT “disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity” is also a complete distortion. CRT aims to critique how these ideals have historically not been extended to all groups equally, particularly people of color. It’s not about rejecting the ideals themselves, but about examining how these ideals have been imperfectly realized in practice.
The claim that CRT undermines values like “equality under the law” and “colorblindness” is also ridiculous. CRT critiques the notion of colorblindness by arguing that ignoring race often fails to address systemic inequalities. It suggests that being aware of race is necessary to understand and dismantle racial disparities, not to undermine equality, but to work toward genuine equality.
The language of Burke’s statement is designed to provoke fear, using terms like “disrupting” and “actively destroying.” This kind of rhetoric oversimplifies and vilifies a complex, nuanced framework, turning a legitimate academic critique of racism into something nefarious or dangerous. It implies that discussing systemic racism is somehow harmful to societal values, rather than being a way to promote greater justice and inclusion.
In short, racist horseshit.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced colleges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools.”
It’s a little funny to me here that she’s suggesting that the missions of faith-based colleges are fundamentally at odds with the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. That’s…quite an admission. She goes on to mandate that higher education institutions should still be allowed to be accredited even if they blatantly discriminate on the basis of race or gender. Then she doubles down on the idea that being forced to treat everyone equally is *really* offensive to religious institutions. Christians, are you hearing this? Does this represent your beliefs? I find it alarming that she’s couching all religious institutions (and religious people, as it follows), as bigots (or at least protecting their right to be bigots, if they want to be).
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.