@be-me6.bsky.social
Rhetoric & Writing PhD. Passionate about transformative justice, sexual violence policy, & inclusive education. Pet Parent. TTRPG and Board Game Lover. they/she. views my own & not those of my employer
Hockey themed baby announcement. Michigan State onesie with ultrasound photos across. Text reads, “Player 3 called for 9-month delay of game penalty. Meadows family at full strength around August 16, 2025”
Despite these dark times, there’s a little light for Nicholas and me coming
06.02.2025 21:18 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
This is simply capitulation. The EO doesn’t define DEI, in classic authoritarian fashion, because vague directives are designed to make institutions over-comply and censor themselves out of fear.
www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-t...
Would I love it if all my students read/prepped all of the things before all of the classes? Yes.
Do I know there will be weeks they can't/won't? Also yes.
Here is a tool inspired by Karen Errichetti's Fauci scale & @jrodway.bsky.social's work scale. #academicsky
docs.google.com/document/d/1...
Folks are mostly missing the forest for the trees re: the recent Meta announcement. Specifically, the focus on the move from fact checking to community notes. There two different changes that are a much bigger deal that have received less focus. 🧵 1/11
09.01.2025 20:29 — 👍 2703 🔁 973 💬 86 📌 146I also worry about this. This is a good time to remind everyone that Meta owns Instagram AND Facebook, and the horrible shit Zuckerberg just announced applies to both.
10.01.2025 03:04 — 👍 97 🔁 18 💬 7 📌 0
IV. Having determined that the challenged portions of the Final Rule are invalid, the Court considers the appropriate remedy. While the Department argues in favor of severance, the Court remains persuaded that the three challenged provisions fatally taint the entire rule. As the Court has explained, the definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” lies at the heart of Title IX and permeates virtually every provision of the law. While not directly challenged in this proceeding, the Final Rule brings new requirements for handling grievances, training, recordkeeping, and processing complaints. But these regulations refer to and incorporate provisions the Court deems invalid, which necessitates jettisoning these regulations as well. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.44 (Recipient’s response to sex discrimination (including multiple references to sex-based harassment)); 106.45 (Grievance procedures for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sex discrimination (relying on § 106.2’s definition of sex-based harassment)); 106.46 (Grievance procedures for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sex-based harassment involving student complainants or student respondents at postsecondary institutions (same)). While there appears to be at least one provision that is not directly impacted by the plaintiffs’ challenge, see 34 C.F.R. § 106.40 (Aug. 1, 2024) (“Parental, family or marital status; pregnancy or related conditions), it simply is not proper for the Court to rewrite the regulations by excising the offending material, particularly when rulemaking is the exclusive duty of the Executive Branch. See Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006). Thus, the undersigned concludes that the entire Final Rule and corresponding regulations are invalid and must be set aside.
BREAKING: A federal district court judge in Kentucky vacates the Biden administration's Title IX rule, challenged largely for its transgender protections, a decision with nationwide effect.
Law Dork's extensive coverage of challenges to the rule can be found here: www.lawdork.com/t/title-ix-r...
