top of page

Conservative States To Democrats: We Will Not Comply

Release of the final Title IX regulation on April 19 has triggered a wave of protests against the policy, which seeks to transform our schools, reshape the family, and redefine the Constitution (1). That same day, media personality Megyn Kelly captured the national mood with this social media post: “DO NOT COMPLY. FIGHT.” (2)

And make no mistake, this is something that is wholly owned by the Democratic Party. As Eileen J. O'Connor explained in a column for American Greatness, in 2014 and earlier, the Department of Education told teachers who inquired that they must permit boys who claim to identify as girls to use the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. There are other examples.

It is laughable, wrote Ms. O’Connor, to suggest that in 1972, when Congress passed and President Nixon signed Title IX, they meant for “sex” to actually mean sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. If they did, then girls and women do not now and never did have spaces or activities to call their own, and Title IX is not worth the paper on which it was written.

In response to the new rule, state superintendents of education around the country issued directives to their schools:


Florida: Noting that the “Biden Administration maims the [Title IX] statute beyond recognition in an attempt to gaslight the country,” Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz instructed Florida schools, “At Governor Ron DeSantis’ direction, no educational institution should begin implementing any changes.” [bolding in the original] (3)


Louisiana: Superintendent Cade Brumley wrote to all school boards in the state, “The Title IX rule changes recklessly endanger students and seek to dismantle equal opportunities for females….Further, it remains my position that schools should not alter policies or procedures at this time.” (4)

Oklahoma: Charging the new rule would turn “not using preferred pronouns into a Title IX violation,” instructed schools, Superintendent Ryan Walters advised Oklahoma schools, “Please do not make any district policy changes based on the new Title IX regulations. These federal rule changes are illegal.” (5)

South Carolina: Superintendent Ellen Weaver warned schools, “By redefining the class of people that Title IX intends to protect, the Biden administration’s rule seeks to change the meaning and purpose of the underlying law.” Weaver then advised, “Therefore, we recommend districts not implement the new rule at this time. It is possible—even likely—that a court will enjoin the rule prior to its effective date.” [underlining in the original] (6)

Wyoming: State Superintendent Megan Degenfelder promised, “I will fight back against this federal overreach… and work to partner with my counterparts across the country to stand up to the Biden administration’s harmful regulations.” (7)

Within days of the release of the new regulation, denunciations were issued by organizations such as the Heritage Foundation (8), Defense of Freedom Institute (9), and the National Association of Scholars (10). Attorney Justin Dillon catalogued 16 ways that the new policy will decimate fairness and due process for falsely accused male students (11).

And strongly worded articles were published by the American Spectator (12), Get Bright (13), Reason (14), New York Post (15), The Free Press (16), and elsewhere.

Two organizations announced their plans to challenge the regulation in court: Independent Women’s Forum (17) and Alliance Defending Freedom (18), with a raft of additional lawsuits currently being drafted.

Such developments recall the mood that preceded the Boston Tea Party in 1773.



  • Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

  • Catherine Lhamon

  • Title IX regulation

  • Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon

  • Gender identity

  • definition of sex

  • definition of sexual harrassment

  • 14th Amendment due process

  • Independent and impartial investigations

  • Unrestricted access to evidence

  • Right to a live hearing and cross-examination

  • Women's sports

92 views0 comments


bottom of page