Christina Hoff Sommers writes about a looming liberal war on science. Based on a campaign promise Obama made to feminist groups in October 2008, Sommers foresees the Obama Administration moving to artificially cap male enrollment in math and science classes to achieve gender proportionality — the way that Title IX currently caps male participation in intercollegiate athletics. The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America’s colleges and universities.

Critics have long argued that the Title…

Read the full story

It’s not a good thing for a lawyer when you argue in the Supreme Court and the Justices are confused about your position. But that happened on December 2 in the case of Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, where Justices and court reporters alike were confused about what a school system’s lawyer was arguing in her oral argument. That’s too bad, because the lawyer’s argument on behalf of the school board was basically correct.

Fitzgerald is a sexual harassment case alleging…

Read the full story

There’s an interesting case pending in the Supreme Court, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, that could make Title IX irrelevant in many cases, by creating a vast new constitutional tort of sexual harassment, if the plaintiffs have their way. And amazingly enough, the Massachusetts school board that’s the defendant seems inclined to let the plaintiffs have their way. (Massachusetts’ bizarre state laws provide a possible explanation for this mystery). [UPDATE: THE SCHOOL BOARD LATER CONTESTED SUCH AN EXPANSION OF LIABILITY…

Read the full story

A stealth assault is being mounted on the Constitution’s state-action doctrine in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee.

The Supreme Court has long made clear in cases like Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) that the government isn’t liable for private discrimination by one person against another, even if, as in the Irvis case, the person discriminating is subject to government regulation and control (like someone with a scarce liquor…

Read the full story