Here's the latest in the suit against Columbia University's Women's Studies program. It's an interim decision in favor of preferential treatment for girls--as expected from judges steeped in their arrogance of power and ignorance of the law.
April 15, 2009
Interim Ruling in Favor of Columbia’s Women’s Studies
A Federal Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Columbia’s Women’s Studies Program for violating Title IX and the Constitution.
Magistrate Kevin Nathaniel Fox, a Columbia graduate, concluded that the two plaintiff alums, attorney Roy Den Hollander and recent Columbia College graduate William A. Nosal, suffered no harm because they did not enroll in a Women Studies’ course or were denied admission to one.
“The Magistrate completely miss-read the complaint, or only read Columbia’s response,” said Den Hollander. “Under Title IX, it is the absence of an opportunity for an equal educational experience that is the injury.” “When a college only has a guys’ rugby team, the injury to girls who want to play rugby is that there is no girls’ team.” “Mr. Nosal and I told the Court we tried to take Men’s Studies’ courses at Columbia, but there were none—that’s the injury.” “Why this Judge thinks we had to enroll or try to enroll in Women’s Studies’ courses is beyond me.” “It’s not the law, and I like to think I’m not that masochistic.”
The Judge also found no equal protection injury, once again because the plaintiffs did not enroll in a Women’s Studies’ course or try to. The discriminatory harm is that Women Studies give females an advantage that prevents guys from competing on an equal footing in education, the work place, the courts, the culture, and society as a whole. Now you might disagree with that, but that is what the complaint alleges, and at this stage in a case, what the complaint says is considered true. “Obviously the Judge interjected his only factual and ideological beliefs in order to recommend dismissal,” said Den Hollander. “You’re not suppose to do that, but it happens all the time, especially when taking on the post-modern Feminists in a system where men just don’t count.”
Den Hollander continued, “The Judge considers the discrimination against the plaintiffs as insignificant, a ‘subjective chill—he calls it.’” The U.S. Supreme Court says differently: ““Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions’ or by stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and therefore as less worthy participants in the political community, … can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment….” Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 739-740 (1984).
“The Courts are suppose ‘to protect unpopular individuals … and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society,’ McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995), but today in America they are essentially useless for protecting the rights of men—probably time for a different strategy,” remarked Den Hollander.
The Magistrate Judge’s recommendations go to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who will decide whether to accept, reject or modify them—bet he accepts them, and then there will be an appeal to the Second Circuit.
Roy Den Hollander
Attorney at Law
New York, N.Y.