Nathan Finn: Ruling favors the original intent of Title IX

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Tuesday, June 25th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. WORLD Opinions commentator Nathan Finn now…with analysis of last week’s court ruling against the Biden Administration’s changes to Title IX.

NATHAN FINN: On June 17th, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a blockbuster ruling. At stake? The very definition of gender.

This is the background. In April of this year, the Department of Education released new Title IX regulations that were to take effect on August 1. Title IX is the 1972 law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational institutions. Schools that fail to comply with Title IX, and are not granted an exemption, are ineligible to receive federal funding. The updated regulations move beyond sex discrimination as traditionally understood to include discrimination “based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.” According to Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, the purpose of the new regulations is to “build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights.”

Not everyone agrees with Secretary Cardona. Six states—Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia—filed suit in District Court in late April to prevent the implementation of the new regulations. Chief Judge Danny Reeves ruled against the Department of Education, granting the injunction and taking the Biden administration to task for its “arbitrary and capricious rulemaking” that would result in “immediate and irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs.

The first sentence of the ruling states unequivocally: “There are two sexes: male and female.” Furthermore, an accompanying footnote says the defendants—the Department of Education—conceded this point during oral arguments. In other words, a department of the Biden administration admitted in court what both Scripture and science confirm to be true—a binary understanding of human sex.

The ruling also deems the new regulations incompatible with the original intention of Title IX. And the way the department handled feedback on the new rules failed to answer difficult questions raised by the public. The court also argues that the new rules’ definition of sexual harassment might violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by requiring educators to use pronouns that don’t align with students’ biological sex. “A rule that compels speech and engages in such viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.”

The timing of this court decision could not be better. The month of June has devolved into an annual celebration of sexual deviancy. Pride Month is an annual reminder of just how far American society has strayed from its Judeo-Christian heritage.

Progressives believe they are on the “right side of history” when it comes to gender and sexuality. But with a nod to William F. Buckley’s famous editorial in the first issue of National Review, it is refreshing to watch as this court “stands athwart history, yelling stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” Though this decision will certainly be appealed, the ruling is a decisive win for Biblically orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. We should pray for, and labor towards, future decisions that help restore sanity to the growing world of sexual anarchy.

I’m Nathan Finn.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.