• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Borderlands

president nixon

Sputnik, Vietnam and the Department of Education

March 23, 2025 by James L'Angelle Leave a Comment

https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaFamWebInKheSanh

BORDERLANDS

v.25, i. 03.21. khesanh068

Introduction

     The landmark act signed into law by President Carter didn’t exist in a bubble before then. The new bureau had been a part of a larger bureaucracy which was inadequate to serve the needs of the rapidly expanding educational system and its historic achievements in civil rights and minority admissions. Complicated by the need to keep up with the Soviet Union and eventually, with war on the horizon fostering student unrest, Congress set about to split up the bureaucracy and form what came to be known as the Department of Education in 1979.

(Image credit: Khe Sanh Combat Base,

https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaFamWebInKheSanh)

Capsules

     Background on the creation of the Department of Education can be recovered through synthetic intelligence (AI) search queries.

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

which department was department of education in before it became separate

Before becoming a separate cabinet-level department in 1980, the Department of Education was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)12. The Department of Education Organization Act, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, split HEW into two separate entities: the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services24. Prior to this, education-related functions were housed in various agencies over time, including the Department of the Interior and the Federal Security Agency24.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/which-department-was-departmen-po5dU9LdSpq6OTsqCKtouw
 
the launch of sputnik was the principal reason for the creation of the department of education

The launch of Sputnik was not the principal reason for the creation of the Department of Education. While Sputnik’s launch in 1957 had a significant impact on American education, it did not directly lead to the creation of the Department of Education as we know it today.

The Department of Education as a cabinet-level agency was established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter5. Its origins, however, can be traced back much further:

  1. The first Department of Education was actually created in 1867 under President Andrew Johnson, primarily to collect information and statistics about the nation’s schools35.

  2. This original department was demoted to an Office of Education in 1868 due to concerns about federal control over local schools35.

  3. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 did have a significant impact on American education, but it led to different initiatives:

    • It spurred the passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958, which increased federal funding for education, especially in science, mathematics, and foreign languages24.

    • The NDEA aimed to improve American schools and promote postsecondary education to meet national security needs and compete with the Soviet Union in science and technology4.

  4. The modern Department of Education was created in 1979, more than two decades after Sputnik, as a result of various political and social factors, including calls for expanded federal funding in education and efforts to help minorities, women, and people with disabilities gain equal access to education15.

In conclusion, while Sputnik’s launch significantly influenced American education policy and funding, it was not the principal reason for creating the Department of Education as a cabinet-level agency. The department’s creation was the result of a long historical process involving various political, social, and educational factors.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-launch-of-sputnik-was-the-0FBfDhotTi61IvwmW9Gy.w

student unrest related to vietnam contributed to the creation of the department of education

The student unrest related to the Vietnam War significantly influenced broader societal changes, including the establishment of new educational initiatives and programs. However, there is no direct evidence linking these protests to the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, which was formally established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter.

Key Connections Between Student Protests and Educational Changes:

  1. Vietnam War Protests and Campus Reforms
    The Vietnam War protests were widespread on college campuses, driven by opposition to the draft and U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia. These protests often led universities to accommodate student demands, such as creating ethnic studies programs and other academic fields addressing civil rights and social justice issues48. For example, San Francisco State University established the first ethnic studies department following student strikes4.

  2. Broader Impact on Higher Education
    Universities responded to student activism by integrating more diverse perspectives into curricula, such as African American studies and women’s studies. This reflected a shift toward addressing societal inequalities and accommodating student voices in institutional decision-making8.

  3. Political Backlash and Public Trust
    The Vietnam-era protests undermined public trust in government, especially after revelations about misinformation from the Johnson and Nixon administrations regarding the war39. This erosion of trust contributed to calls for increased accountability in public institutions, including education.

While these developments shaped educational policies and priorities, the Department of Education’s creation was primarily driven by political efforts to centralize federal education policy rather than direct outcomes of Vietnam-era protests.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/student-unrest-related-to-viet-tzm5HD8tRuuZbgMwCbcdmQ

(End Perplexity-AI)
 
     The problem here with AI is that it returns the most convenient query responses. As will be seen below, both Sputnik and Vietnam had much to do with the creation of the department, not necessarily related to any measures or legislation, but to the philosophic perspective on the floor in Congress.
 
Congressional Record

    Speaking on the House floor as recorded in the Congressional Record for 11 June 1969, Rep. JD Waggonner (D-LA) made a prophetic statement under the subtitle “Amending the Higher Education Act of 1965,” which would have consequences for years to come.

(Begin Congressional Record)

     “Education, for example, was confronted in the 1950’s with the challenge of competition from the Russians. The Russians beat us to the punch because of a different emphasis, and launched the first manmade satellite on the top of Sputnik I. People became alarmed all over this country and started asking questions. What permitted the Russians to do something we could not do?”

     (In consideration for an amendment to the Higher Education Act, the need to counter campus unrest was the priority. Waggonner, in a previous paragraph, stated.)

    “They say it is surprising that this anarchy exists. I do not know where the administrators of these colleges and universities have been in recent years when they now express surprise at the crisis which exists on the campuses of our country. I said at least 50 times during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 that the tragedy of that crisis would not be that we had a confrontation with the Russians because they placed intercontinental ballistic missiles on Cuban soil, but that the long road of history would allow us to point a finger at that moment of crisis and identify it as the beginning of a movement which would prove tragic to education in this country.” 

     “In October 1965 I asked this Congress by resolution to investigate the Students for a Democratic Society. Few then were aware of who these people were and what they were attempting to do. They said then, as they have said in even more definite terms since then, that they were going to destroy education in this country.”

(Congressional Record, https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1969/06/11/115/house-section/article/15409-15466, page 15440)

(End Congressional Record)

Notes

     The details of the battle are included in the 9th Marines command chronology located at Records of War.

     The congressperson called out college students for, “they said in no uncertain way they were on the other side.”

     But it wasn’t the Russians the students were rallying against; it was the war in Vietnam. The prospect of atomic bombs raining down on the campus from Cuba was science fiction compared to KheSanh, being pulled from the college classroom or from the protest out on the quad and fitted into an army uniform to be shipped out to the DMZ. 

     Who was behind the “anarchy” on campus? Rep. Waggonner disagreed with those who blamed outside agitators, stating, “—the anarchy which prevails on these campuses is not being brought to these campuses but is being taught on these campuses by some.”

     Thus, the seeds were sown, even after an already tumultuous decade with desegregation and “racial balance” the priority for the federal government, to reign in protests, and those on, or off, campus who promoted it. The need for a more centralized bureau of education, with a direct voice to the White House, gradually evolved from a rather innocuous, but incredibly historic, event related to education. Sputnik.

Vietnam

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

vietnam october 1965

     “On October 3, 1965, Company M, 3d Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment suffered a devastating ambush by Viet Cong fighters in Quang Nam Province. The eight-hour firefight resulted in 13 Marine casualties, one of the costliest days for U.S. forces at that point in the war.”

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/vietnam-october-1965-XGpF6490S0iSZ0Bqn1BaaA

(End Perplexity-AI)

 

     The 9th Marines had barely been in country 6 months when the 03 October ambush cited in Records of War occurred. Third battalion relocated its CP to Duong son (2) (AT992678), just below the Song Cau Do River to the south of Danang that would earn a dual name of “Rocket Belt,” and “Dodge City;” the first due to where the VC set up rockets to hit the airfield, the second rather obvious. Duong son (2) was flanked by Cam Ne to the north and just below the river and Le Son to the south; each had a number of villages, all designated in parentheses. Under subheading g.) Civilian Affairs, on page 10, the chronology reported.

     Details of the 03 October ambush are found in a 2-page after action report at the command chronology. 

(Begin Records of War)

     “It has been 4 months since the VC had de facto control of the area which encompasses the 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines TAOR.”

     5.) Lessons learned a.) Even though and area has been searched it can never be assumed that the area is definitely cleared of the enemy, and b.) The basic tactical principals of patrolling (…, security to the front, flanks and rear) must at all times be adhered to when on patrol. 

(End Records of War)

     Those “principals” would be the hallmark of the United States’ long and bitterly contested campaign, both on the battlefield and “Back in the World’ (as the soldiers called America) of desegregation and student unrest on campus, that would pave the way for the creation of the Department of Education, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Student Unrest

     Even before the Company M, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines were ambushed south of the Song Cau Do on 03 October 1965, campus unrest was beginning to be extracurricular. On the floor of the Senate on 26 April, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) was keen to notice the rising tide on campus.

(Begin Congressional Record)

     “Laying stress on teaching in American colleges, the New York University Alumni News of April features an article by Dr. Floyd Zulli, Jr., professor of romance languages at NYU.”

    Below are excerpts of the article the Senator has the article submitted for the record.

From the New York University Alumni News, April 1965) ZULLI DEMANDS REVIVAL OF TEACHING CONCEPT IN AMERICAN COLLEGES (By Floyd Zulli, Jr., professor of romance languages, New York University)

     “In the last 10 years, the jargon and theory of education have been notably enriched by such innovations as programed learning, new mathematics, educational television, language laboratories, data systems, computers, and countless other boons to civilization invented by IBM or Remington Rand to assure us that we are living in the space and lunar age. But the fact that Johnny still can’t read and often has difficulty writing, and that millions of Johnnies are floundering in colleges or about to storm their portals leaves the present-day teacher uneasy, to say the least…

     “Ever since Sputnik I soared into the empyrean and the less-than-literary expression, ‘population explosion,’ was coined, the groves of academe have not been the same. Reason, calm, moderation and measure, once the hallmarks of the cultivated man, are hardly anywhere apparent.”

     “Much of the student unrest on today’s college campus is owing not to the fact that the social consciousness of this generation’s youth glistens any more brilliantly than that of its father’s. It comes about largely because students are unmotivated in their studies and find the experience of a college education dull, impersonal, repetitive, or simply a mechanized rat race. The major responsibility for ameliorating this unhappy situation rests with the teacher.”

(Congressional Record: https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1965/04/26/111/senate-section/article/8393-8503 ) Page 8425.

     Once again, the theory that the Russian launch of Sputnik into orbit is credited for the apparent lost-in-space Oort cloud covering youth. 

     The fact that student unrest was beginning to surface at all was a striking observation by Zulli, and even more so brought to the attention of Congress long before it peaked during the protests of 1968. Eight pages later, Senator Wayne Morse (D-OR), who had already become an anti-war activist, submitted for the record.

(Begin Congressional Record)

      “I ask unanimous consent that the brilliant argument and speech made by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] at the Students for a Democratic Society rally held in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 1965, at the Sylvan Theater be printed at this point in my remarks.”

     Senator Ernest Gruening (D-AK) voted along with Senator Morse against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August 1964. 

     “I was unable to vote for the resolution sent to the Congress by the White House last August, approving not only of what had been done by the administration in Vietnam, but authorizing the President to use our Armed Forces as he saw fit anywhere in southeast Asia. Only two of us in the Congress voted against this resolution. My distinguished colleague, Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, who was the other Member of the Senate to vote against this resolution, has repeatedly pointed out that we are conducting war in Vietnam in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Despite congressional ratification of the resolution, there has been no declaration of war by Congress as the Constitution provides. Of course, there should not be such a declaration, but neither should we be carrying on a war as we are doing.”

(End Congressional Record)

     Senator Gruening made other appearances along with other notables to fan the flames of the antiwar movement, which had already been sparked across the nation. One of the unintended consequences would be the restriction of funding for colleges and universities that allowed students, organizations such as the SDS, and outside agitator counterparts to begin the burning down of the institutions of higher learning in the United States. All of this because of Sputnik.

HR 11941

    The 11 June 1969 House Congressional Record included headings such as “Pending Legislation Relating to Campus Difficulties,” (page 15427) On page 15456, one of the more lucid descriptions on why there was campus unrest was presented by Rep. John Brademas (D-IN).

(Begin Congressional Record)

     “For convenience, however, it might be possible to divide the causes into three chief kinds. 

     First, I believe there is a small, but nonetheless highly significant group of revolutionary extremists on our campuses who wish to destroy the university, not to elevate it and improve its quality. With this group and with the violent tactics that some of them are willing to employ, I have absolutely no sympathy; the criminal law should be enforced when they break the law-as with any other citizen. 

     But, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be a great mistake to assert that the existence of this group is the only cause of disorders on the campus. 

     A second explanation for some of the troubles is criticism by students on the way the college or university is run. I refer here to complaints about curriculum, defense-related research, the impersonality of faculty-student relations, the roles of students, faculty, and trustees in the governing processes of the institution, the relationship between the university and the community of which it is a part, and similar dissatisfactions. Whether one agrees with a particular criticism in any given instance is another matter. All I am saying here is that criticisms of this kind are one of the principal sources of some of the student disorders. 

     A third major cause of student unrest is the entire spectrum of problems within the wider American society-the war in Vietnam, the draft, racial discrimination, poverty, and the feeling on the part of many students that too many Americans are more concerned with material gain than with making real the dreams of our Founding Fathers.”

(End Congressional Record)

Notes

   The debate went on, in and out of the House and Senate, with various pieces of legislation designed to curb unrest, address poverty, marginalization, civil rights and disability as reason not to allow students to be given equal opportunity in education.

Afterword

     From low earth orbit to the rice paddies in Quan Nam Province, the seeds had been sown for the creation of a separate branch of government dedicated to education. Twenty-two years passed between the orbit of Sputnik and the official act of creation of the Department of Education on 17 October 1979; it was eleven years after the siege of Khe Sanh, a singular defining point in the Southeast Asia war that would bring the Marines Back to the World.

 

     

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Asia, china, department of education, health and human services, khe sanh, marginalization, president nixon, russia, sputnik, vietnam Tagged With: civil rights act, department of education, khe sanh, President Carter, President Johnson, sputnik, student unrest, vietnam

Title IX: Genderism, Language Ideology and Swimming to UPenn

March 19, 2025 by James L'Angelle Leave a Comment

Title IX was signed into law by Richard Nixon 45 years ago today - ImgurIntroduction

     Blame Tricky Dick for yet another controversy that would outlive the Vietnam War, the bombing of Cambodia and Watergate, the signing into law of the now controversial “Title IX.”

     With it allows men into women’s sports, but an even more far-reaching consequence, the spread of genderism.

 (Image credit: https://imgur.com/gallery/title-ix-was-signed-into-law-by-richard-nixon-45-years-ago-today-g5i4y)

Capsules

     The initial methodology is to employ synthetic intelligence (AI) with a string of search queries to provide not just a background to the equal opportunity in education law, but it’s possible connection to genderism.

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

define genderism

Genderism can be defined in several ways depending on the context:

  1. Binary Gender Belief: It often refers to the ideology that there are only two genders—male and female—and that a person’s gender is inherently tied to their sex assigned at birth. This perspective reinforces the gender binary and can lead to negative attitudes toward gender nonconformity137.

  2. Discrimination Against Non-Binary Individuals: Genderism can also describe discrimination against people who do not identify as exclusively male or female, including non-binary individuals3.

  3. Patriarchal Bias: In some contexts, genderism is used to describe a form of patriarchy that discriminates against femininity, affecting both men and women. This form of genderism is distinct from sexism, as it targets gender roles and expressions rather than biological sex2.

  4. Essentialism and Ideology: Genderism can also relate to gender essentialism, which attributes intrinsic qualities to men and women based on their gender. Additionally, it may be linked to gender ideology, which is often criticized by anti-gender movements35.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/define-genderism-M747SzivTS2nD.sIkGjEuQ
 
language ideology of genderism

Language ideology of genderism refers to the beliefs and attitudes about language use in relation to gender identities and expressions. This ideology is closely intertwined with societal views on gender and can manifest in various ways:

  1. Binary gender assumptions: Genderist language ideology often reinforces a strict male-female binary, neglecting or dismissing non-binary and gender-diverse identities1.

  2. Performativity: Anti-cis-sexist language reform movements focus on linguistic performativity, aiming to unsettle cis-sexist assumptions and render greater gender diversity legible1.

  3. Power dynamics: Genderist language ideology can reflect and reinforce existing power imbalances between genders in society, often privileging masculine forms of expression2.

  4. Socialization: The difference approach suggests that men and women develop distinct communicative styles due to socialization from childhood, resulting in different “sub-cultures” of language use3.

  5. Historical context: The development of gendered language norms is deeply rooted in historical and cultural contexts, often reflecting patriarchal structures4.

  6. Resistance and reform: Feminist and LGBTQ+ movements have challenged genderist language ideologies, advocating for more inclusive and equitable forms of expression13.

  7. Intersectionality: Genderist language ideology intersects with other forms of discrimination, such as racism and classism, creating complex patterns of linguistic marginalization2.

Understanding the language ideology of genderism is crucial for addressing linguistic inequalities and promoting more inclusive communication practices across society.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/language-ideology-of-genderism-3_iP6R3aTKG7YsqFDfiRlw
 
background on title ix.

Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law in the United States that was enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding13. The law consists of a concise 37-word sentence: “No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”3.

Origins and Development

Title IX emerged as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned various forms of discrimination but left a gap regarding sex discrimination in education12. The initial draft was authored by Representatives Patsy Mink and Edith Green, with Senator Birch Bayh introducing it to Congress in 197123.

Key Figures

  • Senator Birch Bayh: Chief Senate sponsor who introduced Title IX in Congress15

  • Representative Patsy Mink: Major author and sponsor of the bill5

  • Representative Edith Green: Held hearings on discrimination against women and introduced legislation in the House15

Legislative Process

  1. Early legislative draft aimed at amending the Civil Rights Act of 19641

  2. Introduced in Congress by Senator Birch Bayh in 19712

  3. Passed by Congress on June 8, 19721

  4. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 197225

Impact and Scope

While Title IX is often associated with sports equity, its original statute made no explicit mention of sports1. The law’s impact extends to various aspects of education, including:

  1. Admissions

  2. Financial aid

  3. Academic programs

  4. Athletics

  5. Sexual harassment and assault prevention17

Title IX has played a crucial role in advancing gender equality in education and has significantly transformed colleges and universities over the past 50 years7.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/background-on-title-ix-S8CNFdjjT5CMSWoXWoWCLA
 
title ix is responsible for the rise of genderism

Title IX, enacted in 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs or activities receiving federal funding. While it was originally designed to promote gender equity in education, its interpretation and application have evolved significantly over time, particularly in relation to gender identity and societal discussions about gender roles.

Key Developments of Title IX:

  1. Original Purpose: Title IX aimed to eliminate sex discrimination in education, addressing inequities in admissions, scholarships, faculty hiring, and athletics. It was a response to broader civil rights movements and sought to ensure women had equal opportunities in education and employment25.

  2. Impact on Women’s Opportunities: Title IX led to significant progress for women, particularly in sports and higher education. For example, it helped increase female participation in athletics and reversed disparities in college enrollment and advanced degrees15.

  3. Expansion to Gender Identity: Over time, Title IX’s scope expanded to include protections against discrimination based on gender identity and failure to conform to traditional gender roles. This shift began under the Obama administration and was later supported by the Biden administration’s executive orders346.

  4. Controversy Over Genderism: Critics argue that Title IX’s reinterpretation has contributed to the rise of “genderism,” or the emphasis on gender identity over biological sex. This includes debates over transgender students’ participation in sports and access to facilities aligned with their gender identity. These issues have sparked legal challenges and political disputes34.

Connection Between Title IX and Genderism:

  • Cultural Shifts: Title IX has been used as a tool to challenge traditional gender roles, promoting a broader understanding of gender beyond biological sex. This aligns with efforts to combat stereotypes and foster inclusivity but has also fueled debates about fairness and societal norms13.

  • Legal Interpretation: The inclusion of gender identity under Title IX has been both celebrated as a step toward equality and criticized as a departure from its original intent46.

In summary, while Title IX was not initially responsible for the rise of “genderism,” its evolving interpretation has played a role in shaping modern discussions about gender identity and equality. This evolution reflects broader societal changes but remains a contentious issue.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/title-ix-is-responsible-for-th-uLOT4QCETNmQ3NCJu_ApmQ

title ix does not protect transgender athletes

The statement “Title IX does not protect transgender athletes” is incorrect. The current legal landscape surrounding Title IX and transgender athletes is complex and evolving, with no definitive ruling that excludes transgender athletes from protection.

Current Legal Status

Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs, does not explicitly exclude or include transgender athletes. Courts have not definitively ruled that Title IX requires the exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports teams1. In fact, some courts have argued that Title IX protects transgender athletes, and there have been strong arguments supporting the inclusion of transgender girls in girls’ sports under Title IX1.

Recent Developments

As of March 2025, the issue remains contentious:

  1. The Biden administration attempted to expand protections for transgender students under Title IX but faced legal challenges1.

  2. The Trump administration issued an executive order in February 2025 attempting to ban transgender athletes from sports, but this order does not override existing state or federal laws2.

  3. A new federal regulation protecting transgender students’ rights has been challenged by Republican states, arguing it would require schools to allow transgender athletes to compete on teams aligning with their gender identity3.

Legal Interpretations

Many legal experts argue that Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination can be read to require that transgender individuals be permitted to fully participate in school athletics4. Courts have routinely rejected arguments that physical differences between sexes justify exclusion of females from otherwise all-male sports teams, and similar logic could apply to transgender athletes4.

In conclusion, while the issue remains controversial and subject to ongoing legal and political debates, it is inaccurate to state that Title IX definitively does not protect transgender athletes. The legal interpretation of Title IX’s application to transgender athletes is still evolving, with many arguments supporting their inclusion under the law’s protections.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/title-ix-does-not-protect-tran-.2WXGYLZSjan9_ruDlIkNw

upenn and title ix investigation

The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) is currently facing a Title IX investigation launched by the U.S. Department of Education in February 202534. This investigation was initiated one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports4.

The investigation primarily focuses on UPenn’s decision to allow Lia Thomas, a transgender woman, to compete on the women’s swimming team during the 2021-22 season4. Thomas’s participation led to several achievements, including winning a national championship title in the women’s 500-yard freestyle in 20222.

Key developments in this situation include:

  1. Federal funding pause: The Trump administration has paused $175 million in federal funding to UPenn, citing the university’s inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s sports12. This funding pause is separate from the ongoing Title IX investigation3.

  2. Lawsuit: Three former UPenn swimmers have filed a lawsuit against the university and other entities, alleging Title IX violations related to Thomas’s participation in women’s competitions4.

  3. Policy changes: Following the announcement of the investigation, UPenn Athletics removed its diversity, equity, and inclusion webpage, including its policy on the inclusion of transgender student-athletes4.

  4. Broader implications: The investigation is part of a larger initiative by the current administration to enforce Title IX protections based on biological sex in educational institutions4.

UPenn has stated that it has always followed NCAA and Ivy League policies regarding student participation on athletic teams and remains in full compliance with applicable regulations23. However, the university is now under scrutiny as the investigation unfolds, potentially risking further federal funding if found in violation of Title IX1.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/upenn-and-title-ix-investigati-PSCsmjk6QpmVEr0v26Qv6Q
 

federal discretionary funding over college transgender athletics

The Trump administration has suspended approximately $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) due to its policies regarding transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports123. This action was announced on March 19, 2025, and is separate from an ongoing Title IX investigation by the Department of Education4.

Key Details

  • Funding Sources: The suspended funds come from the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services25.

  • Reason: The administration cited UPenn’s policy allowing transgender women to compete on women’s sports teams, particularly referencing former swimmer Lia Thomas34.

  • University Response: UPenn stated it has not received official notification of the funding suspension and maintains that it has always followed NCAA and Ivy League policies regarding student-athlete participation15.

Context

This funding suspension follows a February 2025 executive order by President Trump banning transgender women from competing in women’s sports at the collegiate and K-12 levels1. The action against UPenn is part of a broader trend of the Trump administration targeting higher education funding, with recent cuts also affecting institutions like Columbia University and the University of Maine4.

The controversy centers around Lia Thomas, who in 2022 became the first openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I championship in the women’s 500-yard freestyle1. This event has been at the center of ongoing debates about gender identity and fairness in college athletics.

Implications

This funding suspension highlights the ongoing political and social debate surrounding transgender athletes’ participation in sports. It also demonstrates the federal government’s willingness to use financial leverage to influence university policies on contentious issues5.

 
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/federal-discretionary-funding-6N8dEXejQa2UHPsmXAeROA
 
(End Perplexity-AI)
 
Notes
     The executive order issued by the White House follows.
(Begin Perplexity-AI)
 
“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”

“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” is an executive order (EO 14201) signed by President Donald Trump on February 5, 2025123. This order aims to prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in female sports across all educational levels that receive federal funding23.

Key aspects of the executive order include:

  1. It relies on definitions of “sex,” “male,” and “female” from a previous executive order (EO 14168), which defines these terms based on biological sex at conception1.

  2. The order threatens to rescind federal funding from educational institutions that allow transgender women to compete in women’s sports, claiming such allowances violate Title IX34.

  3. It directs the U.S. Secretary of Education to take actions to protect “all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms” in accordance with Title IX14.

  4. The order prioritizes enforcement actions against institutions that require female students to compete against or appear unclothed before males15.

In response to this executive order:

  • The NCAA revised its participation policy for transgender student-athletes, limiting college competitions in women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth23.

  • The Department of Education began reviewing athletics policies of universities and athletic associations that supported transgender women’s participation in female sports2.

  • Some state-level organizations, such as the California Interscholastic Federation, stated they would continue to follow state law and allow trans athletes to play high school sports despite the executive order3.

This executive order has sparked debate and legal challenges, with supporters arguing it protects women’s sports and opponents claiming it discriminates against transgender individuals245.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/keeping-men-out-of-womens-spor-zVjowDy2Tsenn_M_7BNmsA

(End Perplexity-AI)

Afterword
     President Richard Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, signed Title IX into law on 23 June 1972.

Filed Under: anthropology, critical theory, culture clash, diversity, diversity equity inclusion, equity, genderism, inclusion, multiculturalism, president nixon, title ix, transgender Tagged With: genderism, multiculturalism, president nixon, title ix, transgender, upenn

Primary Sidebar

Footer

Copyright © 2025 · eleven40 Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in