DISQUS

Please read the court comments from the 1st district - the court agreed there was an egregious Title IX incident that did occur. The lower court then ruled that kicking the victim off the bus was a reasonable response under Title IX's statutory requirements. By precluding Section 1983, the court did not have to apply a reasonabilty standard to the constitutional requirements of the 14th amendment - which any reasonable person would realize was not met by the school's response.

To suggest that there is some sort of “stealth” attack being propagated on the Constitution by this case is not only ridiculous, it’s unwarranted. Your analysis questionably fails to take into account the role that in loco parentis plays in regards to governmental intrusion into private lives, and accordingly, your assumption of a direct corollary between public educational institutions and private homes in the application of Supreme Court rulings, deliberately ignores that greater “parental” role traditionally afforded to school administrators over their students, as opposed to town/city administrators over their citizens. The effort in this case is not to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to properly assign responsibility for a failure to abide by its strictures.