>title IX тот же изначально (в 1970-е, когда его приняли)
>имел не больше отношения к охоте на ведьм на кампусе

Угу. Но судейские за это таки больше ответственны, нежели бюрократы, ибо только они могут закреплять отсутствующие в законах интерпретации.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45685.pdf

"Though Title IX makes no explicit reference to sexual abuse or harassment, the Supreme Court has held that a school district can violate the statute, and be held liable for damages, based on a deliberately indifferent response to a teacher’s sexual abuse or harassment of a student. The Court has also held that a school board may be liable under Title IX for a deliberately indifferent response to student-onstudent sexual harassment."

"In each of the last several presidential administrations, however, the Department of Education (ED) has issued guidance documents that instruct schools regarding their responsibilities under Title IX when addressing allegations of sexual harassment.14 In response, educational institutions have developed procedures and practices to investigate and respond to allegations of sexual harassment and assault"

"Because ED is, among other things, “the primary administrator of federal financial assistance to education,” the agency plays a lead role in enforcing Title IX against educational institutions"

"ED’s OCR has issued a series of guidance documents that have interpreted Title IX to bar sexual harassment and define distinct responsibilities for educational
institutions with regard to such allegations."

"In 1997, OCR released a guidance document stating that sexual harassment of students by school employees, other students, or third parties is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX"

"With respect to sexual harassment by other students or third parties, a school would be liable for harassment if “(i) a hostile environment exists in the school's programs or activities, (ii) the school knows or should have known of the harassment, and (iii) the school fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”
The Guidance explained that while Title IX does not render a school responsible for the actions of its students, it does make schools responsible for their “own discrimination in failing to remedy [harassment] once the school has notice.”"

"Following the release of OCR’s 1997 Guidance, the Supreme Court shortly thereafter recognized a substantively different standard for establishing liability in a private suit for damages directly against a school. As discussed above, in 1998, in Gebser, the Supreme Court ruled that in cases of harassment committed by a teacher, a school district is liable only when it has actual knowledge of allegations by an “appropriate person,” and so deficiently responds to those allegations that its response amounts to deliberate indifference to the discrimination. And the next year in Davis, the Court held that in addition to a showing of actual knowledge by an appropriate person, and deliberate indifference, a plaintiff suing for damages for sexual harassment committed by a student must show that the conduct was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it denied the victim equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.1"

"Crucially, the Court in Gebser distinguished between actions by a school that could result in Title IX liability for damages in a private right of action, and Title IX administrative requirements imposed by a federal agency in implementing and enforcing the statute. According to the Court, agencies possess authority to enforce requirements that effectuate Title IX’s mandate, “even if those requirements do not purport to represent a definition of discrimination under the statute.” 196 In other words, agencies enforcing Title IX may administratively require recipients to comply with certain procedures and rescind funding for violations, even though breaches of such requirements might not subject a school to liability under a private suit for damages"

"As a threshold matter, schools are responsible for adopting grievance procedures that provide prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sexual harassment. Failure to do so will mean that a school is in violation of Title IX. Generally speaking, when sexual harassment has occurred, educational institutions must take “prompt and effective action calculated to end the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects.” If the “school, uponnotice of the harassment, responds by taking prompt and effective action to end the harassment and prevent its recurrence, the school has carried out its responsibility under the Title IX regulations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_v._Gwinnett_County_Public_Schools

"The court’s decision stated that monetary relief was available under Title IX because it is presumed that violating a federal right calls for the use of appropriate relief as a remedy. The court also found that the harassment against Franklin was an example of discrimination based on sex."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/629/

"A private Title IX damages action may lie against a school board in cases of student-on-student harassment"

"Here, petitioner attempts to hold the Board liable for its own decision to remain idle in the face of known student-on-student harassment in its schools. The standard set out in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U. S. 274-that a school district may be liable for damages under Title IX where it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of teacher-student sexual harassment-also applies in cases"

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/274/

"Damages may not be recovered for teacher-student sexual harassment in an implied private action under Title IX unless a school district official who at a minimum has authority to institute corrective measures on the district's behalf has actual notice of, and is deliberately indifferent to, the teacher's misconduct."

Это я типа хотел запостить пост о появлении SJW, но потом передумал, а ссылки с цитатами остались.