Title IX under attack

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently announced that her department will be revisiting the Title IX guidelines on campus sexual assault. The effect of any changes will tilt the balance of federal guidance to make it harder to discipline the thousands of students, almost all of them men, who are accused of sexual violence against women each year and return us to the era during which young women were stigmatized for speaking up

According to Brett Sokolow, Executive Director of the Association of Title IX Administrators, 10,000 to 12,000 cases of campus rape reach the disciplinary phase every year.  Add to that the many cases of reported and unreported sexual harassment, stalking and relationship violence and it becomes clear that on-campus violence is a critical problem deserving weighty consequences.

But how these cases should be handled is a challenge for any administration.  How do schools show support for the survivors while insuring fairness to both parties? 

In 1972, the first comprehensive federal law to prohibit discrimination in education was passed.  Title IX covers women and men, girls and boys, and staff and students in any educational institution or program that receives federal funds. In regard to complaints of sexual misconduct, it requires that school policies must provide for prompt and equitable investigation and resolution. It prohibits retaliation against those who file complaints.  School policies must specifically indicate that sexual assault, even a single incident, is covered under Title IX.  Students have the right to file a complaint with the school if their rights under Title IX are violated, and victims may also file a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights if a school’s policies or handling of complaints are not compliant with Title IX.  In addition, each federally funded institution (school district) must designate a Title IX Coordinator to oversee compliance and grievance procedures.  

The most controversial part of implementation of this law mandates that, in determining a verdict, officials must use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which makes it easier to find offenders responsible than a “clear and convincing” evidence standard that some schools had been using.  Accusers are able to appeal a not guilty verdict, and efforts must be made to spare the accuser from direct cross examination by the accused. 

Colleges and universities are in a delicate position, reluctant to dismantle the current system for addressing sexual assault, while anticipating the possible loss of federal funds for not conceding to new guidelines. 

Make no mistake; Title IX remains the law of the land and this announcement does not alter in any way schools’ responsibilities. DeVos’ speech noted many situations in which schools have failed to adhere to the law. The response to this challenge is to enforce Title IX more vigorously, not to undermine it. 

Now is the time for our local colleges and universities to step up and demonstrate that they will do the right thing for their students even in the midst of potential rollbacks from the Department of Education.  

The American Association of University Women stands with survivors of campus sexual assault and remains committed to protecting and defending Title IX.  We must ensure our nation’s dedication to full and equal proper responses to sexual harassment and violence.  After all, students’ access to an education in a safe and secure environment free from the threat of assault is on the line.  Schools, and the Department of Education, owe it to all students to uphold their civil rights, a promise Mrs. DeVos’ announcement would most certainly deny. 

Lee Winocur Field, Ph.D

Lee Winocur Field is a 32 year resident of Laguna Beach, retired public school teacher, Administrator and Professor of Education. She is a former President of the Laguna Beach Branch of the American Association of University Women, and currently co-President of the San Clemente-Capistrano Bay Branch.

Letters from readers about undergrounding utilities – and other issues – are getting quite lively

Utility poles or eucalyptus trees, which are the greatest fire dangers? Our readers have strong opinions – see our Letters page. 

(“Let’s underground [all] the trees and all currently above ground utility wiring,” reader John Walker offers, with more than a touch of sarcasm.)

But seriously, and appropriately, most of the controversy swirls around cost, exactly who will pay and how costs will be calculated, as well as the relative risks of maintaining the status quo.

Click on photo for a larger image

Is the tree or the utility pole the greater danger?

Robert Elster, vice chair of the Emergency Disaster Preparedness Council, makes the point that, fire issues aside, “downing of poles and electrical lines due to traffic accidents can block streets and impede first responder access to accidents, as well as disrupting commercial and residential traffic; this can happen, and has, on both major arteries/evacuation routes and on feeder streets in Laguna Beach neighborhoods.”

Tom Gibbs agrees. On the cost issue, he notes: “The whole community will only pay for undergrounding Laguna Canyon Road and the other critical ingress and egress routes which benefit us all.”

But J T Price has a question: “Who pays the cost of any such bond, the voters or property owners? It is not right for voters who may not be property owners to force a cost onto property owners who may not even vote in Laguna.”

Focus on local access routes

However important undergrounding might seem to some, low-income residents including Sandi Werthe are understandably concerned about increased property taxes.

“I live on Top of the World and our utilities have always been underground so I feel, as a low income resident, that I shouldn’t have to pay to underground another neighborhood’s utilities.  

“As to undergrounding local access routes, that would be a different story,” she says.

Keep those letters coming to editor Lynette at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. We want to know what you think about the pros and cons of the City Council’s approach to undergrounding; the Historic Preservation Ordinance; Park Plaza; and other issues of interest to Lagunans.

 (The City Council last Tuesday voted to pay consultants almost $250,000 to determine community support for undergrounding overhead utility lines and prepare ballot measures to support funding.

Council members unanimously approved the expenditure to test public acceptance of either of two measures proposed for the 2018 ballot: one to fund undergrounding along evacuation routes by a general obligation bond, and the second to form a special district to pay for undergrounding all neighborhoods still served by overhead utilities.)

--Lynette Brasfield

Meter/property owners should be exclusive focus of the Council survey

Your paper reports that: “Councilman Bob Whalen, an early advocate of a bond to rid the city of overhead utility poles along major evacuation routes, reiterated his position. 

“I feel strongly that we have to go to the voters and ask for support for a city-wide measure to fund evacuation routes,” said Whalen.

Who pays the cost of any such bond, the voters or property owners? It is not right for voters who may not be property owners to force a cost onto property owners who may not even vote in Laguna. This issue is just “spin” if meter/property owners are not the exclusive focus of the Council survey, if the bond is to go on the property tax and not paid for by “the voters”!

RT Price

Laguna Beach

Morass of above ground utilities is the single biggest threat to our public safety

The City Council at its recent meeting voted unanimously to advance the measures to bury overhead power lines in Laguna Beach. I applaud this decision, and urge the whole community to do so. We all should support this important effort for the compelling reason that the morass of above ground utilities is the single biggest threat to our public safety.

Laguna Canyon Road, our other critical ingress/egress roads as well as over 60 percent of our residential neighborhoods continue to have above ground archaic and dangerous power lines and transformers. This is totally unacceptable and should concern us all for many reasons.

The fact is that above ground power lines and transformers throughout our City present an imminent risk of catastrophic fire - whether triggered by winds, other weather conditions, earthquakes, malfunction or other causes. Recall the devastating 1993 Laguna fire and the recent Tubbs fire in Santa Rosa which was caused by above ground electric wires. These fires ravished the communities, destroying thousands of homes (including my sister-in-law’s), even into areas where utilities are already underground. And beyond fires, downed power lines and poles, from whatever the cause, present significant safety risks including electrocution from live wires and blocking access for people evacuating and first responders arriving in the face of a catastrophic event, as well as overhead wire radiation and the risk of collusion to motor vehicles.

Undergrounding also carries significant benefits including (1) City beautification, (2) increased property values, (3) improved pedestrian circulation by removal of obstructing poles in the middle of sidewalks which particularly hinder access for the disabled, (4) undergrounding provides the opportunity to cost effectively add high speed internet fiber (and needed competition to the Cox Cable high-speed internet monopoly).

There are some “naysayers” who advance arguments which I do not find persuasive in the face of the extreme life safety risks. One is that undergrounding is too costly, but those costs pale in comparison to the losses from a fire or other catastrophic event, not only monetary but the human toll in injury or death, and the destruction of our homes, possessions and memories. Another is that the risk from above ground utilities is overblown, but just ask our Fire and Police Departments, or any of the thousands of people who lost their homes in the Tubbs fire and many others that have been cause by overhead wires. 

And another is that people who have already paid to underground utilities in their neighborhoods will have to pay twice, but the Council has made clear that will not occur. Only those areas not yet undergrounded will pay for that work. The whole community will only pay for undergrounding Laguna Canyon Road and the other critical ingress and egress routes which benefit us all.

The recent winds and fires bring home the point - the time to underground is NOW.

Tom Gibbs

Laguna Beach

Don’t forget Sandy Hook

As we approach Dec. 14, the fifth anniversary of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I want to remind everyone to keep the memories of the 20 youngsters and six adults who were gunned down alive. I can’t begin to understand what the families of the innocents who died that terrible morning must still be feeling; nonetheless, I want them to know there hardly is a day that goes by that I don’t think about their loved ones.  Maybe it’s because I have three children or that I taught preschool at Anneliese’s in 1974-75.  No matter the reason, my hope is one day Congress will do the right thing and pass effective, responsible gun safety laws. Only then will the families and I feel a sense of closure to one of the most horrific events in modern American history. 

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach