Rarely do courts grants motions to reconsider prior rulings, but a federal judge in New York did so this week in the context of a peer harassment case. CG was a special needs student at a public junior high school in New York City. During computer class, she was assaulted by two male students, one who grabbed her breasts from behind and another pulled her pants down and touched her buttocks. The teacher, Mr. Raskin, was present in the classroom, but was ostensibly helping students at the front of the room during this incident, which took place at the back of the classroom. CG called out for help, but did not call to Mr. Raskin in particular. Eventually her friend pushed through the crowd of students who had gathered around and pulled the boys off of her. CG's friend reported the incident and the boys were suspended and then transferred out of school.
CG's guardian sued the City on her behalf, claiming that the school was liable Mr. Raskin's failure to intercede and stop the assault as it was happening. Last month, however, the judge dismissed this claim. He agreed that the a jury could find that he was aware of the situation and that his failure to act amounted to deliberate indifference, he held that it did not constitute "severe and pervasive" harassment because it only happened one time. In response to the plaintiff's motion to reconsider, however, the judge admitted that he overlooked cases judicial decisions -- as well as topical Department of Education guidance -- holding that a single incident of harassment may render a school district liable if it is "serious enough to have the systemic effect of denying the victim equal access to an educational program or activity." In other words, "severe and pervasive" goes to the effect that the harassment could reasonably be expected to have on the victim. It does not refer to the pattern of the harassing conduct itself. The "deliberate indifferent" element already takes that into account; where a teacher's failure to intercede in an ongoing assault could amount to indifferent, failure to intercede in namecalling may not unless/until that namecalling becomes a pattern.
Applying this standard, the judge reasoned that a jury could find that the assault on CG was serious and caused her emotional harm that impaired her access to education. This is a sensible result, in my view. The court was right to recognize that sexual harassment comes in many forms, and that the courts' concern about making schools liable for single incidents of harassment arises in the context of schoolyard taunts and teasing -- concerns not applicable when the manner of harassment is assault.
Decision is: TZ v. City of New York, 2009 WL 1794702 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2009).
Showing posts with label New York City. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York City. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
The not-so-far-reaching effects of equity in sports
Frequently overlooked when we make statements such as "girls have benefited from Title IX" or "the growth of high school girls in sports has been X-fold since the passage of Title IX" is the fact that "girls" is not a nice, neat category. "Girls" is actually quite complex. And as much as we support gender equity laws, we need to remember that relying solely on the category of gender to judge equity and opportunity is not sufficient.
Yesterday's NYT article on the sporting lives of urban girls, specifically NYC girls, is an important reminder of how class, race, and ethnicity affect access to opportunities.
The article does a great job explaining the realities faced by many middle and high school-age girls who are ethnic and racial minorities in the US. It tells some of their stories as well as those of administrators and coaches who try to balance the needs of their teams (the article focuses on basketball) with the needs of the student-athletes--and primarily the needs of players' families who often rely on these young girls for child care and other domestic duties.
And, of course, we also get the bigger picture in the form of statistics and various sociological studies.
Yesterday's NYT article on the sporting lives of urban girls, specifically NYC girls, is an important reminder of how class, race, and ethnicity affect access to opportunities.
The article does a great job explaining the realities faced by many middle and high school-age girls who are ethnic and racial minorities in the US. It tells some of their stories as well as those of administrators and coaches who try to balance the needs of their teams (the article focuses on basketball) with the needs of the student-athletes--and primarily the needs of players' families who often rely on these young girls for child care and other domestic duties.
And, of course, we also get the bigger picture in the form of statistics and various sociological studies.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Urban girls and Title IX
Very good article from Women's eNews that focuses on the establishment of competitive girls double dutch in New York City.
But importantly, the writer also points out numerous facts that often get lost when we talk about opportunities for girls and the enactment of Title IX.
Tina Sloan Greene, co-founder of Black Women in Sport Foundation in Philadelphia, reminds us that:
Title IX is great but in order to bring about change it takes activism on the parts of parents and people who understand legislation.
Also, she and others point out the often greater disadvantage experienced by urban girls including fighting for fewer resources. Unfortunately awareness of inequity by girls and parents in high schools generally, but especially in urban schools, is not as heightened as at the college level. (Though we believe it is increasing and will likely jump if the legislation that mandates reporting in high schools--proposed by Senator Snowe--passes.) This has been evident in the far fewer complaints regarding inequities in high schools.
But importantly, the writer also points out numerous facts that often get lost when we talk about opportunities for girls and the enactment of Title IX.
Tina Sloan Greene, co-founder of Black Women in Sport Foundation in Philadelphia, reminds us that:
Title IX is great but in order to bring about change it takes activism on the parts of parents and people who understand legislation.
Also, she and others point out the often greater disadvantage experienced by urban girls including fighting for fewer resources. Unfortunately awareness of inequity by girls and parents in high schools generally, but especially in urban schools, is not as heightened as at the college level. (Though we believe it is increasing and will likely jump if the legislation that mandates reporting in high schools--proposed by Senator Snowe--passes.) This has been evident in the far fewer complaints regarding inequities in high schools.
Friday, March 13, 2009
NY Times on Single-Sex Classrooms
The New York Times reports on the blossoming of single-sex classrooms in public schools, particularly in struggling schools in New York City where principals are looking for new ways to improve the learning experience and test results for their students.
As we've discussed previously, single-sex education--albeit being tried for very good and noble intentions--raises some serious concerns about gender stereotyping. This particular article reports on teaching techniques that one teacher reports that he would not try in a coed environment because of his belief that "girls would cry" if faced with his stern remarks. Although the teacher's goals are laudable, his assumptions and the way in which he structures his curriculum appear to collide against Title IX's prohibition against gender stereotyping in schools.
Further, studies on the achievement level of students in single-sex environments versus coed requirements show mixed results at best. This article raises the important point, however, that so-called low achieving students are often the ones who get steered toward single-sex classrooms because teachers hope the environment will help focus the student. Finally, teachers write that students seems more engaged in school and less prone to disciplinary issues when they are in the single-sex environment. Does this make such a set-up Title IX-proof? No, but it does give food for thought as educators continue to struggle with how to encourage students to achieve academically.
As we've discussed previously, single-sex education--albeit being tried for very good and noble intentions--raises some serious concerns about gender stereotyping. This particular article reports on teaching techniques that one teacher reports that he would not try in a coed environment because of his belief that "girls would cry" if faced with his stern remarks. Although the teacher's goals are laudable, his assumptions and the way in which he structures his curriculum appear to collide against Title IX's prohibition against gender stereotyping in schools.
Further, studies on the achievement level of students in single-sex environments versus coed requirements show mixed results at best. This article raises the important point, however, that so-called low achieving students are often the ones who get steered toward single-sex classrooms because teachers hope the environment will help focus the student. Finally, teachers write that students seems more engaged in school and less prone to disciplinary issues when they are in the single-sex environment. Does this make such a set-up Title IX-proof? No, but it does give food for thought as educators continue to struggle with how to encourage students to achieve academically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
