for the sake of clarity this is basically what title IX says:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of 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."
the whole concept of trying to apply title IX to sex related complaints is a fairly new one, not really having any significant traction or presence until the last 5 or 6 years, and the argument goes that widespread systemic sexual violence on college campuses are effectively infringing on women (both individually, if the victim of an assault, and collectively due to fear of an assault) being able to have equal access to an education as men.
this may be a nebulous claim and you can debate the moral and logistical applicability of this thinking, but that's the general notion that has been argued with regards to title IX applying to sexual assault.
this guy was trying to say that the fallout of his being accused of rape was gender based discrimination, which in the case of this specific lawsuit is pretty clearly ridiculous.
so while it may not necessarily encompass the right moral or ethical conclusions one could hope for, the decision is well within the actual written meaning of the law... which as we all know from a plethora of other threads around here, nothing gets Derec harder than strict adherence to the specific wording of a federal law.
so c'mon Derec, what gives? you should be salivating over this ruling... it's almost like you're selectively cherry picking when to get a boner over strict legislative interpretation when it suits you in order to slag blacks or poor people, but are fine with railing against it when it doesn't immediately force the law to capitulate to an affluent white male.
but that... that can't possibly be right, can it?