"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."In other words, it's an anti-discrimination law for universities that receive Federal funding. It is unlawful for any such university to deny access to any of their resources and services based on the sex of the person. For example, a university (that receives Federal funding) cannot say to a student "we are not admitting you because you are a woman", or "you can't apply to this course because you are a woman", or "you can't use this lab because you are a woman", or "you can't create this student organization because you are a woman", for instance.
(It also pretty much effectively bans gender quotas in university admissions, or anything happening within the university. I do not know if gender quotas are being used in any of these universities, but it's one thing to keep in mind when following these things.)
Yet that's not what Title IX has become famous for. In recent years it has become famous because any sexual harassment and rape claims in universities, by the university, are being investigated "under title IX".
It's baffling. What exactly does a law that forbids a university from discriminating against students based on their sex have anything to do with sexual harassment and rape accusations? Where's the connection? Isn't this a crime (alleged or real) done between students, and thus to be reported to and investigated by the police? What does Title IX have anything to do with this? Said law makes absolutely no mention, not even in passing, about sex crimes. (The word "sex" appears in the text, of course, but it's referring to people's biological sex, not sexual acts. The same word being used for both can be confusing sometimes, but it shouldn't be confusing here.)
It turns out that the logic behind this is really contrived, far-fetched, and outright retarded.
The reasoning is that if one student commits a sex crime against another (which in American universities means exclusively if a man commits a sex crime against a woman), that will cause the victim so much stress that she will be unable to study in the university properly, and thus if the university does not intervene, it will be "discrimination" against that victim as described in Title IX.
That logic makes absolutely no sense. Using the exact same logic one could argue that if a student becomes sick, or becomes injured, for example, the university would have to pay that student's medical expenses in full, else they would be "discriminating" against that student because he would be incapable of studying properly at the university. Or if the student gets so stressed or depressed that he's unable to study properly, the university would have to intervene and pay his therapist fees. Or anything else that would interfere with a student's ability to participate in any activity of the university.
What it seems to me is that this contrived logic is used by universities to enact their social justice ideology onto their students. If a student commits a sex crime, rather than leaving it up to the police, the university itself intervenes using Title IX as an excuse, and kicks the student out. After all, they have a Federal law to back them up, don't they?
And they really are abusing this to its full extent. Case after case is turning up where someone accused of a sex crime was kicked out of the university, he was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the police, the police concluding the accusation to be false... but the university still maintaining their decision and not taking the student back. Some of these cases have even been to the court of law (where the student has sued the university for actual discrimination because he was wrongfully kicked out, and not allowed to come in again.)