This NY Times editorial on the Title IX retaliation case shows me that one of us is way off the mark. In Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Congress created an express remedy for retaliation; if Title IX lacks the same language, then there is no remedy.
The editorial says: "When someone suffers retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination, that is itself a form of sex discrimination." It is not. Why torture the language in this way? Why not write an editorial that says, if Title IX as it is does not contain an anti-retaliation claim, it should be amended?
Ack, I don't know why I even read the NY Times, but Jim Elliott is out-of-town, and so I have no one to argue with here on the premises.