With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Youngsville, 106 F.3d 101, 108 (5th Cir.1997); Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1050 (5th Cir.1996). Moreover, "whistleblowing” by public employees constitutes protected speech on a matter of public concern, “within the protective bosom of the First Amendment.” Brown v. Texas A & M Univ., 804 F.2d 327, 337 (5th Cir.1986); accord Wallace, 80 F.3d at 1050-51. 17 . In Holt, we held that the spouse of a complainant does not acquire derivative standing to state a claim for retaliation merely by virtue of his relationship with the plaintiff. See Holt, 89 F.3d at 1226. The court explained that participation is the sine qua non for a retaliation claim. If the plaintiff par 1488, 1493-95 (D.Kan.1995) (same); Nelson v. University of Maine Sys., 923 F.Supp. 275, 278-80 (D.Me.1996) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, several of our sister circuits

A: recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim
B: holding that title vii principles govern retaliation claims arising under title ix and assuming that teachers have standing to raise retaliation claims under title ix based upon complaints raised on behalf of their students
C: holding that a claim for retaliation does not lie under title ix
D: holding that the elements of a hostile environment claim under title vii equally apply under title ix
B.