Campus Due Process
In June 2023 the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that delineated the fundamental requirements of campus due process:
(1) Require complainants to testify under oath or to subject them to explicit and meaningful penalties for untruthful statements.
(2) Provide a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses in real time.
(3) Provide parties a reasonable opportunity to call witnesses to testify.
(4) Afford the accused the opportunity to have the active assistance of counsel during the [campus sexual assault] hearing.
(5) Provide any record or transcript of the proceeding that would assist in obtaining an adequate review of the college’s decision.
The Connecticut Supreme Court also made a pointed reference to the proposed Title IX regulation:
“At the time this opinion was written, the Department of Education had proposed amendments to Title IX regulations that would eliminate any cross-examination requirement at postsecondary institutions . . . Regardless of how Title IX regulations may be amended, we conclude that, for absolute immunity to apply under Connecticut law, fundamental fairness requires meaningful cross-examination in proceedings like the one at issue.” [Emphasis added.]
Unfortunately, many colleges have failed to meet these minimum requirements, or assure other due process protections foreseen by the Fourteenth Amendment.
SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation reviews 175 judicial decisions in which judges issued decisions against universities. The proposed Title IX regulation seeks to remove key due process protections for persons, especially male students, falsely accused of violating campus sexual misconduct policies.
The situation appears to be getting worse, as revealed by two large jury awards in 2023:
- An Oregon jury awarded $4 million to Peter Steele whose sexual assault case was mishandled by Pacific University, ruling the institution had intentionally caused the man emotional distress.
- A Pennsylvania jury issued a $15 million verdict against Thomas Jefferson University for failure to follow basic due process procedures — see video.
Indeed, there is a growing perception that campus Title IX offices are staffed by gender ideologues, not legal professionals.
LEGISLATION
- Model policy:
- Campus due process laws have been enacted in twelve states: AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, NC, ND, NY, and OH.
LAWSUITS
- Title IX for All: Title IX Lawsuits Database
- KC Johnson: Post-Dear Colleague Letter Rulings/Settlements
- Khan v. Yale University: Connecticut Supreme Court Issues Blistering Critique of Yale’s Unfair Title IX Proceedings
COMMENTS
Selected comments submitted to the Department of Education regarding its proposed Title IX regulation:
- Families Advocating for Campus Equality
- Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
- Patricia Hamill and Lorie Dakessian
- SAVE:
- Analysis of 175 Judicial Decisions
- Comment how the Draft Regulation will Worsen Sex Discrimination Against Male Students
- Comment on Impartial Investigations and Use of the Single Investigator Model
- Comment on Live Hearings and Cross Examination
- Comment that Workplace Policies Cannot Be Applied to Title IX
- Listing of 150+ Opposing Organizations
- Listing of Editorials Critical of Draft Regulation
- Listing of 498 Persons Opposed to the Draft Regulation
- Listing of 235 Religious Leaders Opposed to the Draft Regulation
OTHER TITLE IX PROBLEM AREAS
Return to the Stop the Gender Agenda page.