Category: Department of Education

Biden faces Title IX battle complicated by politics and his own history

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date January 22, 2021

A Long and Complicated Road Ahead

Improving how colleges respond to sexual assault on campus is one of President Biden’s top priorities. But it’s likely to be an uphill battle

By Greta Anderson, January 22, 2021

Joe Biden entered the White House this week with high and wide-ranging expectations from higher education leaders, advocates for survivors of sexual violence and students for how his new administration will require colleges to handle and reduce sexual assault on college campuses.

In addition to addressing the public health and economic consequences of the pandemic, supporting the ongoing movement for social justice and equity for Black Americans, and trying to unite a politically polarized population, President Biden has also promised to strengthen Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded institutions, which mandates how colleges should respond to student reports of sexual misconduct.

Through his time as a senator and vice president, violence against women and the prevalence of sexual assault has remained a “signature issue” and something the president “cares deeply about,” said Shep Melnick, a professor of political science at Boston College and author The Transformation of Title IX: Regulating Gender Equality in Education (Brookings, 2018).

Melnick noted that Biden was a “major factor” in the Obama administration’s emphasis on reducing campus sexual assault. As vice president during that eight-year period, Biden led the administration’s It’s On Us campaign and visited colleges to promote awareness of the problem and advocate for prevention strategies, such as bystander intervention, or encouraging and training students, particularly young men, to intervene when they see a classmate in a dangerous situation. He wrote the 1990 Violence Against Women Act, which aimed to protect women from gender-based violence.

Aya Gruber, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who writes about feminism and the criminal justice system, recalled when Biden said, “If a man raised his hand to a woman, you had the job to kick the living crap out of him,” during a White House event promoting men’s involvement in the fight against campus sexual assault.

Protecting women and strongly punishing those who commit sexual violence is “part of Biden’s brand,” Gruber said. His past rhetoric and policy positions on campus sexual assault offer some idea of how Biden’s Department of Education will address the issue. He has so far vowed to “immediately” put an end to the Title IX regulations issued by former secretary of education Betsy DeVos, which dramatically shifted how colleges respond to allegations of sexual misconduct.

The DeVos regulations were incessantly criticized and challenged in court by advocates for survivors of sexual assault, who took issue with mandates for colleges to require students who are opposing parties in sexual misconduct cases to be cross-examined by a third party “advocate” at campus hearings for sexual assault investigations. The regulations also exclude sexual misconduct that occurs off campus from oversight under Title IX and apply a more limited definition of sexual harassment.

Several women’s groups and organizations that support survivors’ rights, such as the advocacy group Know Your IX, want the DeVos regulations gone. They say students who are sexually assaulted or harassed were better off under the 2011 Title IX guidance issued by the Obama administration, when institutions were advised to investigate and adjudicate all reports of sexual misconduct, “regardless of where the conduct occurred.” The guidance, commonly referred to as the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, said that a single incident of sexual harassment could prompt a Title IX investigation and that institutions must use a preponderance of the evidence standard when determining a student or staff member’s guilt.

DeVos rescinded the 2011 guidance during her first months as education secretary in 2017. Biden has pledged to reinstate it. His plan to address violence against women published online says his administration will “restore” the 2011 guidance that “outlined for schools how to fairly conduct Title IX proceedings.”

Biden’s campaign website, which details his agenda for women’s issues, says the Education Department under DeVos has “rolled back the clock and given colleges a green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their civil rights under Title IX, guaranteeing that college campuses will be less safe for our nation’s young people.”

His administration will “stand on the side of survivors, who deserve to have their voices heard, their claims taken seriously and investigated, and their rights upheld,” the comments on the website say.

Civil liberties groups and advocates for the rights of students accused of sexual misconduct are dismayed by Biden’s stated intention to reinstate the 2011 guidance. They argue that the guidance led to colleges violating free speech and due process rights. Supporters of the DeVos regulations, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and SAVE, a Washington, D.C., area-based organization that advocates for constitutional protections during college disciplinary proceedings, say the 2011 guidance was grossly unfair.

Edward Bartlett, founder and president of SAVE, said the 2011 guidance was ineffective at reducing sexual misconduct and infringed on student rights. He said the hundreds of federal and state lawsuits filed after the issuance of the 2011 letter prove it did not help those who report sexual misconduct or those accused of it, he said.

Bartlett noted that a Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct by the Association of American Universities found a slight uptick in rates of sexual assault at top colleges between 2015 and 2019, and reporting of incidents remained low throughout this time period. Two surveys were conducted, one in 2015, which involved 27 colleges, and another in 2019, in which 33 colleges participated. The 2019 survey found the overall rate of sexual assault was 13 percent for all students and nearly 26 percent for women undergraduates at those colleges, according to an AAU report about the data. There was a 3 percent increase in the rate of sexual assault among undergraduate women between 2015 and 2019 at the colleges that participated in the surveys, the AAU report said.

“Not only did they find no improvement, they found it got worse,” Bartlett said.

Melnick, the Boston College professor, said the AAU survey and other data available about the prevalence of campus sexual assault are not strong enough to conclude whether or not the 2011 guidance was effective. There isn’t any empirical evidence that suggests that Title IX guidance issued during the Obama administration made the issue worse, he said. But if the Biden administration intends to revert to the former guidance, it may soon have to provide data to support that decision, Melnick said.

“The current debate over evidence — inconclusive as it is — will loom larger in the future,” he said in an email.

In the years since the guidance, several federal appeals courts have also struck down parts of the Title IX processes that many colleges developed following the Obama administration’s guidelines, deeming them “unfair” and sometimes discriminatory against men.

Experts who study Title IX and advise institutions on how to implement the law said colleges would be better off if the Department of Education takes a forward-looking approach to combating campus sexual misconduct rather than reverting to the 2011 guidance.

Jake Sapp, a Title IX legal researcher for the Stetson University Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy, said court decisions that favored students accused of sexual misconduct were a direct response to the 2011 guidance, which didn’t set clear standards for due process.

The DeVos regulations rely heavily on these federal court opinions and went through a formal rule-making process that can’t simply be revoked, as some advocacy groups for sexual assault survivors are urging Biden to do, Sapp said. Even the most contested item in the DeVos regulations — the cross-examination requirement — has been backed by several appeals court decisions and will be applicable to colleges in those judicial circuits even if the Biden administration stops enforcing the regulations, he said.

“The administration can set a regulatory floor, but they can’t build a roof over what the court’s jurisdiction is,” he said. “They can’t say colleges can’t provide this due process protection when a federal court says that you already have to have that.”

Sage Carson, manager of Know Your IX, endorses halting enforcement of the DeVos regulations, but she said the challenges student survivors face have changed significantly in the decade since the 2011 guidance was issued and returning to it isn’t going to effectively address those new challenges.

“Survivors on campus are facing horrendous obstacles to getting support from their school that are nothing like the Obama administration was dealing with,” Carson said. “My fear is that the Biden administration will come in and say, ‘We’ve dealt with this issue before, we know how to do this,’ and not take the time to understand the needs of students right now in this unique moment.”

Carson described obstacles such as a “huge uptick” in students accused of sexual assault filing retaliatory countercomplaints or defamation lawsuits against their accusers. These actions can mean survivors do not receive the support they need from their college or end up in debt from legal fees, she said.

Colleges and students have also been through bouts of “whiplash” as they’ve had to make policy adjustments based on the political positions of the president in office, Carson said. Some institutions have been consistently “awful” on protecting students from sexual misconduct, but other institutions attempted to comply with the Trump administration’s requirements and experienced “confusion, frustration and a lack of resources,” Carson said.

The lack of clarity and conflicting policies and rhetoric has frustrated students and discouraged some from filing sexual misconduct reports, she said.

“There will be schools that are strained by this back-and-forth,” she said. “To restore confidence in survivors turning to their schools, this administration is going to have to be very transparent about what students can expect … This is going to be a tough, uphill battle.”

Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel for the American Council on Education, said college administrators recognize that their institutions can’t simply go back to the 2011 guidance. There are new decisions by federal courts that many institutions must follow, new state laws that change how campuses respond to sexual misconduct and resolution agreements between the Education Department and individual colleges that outline how those colleges must improve their Title IX policies and procedures, McDonough said. The DeVos regulations are just one piece of the puzzle, and eliminating them doesn’t change how colleges must deal with sexual misconduct moving forward, he said.

College officials would appreciate “more flexibility” from the Biden administration — such as guidance that loosens some requirements of the DeVos regulations — but they also spent months pouring time and energy into adjusting their policies to meet the new standards during the coronavirus pandemic, McDonough said.

“We’re tired,” he said. “Don’t give us one more thing to do this academic year. Let us get our students back to as close as we can to normal.”

The Biden administration should begin the work of creating new Title IX regulations that strike a balance for all sides, including those who experience sexual assault, those accused of it and the college officials that are legally responsible for carrying out the procedures, McDonough said. What college officials are hoping for is a “thoughtful” look at how to amend or replace the DeVos regulations with what all sides feel is the fairest possible process, he said.

“Otherwise we’re going to boomerang for years,” McDonough said. “How are we going to get ourselves, as a broad community, to a place where we feel like what we’ve got is pretty fair? That rhetorical question needs to guide a fair amount of the decision making in this next administration.”

Sapp, who is also deputy Title IX coordinator at Austin College in Sherman, Tex., said Biden and the Education Department officials working under him should not focus on rhetoric painting the DeVos regulations as an “attack on survivors” and listen to more than just one line of thought on the issue. Sapp believes the DeVos regulations are a “good starting point” for Biden to build on, but that the politics surrounding them will deter Biden from publicly recognizing that.

“Part of what Biden has demonstrated is that he’s open to diversity of ideas and thought,” Sapp said. “That needs to be demonstrated in the ideas that he has on Title IX … If you’re going to put forward a Title IX regulation that’s going to stand the test of time, it’s going to have to have input from across the board.”

Gruber, the University of Colorado law professor, is not convinced there can be a compromise on Title IX.

“Whatever he does, somebody’s not going to be happy,” she said.

The Biden administration’s path to well-received Title IX requirements is further complicated by outstanding allegations of sexual misconduct against Biden. Some student leaders of college sexual assault prevention groups said the allegations made them feel conflicted about voting for Biden in November, which they felt they had to do in order to reverse the Trump administration’s actions on Title IX. But Carson, of Know Your IX, said that she and other survivors have not forgotten the story of Tara Reade, the woman who said she was sexually assaulted by Biden in 1993, and others who said he inappropriately touched them.

“That’s something that our team is grappling with every day as we approach this administration,” Carson said. “That’s something we’re going to remember moving forward. We should always be supporting equity and supporting survivors, not just when it’s convenient.”

Biden faces Title IX battle complicated by politics and his own history (insidehighered.com)

Department of Education Department of Justice Discrimination Law & Justice Legal Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Department of Education says schools can’t use ‘national statistics’ to justify women-only scholarships, programs

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date January 16, 2021

GREG PIPER – ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE COLLEGE FIX

JANUARY 14, 2021

Don’t give ‘special status’ to outside groups with sex restrictions, either

Largely thanks to the efforts of University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark Perry, schools across the country are facing scrutiny from the Department for Education for offering programs and scholarships that exclude males from eligibility.

His flurry of Title IX complaints indisputably played a significant role in its Office for Civil Rights’ creation of two new “issue codes” last year to track complaints against “single sex campus programs” and “single sex scholarships.”

On Thursday, the Office for Civil Rights went a step further by releasing “technical assistance” on its interpretation of Title IX with respect to such programs and scholarships.

Much of the material is not new to people who follow Title IX complaints and resolutions, and the document explicitly tells institutions that it does not have “the force and effect of law” and is “not meant to bind the public or regulated entities in any way.” (The Obama administration, by contrast, explicitly threatened institutions for not following its nonbinding Title IX guidance.)

But for K-12 schools and colleges that have long acted as if Title IX didn’t apply to activities with the word “girls” in the title, and depictions of only females in their materials, the 11-page document makes plain that it does.

One of the most popular reasons for offering a female-only program or scholarship – supposed underrepresentation – is severely restricted under the feds’ interpretation.

While they can restrict eligibility by sex for “remedial or affirmative action” in “limited circumstances,” schools are still prohibited from using “sex-based quotas.” Even more sweeping, they cannot “rely on national statistics as evidence of limited participation.”

Rather, schools must “clearly articulate why the particular sex-based scholarship or program was necessary to overcome the conditions in its own education program or activity which resulted in limited participation therein“:

As part of this analysis, OCR evaluates whether the classification based on sex was supported by an “exceedingly persuasive justification,” based on a substantial relationship between the classification and an important governmental or educational objective.

Schools targeted with complaints will have to provide “a specific assessment of the facts and circumstances surrounding the scholarship or other program” to OCR. The office will analyze whether the “purported remedial discrimination” has any relation to “overcoming the effects of those conditions.”

It flatly warns schools that their sex-based scholarships justified as affirmative action “may never rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

Schools should also be wary of titles for scholarships and programs that are “reasonably perceived” as stating a “preference or restriction” based on sex. Otherwise they must “clearly state in their public-facing communications,” such as websites and recruiting materials, that such preference or restriction does not exist, despite the title.

OCR notes that it has reviewed scholarship applications and “awardee data, disaggregated by sex,” to discern whether schools have “communicated effectively” about their nondiscrimination policies.

Several sections in the question-and-answer format are answered “Generally, no” on the appropriateness of sex preferences and restrictions. One of them is whether schools can even advertise or promote third-party scholarships, such as by listing them on its website:

OCR expects that schools will take reasonable steps to verify that the sponsoring organization’s or person’s rules for determining awards do not, expressly or in fact, discriminate on the basis sex.

The guidance also cautions schools about providing “significant assistance” to third parties that offer “non-funded” advancement programs, such as fellowships, with sex preferences or restrictions.

Such assistance has historically been interpreted to include giving third parties “special status or privileges” not offered to “all community organizations,” such as by designating faculty sponsors or letting parties use campus facilities “at less than fair market value.” Simply listing a non-funded program on its website, however, is not “significant assistance.”

Some of the guidance is highly nuanced, particularly with respect to elementary and secondary schools. But other parts are direct and unambiguous, such as the section on sex-based restrictions on school facilities:

OCR has opened an investigation into whether a university that offered a designated “women’s only” workout space in its gym facilities violated Title IX by restricting that space to members of only one sex.

Read the guidance.

Department of Education says schools can’t use ‘national statistics’ to justify women-only scholarships, programs | The College Fix

Campus Department of Education Sexual Assault Title IX

Title IX Has Turned Universities Into Really Terrible Sex Police

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date January 12, 2021

By Teresa R. Manning

JANUARY 11, 2021

Title IX feminists seek to abuse the federal access law to institute policies that favor women — including inverting the presumption of innocence.

A Biden administration spells more controversy about Title IX, the federal equal access law that bans sex discrimination in schools receiving federal funds, but now used to address sexual misconduct — including allegations of criminal conduct like sexual assault and rape (variously defined). The theory is that such behaviors threaten access to education.

Democrats want to seem tough on sexual assault, of course, and Title IX is the tool, even as Joe Biden has dodged Tara Reade’s accusations that he once sexually assaulted her and has pledged to reverse former Title IX regulations put in place by President Barack Obama.

Almost every educational institution now has a Title IX office. Last year the National Association of Scholars visited a number of them, documented in a recently released report, “Dear Colleague.” It presents conversations with staff and analyses of institutional policies on discrimination and sexual harassment at six state universities.

It’s safe to say that Title IX is now unrecognizable as an equal access law in education. Instead, it is a sex monitoring and sex promotion law with the staff especially focused on (and arguably happy about) student sexual encounters gone bad, as their chance to meddle.

Office waiting areas featured pamphlets from Planned Parenthood, among others, with quotes like, “I didn’t want it to happen,” “I haven’t been hit…” and bowls of condoms with flyers explaining, “What is a flavored condom used for? If something is flavored, it’s meant to be tasted!” Partner offices include student health centers, many with counselors who explain matter-of-factly, “here, we’re all about student autonomy and pleasure, whether you’re a person with a penis or a vagina.”

Staffers who deal with Title IX are primarily comprised of females, most with degrees in women’s studies or gender-based violence. What’s more, of the 52 officials surveyed, only one had any actual courtroom experience where allegations of serious wrongdoing are routine. Yet one Title IX coordinator confirmed that most of her time is spent processing just such allegations of sexual misconduct. Unsurprisingly, students now call Title IX “the campus sex police.”

Students also say that the Title IX office violates the law in its rush to seek, find, and punish sex offenders. Accused students report that “fabricated evidence was withheld from me until the very last minute,” and that staff is trained to “presume guilt” in violation of due process basics. Some 600 students have sued their schools claiming that campus Title IX proceedings are, in essence, kangaroo courts.

To the credit of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, she tackled this sticky wicket — not with informal guidance, as prior administrations had done, but with formal regulations according to the Administrative Procedure Act. This effort took three years and involved over 125,000 public comments. It culminated in the Title IX Final Rule, issued in May 2020, whose provisions turned out to be quite common sense and, in real courtrooms, would be every-day fare.

They require schools to presume innocence, for example, and to disclose all evidence and to allow live cross-examination through student representatives. Furthermore, if requested, these cross-examinations can take place in separate rooms so as to mitigate any trauma that face-to-face questioning might cause. Other supportive measures such as counseling, deadline extensions, and flexibility for schedules, work, and housing are required for all complainants.

Even so, Title IX feminists complained. “DeVos … is protecting attackers from being held accountable!” said one consultant. Indeed, they sued DeVos in federal court, alleging the Final Rule violated the APA, among other things. Such claims were defeated in Maryland and New York but remain pending in DC and Massachusetts.

What now? Chances are that one or both remaining courts will issue opinions on the final rule before a new administration can take any formal action. But a Biden Education Department may announce its intention to not enforce the rule, or its intention to start the rule-making process all over again to rescind it.

In any event, the reality is that Title IX practice is now a confused, even dangerous mess. It became so because some people wanted it that way.

For starters, Title IX was enacted as a civil rights law and was never intended to address crimes, especially violent ones such as rape and assault. Additionally, the words “assault” and “rape” have been re-defined at many schools to mean a sexual encounter where one party thought there was consent, but the other claims there wasn’t. Worse, 95 percent of these cases involve alcohol, according to Title IX staff, making both perceptions and memories foggy.

Many schools now have “affirmative consent” policies where explicit, verbal affirmation is to be obtained at every stage of sexual intimacy or the encounter constitutes assault, a standard repeatedly rejected by the American Bar Association. Many such incidents are about misunderstandings, not discrimination, and certainly not criminality. Yet Title IX administration has now effectively branded many students as criminals.

Second, allegations like these are a matter of state criminal law, not a federal law like Title IX, much less a matter of campus administration that varies from school to school. While far from perfect, our criminal justice system represents centuries of balancing the rights of the accused against those of the complainant and the public.

The rights contained in due process, for example, date to the Magna Carta of 1215, ensuring that even lowly subjects (now, citizens) had natural rights that even kings (now, the government) must respect. That Title IX feminists, however, felt free to sweep all this away by creating a parallel, quasi-criminal justice system on campus speaks volumes.

The real, unstated story behind Title IX is the mindset of these feminists. In essence, they’re angry at the biological females are at greater health risk from unmarried sex. Pregnancy is another possibility, of course, that obviously affects females more than males.

Title IX feminists see this reality as inherently unfair and, to their mind, it should be “fixed” by policies that favor women — including the inversion of the centuries-old presumption of innocence in cases of sexual misunderstanding. So what if a few guys get railroaded in the process? It’s a small price to pay back for millennia of imagined injustice inflicted by biological reality.

Of course, anger at reality is a truly foolish and unproductive way to go through life, and no amount of policy is ever going to satisfy or “fix” it. Let’s hope the new Title IX Rule survives and that campus Title IX offices return their focus to equal access in education instead of social engineering between the sexes. Our divided country could use it.

Teresa R. Manning, JD, is Director of the Title IX Project at the National Association of Scholars. She has taught at Scalia Law School of George Mason University, the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, and served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Trump Administration.

Title IX Has Turned Universities Into Really Terrible Sex Police (thefederalist.com)

Accountability Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Title IX

Biden’s Pushing Ahead to the Obama Past on Campus Rape. He’ll Need Good Luck With That.

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date December 19, 2020

By Richard Bernstein, RealClearInvestigations
December 15, 2020

Earlier this year, President Trump’s often embattled Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, established new rules on handling sexual assaults on campus to strengthen protections for accused students, almost all of them men.

Joe Biden, who was the Obama administration’s point man for the policies DeVos upended, has made his displeasure clear.

“The Trump Administration’s Education Department … is trying to shame and silence survivors,” the Biden campaign platform declared. “Instead of protecting women,” it has “given colleges a green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their civil rights.”

To “stand with survivors,” Biden has promised not only to restore a set of Obama-era “guidelines” to combat so-called campus “rape culture” – with compliance a condition of federal dollars – but to add to them. As president, his campaign literature states, he would push for legislation creating, among other things, “online, anonymous sexual assault and harassment reporting systems.”

But as he works to restore and expand a “believe women” approach to sexual assault that DeVos and others criticized as a presumption of male guilt, Biden will face much more serious headwinds than the Obama guidelines did when first introduced in 2011.

In developments barely reported in the mainstream media, hundreds of colleges and universities across the country have run into a legal thicket as they’ve implemented the original guidelines. There has been a flood of lawsuits, more than 600 of them, brought by accused men in both state and federal courts claiming that colleges used biased, one-sided and unfair proceedings when they them found guilty of sexual misconduct and punished them, mainly by suspensions and expulsions from their schools.

Notable is that around half of the lawsuits heard by the courts to date have met with rulings in favor of the accused men – in effect a validation of the Trump-DeVos effort to protect the due-process rights of accused men and a rebuke to the Obama-Biden approach.

Then there is the matter of the Supreme Court, reconstituted with a conservative majority by President Trump’s three justice appointments — including Amy Coney Barrett. Before her elevation a few months ago, she was central in in what some lawyers view as a landmark case, Doe v. Purdue, when a federal appeals court found that Purdue University may have discriminated against a male student on the basis of sex, believing his female accuser’s version of events while barring the young man from presenting evidence on his own behalf.

“It is plausible,” the court said in its unanimous decision written by Barrett, that Purdue “chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man.”

“A real battle is shaping up,” Andrew Miltenberg, the lawyer who brought the case against Purdue, said in a Zoom interview. “On the one hand, you have Biden, the moving force behind the 2011 Obama policies who will attempt to roll back some of the regulations put into place under Trump, so we’re going to be revisiting due process and related matters, like investigations, hearings, and appeals.”

“At the same time,” Miltenberg, widely viewed as a pioneer in this emerging field of law, continued, “you have a clear majority on the Supreme Court who will be sympathetic to the plight of young men accused of sex assault and who haven’t had an equitable opportunity to be heard. And you have Supreme Court Justice Barrett, who’s written the most significant decision on the matter to date. It’s setting up an interesting and potentially volatile dynamic.”

Lawyers expect that as Biden strives to return to the Obama-era policies, confusion will abound as high schools, colleges, and universities try to figure out what set of policies they should follow because it would probably take years to rescind and replace the Trump/DeVos rules.

But it seems almost inevitable that the Biden administration will return to beliefs about sexual assault long advanced by feminists and the campus left. The very Biden vocabulary – the use of the term “survivor” rather than the more neutral “alleged victim” or simply “plaintiff” – is telling. It illustrates an inclination to assume, as Barrett found the Purdue administrators to have done, that sexual assault accusations should take priority over any contrary arguments or even evidence presented by the accused student.

Biden’s past statements indicate an acceptance of the “rape culture” ideology, the belief that, as one feminist website puts it, “sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture,” and that the deeply embedded misogyny of patriarchal culture requires extraordinary measures to combat – a vision of society rejected by its critics as wild exaggeration.

“We need a fundamental change in our culture, and the quickest place to change culture is to change it on the campuses of America,” Biden said in a 2015 speech at Syracuse University.

Biden was especially blunt in a 2017 speech at George Mason University when he said, “Guys, a woman who is dead drunk cannot consent — you are raping her,” a statement suggesting but then dismissing the ambiguities that often cloud sexual assault claims, including the common presence of alcohol, and differing and changing recollections.

Biden ardently supported the Obama administration’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter introducing the guidelines to college administrators, even though from the outset there were strong objections to some of its provisions. Among them, the letter encouraged schools to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof in deciding sex assault cases, rather than the more stringent “clear and convincing evidence” standard, which had been commonly in use in these cases before. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the lowest standard used to legal proceedings, requiring only that an accusation be seen as more than 50% likely to be true.

The Obama guidelines also permitted a “single adjudicator model,” whereby the person responsible for handling the case does both the investigation into the facts and makes the judgment of the accused person. This person is more often than not the Title IX coordinator on campus, Title IX being the 1972 law that banned sex discrimination in education, generally seen as an effort to advance women’s rights.

The guidelines also left it up to schools whether to hold live hearings, at which accused students could present exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, or cross-examine the students accusing them. Some court decisions that have gone against colleges have found that some sort of live hearing and some sort of questioning of accusers is necessary for a fair outcome.

“We did see some bad cases in the Obama era, cases where it basically didn’t matter what evidence there was,” Jackie Gharapour Wernz, a lawyer who worked in the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights in both the Obama and Trump administrations, said in a Zoom interview. “The college was going to find against the defendant, the male defendant, no matter what. I think the schools felt pressure under the Obama guidance.”

Conservatives aren’t the only ones who have raised questions about the guidelines. The liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Coney Barrett replaced upon her death this year, expressed misgivings about them in a 2018 interview, just when DeVos was announcing the new rules: “There’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenets of our system.”

Similarly, 28 Harvard Law School professors signed a letter in 2014 protesting the measures Harvard had adopted in response to the guidelines which, they said, “lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process” and “are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.”

The law professors complained that Harvard “decided simply to defer to the demands of certain federal administration officials rather than exercise independent judgment.”

A survey conducted by YouGov in mid-November showed 68% of the 2,532 Americans polled agreeing that “students accused of crimes on college campuses should receive the same civil liberties protections from their colleges that they receive in the court system.” Only 8% disagreed.

The DeVos rules, formally adopted in May after a two-year process of “notice and comment,” addressed the main complaints expressed about the Obama-era guidelines. Among other things, the DeVos rules require live hearings and the right of the accused, or usually his lawyer or adviser, to cross-examine the accuser; give schools the option to use “clear and convincing evidence” as their standard of proof; and narrow the concept of harassment.

Of course, no reasonable person condones sexual assault, or opposes punishing those genuinely guilty of it, but experts say it is often difficult to determine whether the activity was coercive or consensual.

“Probably 40 or 50% of allegations of sexual assault are baseless,” Brett A. Sokolow, the head of TNG, a risk management and consulting law firm who has served as an expert witness in many cases, said in a phone interview. “There are a lot of cases where someone says they were incapacitated, but the evidence doesn’t support that they weren’t able to make a decision.

“There’s also the education that schools provide,” Sokolow continued, “telling students that if you were drunk and somebody had sex with you, come to us.”

Sokolow estimates that over the years across the country some 20,000 or more students have been disciplined at their universities for sexual misconduct.

According to a data base posted on the “Title IX for All” website, some 676 lawsuits have been brought against universities by men claiming discrimination or due process violations against them, and 194 of those decided by the courts have met with a favorable outcome for the student plaintiffs.

Many cases that have gone against the universities have been settled out of court, 98 of them, according to KC Johnson, a history professor at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center in New York, who keeps track of the cases filed. This usually occurs after the school has lost its preliminary effort to have charges against it dismissed. But there have been two cases that have actually gone to trial, one involving a student suspended for alleged sexual misbehavior at Brown University, another at Boston College, one before a judge, the other a jury, and the students prevailed in both of them.

Johnson argues that courts are generally deferential to universities and reluctant to interfere in academic questions, which makes the substantial number of decisions in favor of the accused itself “quite remarkable.”

What’s also remarkable, as Johnson put it in a phone interview, is that “Biden has never acknowledged even a single one of these cases.”

Whether he recognizes them or not, any effort by Biden to formally rescind and replace the DeVos rules will take time, given that the DeVos rules were adopted after a lengthy, formal administrative process. By contrast, the Obama guidelines were a set of informal recommendations, taken seriously by schools because of the threat of financial penalties, but never having the status of formally adopted regulations.

A more difficult problem could well be that many of the court decisions issued so far presage difficulties for schools that adopt the very policies that a Biden administration is likely to favor.

Doe v. Purdue, for example, showed that schools could be found to be discriminating against accused men if they adopt a “start by believing” approach. As Barrett put it in her decision in which the parties were anonymized: “The majority of the [disciplinary] panel members appeared to credit Jane based on her accusation alone, given that they took no other evidence into account. They made up their minds without reading the investigative report and before even talking to John.”

The court in Doe v. Purdue didn’t address the question of cross-examination, required by the DeVos rules but likely to be made optional in a Biden program. But in several cases already decided, courts have affirmed that cross-examination, or, at least, some direct questioning of an accuser by the accused or his representative is fundamental to a fair procedure.

In a 2018 case, Doe v. Baum, for example, the University of Michigan expelled a male student after he was accused by a female student of having sex with her when she was too drunk to give consent.

The university expelled John after a three-person panel found that Jane’s account was “more credible” than his. John, who said the sex was consensual, sued, and a federal appeals court ruled in his favor, on the grounds that he had “never received an opportunity to cross-examine [Jane] or her witnesses.”

“When the university’s determination turns on the credibility of the accuser, the accused or witnesses, that hearing must include an opportunity for cross examination,” the court found.

In another recent case, Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a male student accused of sexual assault (the female complainant saying that she had been too intoxicated to give her consent) argued that the school’s use of the Obama guidelines rather than the stricter DeVos rules amounted to sex discrimination against him, and the court agreed. In other words, the court seemed to be saying that the DeVos rules could be applied retroactively to ongoing cases, even if they had been initially filed before the DeVos rules came into effect.

“There is no question that the decision increases the risk of legal challenges by respondents against their schools for using old procedures in ongoing or new cases,” Wernz wrote in a blog post.

The difference in these cases led one expert, Peter Lake, a professor of law at Stetson University and director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy to say, “Due process in higher education is becoming a ball of confusion – a mix of conflicting cases and regulations in flux.”

That is why some experts believe the matter is likely to end up at the Supreme Court. “Accused students have had appellate decisions in their favor in much of the country, but no general standard has been established, and there have been contrary decisions as well,” KC Johnson said.

“So my sense is that the Biden administration will construct a narrative around the decisions that have gone in favor of sexual misconduct accusers. It will be eager to confront the courts on this.”

If the issue does go to the Supreme Court, the case will be heard by two among the nine justices, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, whose confirmation hearings were dominated by accusations of sexual misconduct against them, which both angrily denied. The newest justice, Barrett, has already given a strong indication in her Doe v. Purdue opinion of how she might rule.

And then there’s the irony that Biden himself, though a “believe women” champion, has himself been accused of assault. Tara Reade, a former staffer, claims that some 30 years ago, when Biden was a senator, he pushed her against a wall in the Senate Office Building and digitally penetrated her, an incident that she recounted to friends at the time.

Biden has adamantly denied the accusation, saying that the alleged incident “never, never happened.”

Some experts certainly believe that if Biden were to undergo the sort of campus procedure that he advocated during the campaign, with a presumption in favor of the accuser, no live hearing, and no opportunity to present witnesses or to cross-examine Reade, he would most likely be found guilty.

Biden’s Pushing Ahead to the Obama Past on Campus Rape. He’ll Need Good Luck With That. | RealClearInvestigations

Department of Education Due Process Sexual Assault Title IX

To Protect Both Victims and the Accused, Biden Should Preserve Trump’s Title IX Reforms

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date December 14, 2020

By Buddy Ullman
December 14, 2020

President-elect Joe Biden has suggested that he will put a “quick end” to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s rule that details how educational institutions must comply with Title IX, the transformative civil rights law that prohibits gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault in educational programs receiving federal financial assistance.

This is a terrible idea.

In 2011, the Obama administration under Biden’s leadership stipulated equivocal and mostly discretionary guidance to colleges and universities on Title IX (TIX) compliance and, in particular, how these institutions should adjudicate TIX disputes. The quasi-judicial proceedings that resulted generally lacked due process and free speech protections, were legally dubious and patently unfair toward the accused, and too often resulted in erroneous conclusions.

Some 669 court cases filed by accused students have resulted, for which the majority of judicial decisions rendered have been favorable to the plaintiffs, mostly on constitutional and fairness grounds. In a nutshell, the Obama/Biden TIX guidance created a mess, and the need for TIX compliance reforms emphasizing due process and other constitutional and civil liberties was compelling. These reforms were achieved in DeVos’s TIX compliance rule.

While a professor at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), I had the misfortune of experiencing Obama/Biden TIX guidance firsthand. I was a respondent in a duplicitous sexual harassment investigation, in which I wasn’t allowed to know the allegations against me or the identities of the complainants or witnesses; nor was I permitted to present witnesses on my behalf, to submit or review evidence, or to defend myself. What happened to me is not unusual for a respondent in a Title IX investigation.

Ultimately, I was found responsible for sexual misconduct and punished, only to learn ten months after my case was closed that the charges against me were complete fabrications and motivated by retribution. Notably, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights refused to intercede on my behalf because it concluded that OHSU had applied Obama/Biden era guidance appropriately. The DeVos rule, had it been operative at that time, would have precluded these shenanigans.

Ironically, President-elect Biden experienced multiple accusations akin to those faced by TIX respondents. In 2020, he was accused of sexual assault and numerous past incidents of inappropriate behavior toward women and girls but survived the ensuing storm because he was powerful, privileged, presumed innocent, and given a platform to defend himself.

Most TIX respondents aren’t so lucky. Had Biden walked in my shoes, he would have been prosecuted mercilessly under his own guidance.

Biden has not offered a persuasive rationale for voiding the DeVos rule other than a few platitudes about how the rule aims to “shame and silence survivors” and “gives colleges a green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their rights.” Survivors, Biden says, “deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and…. not silenced.” The DeVos rule does nothing of the sort: it ensures fairness, equitability, and impartiality when a sexual misconduct dispute requires investigation or resolution, something Biden’s own guidance did not.

Of greater concern, the President-elect does not appear to understand TIX’s purpose. TIX has nothing to do with sexual violence, survivorship, or campus safety issues. Rather, TIX is about equal educational access, which the DeVos rule protects admirably. The only time that sexual harassment or assault concerns TIX is when the misconduct secondarily affects participation in school programs and facilities.

The DeVos rule has proved controversial and partisan, but it shouldn’t be regarded that way. I am a liberal, progressive Democrat who finds little to like among DeVos’s educational policies, but her TIX rule is a meticulous, detailed, and well-considered nonpartisan document predicated on the U.S. Constitution, judicial precedent, and congressional intent. Emphasizing fairness and justice, the DeVos rule is far superior to the guidance that it supplanted. This Democrat can separate the message from the messenger.

Reverting to the Title IX compliance nightmare of the Obama/Biden era would be a major setback to the cause of fairness and due process. We can only hope that Biden doesn’t follow through.

Buddy Ullman is a former Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the Oregon Health & Science University.

To Protect Both Victims and the Accused, Biden Should Preserve Trump’s Title IX Reforms | RealClearEducation

Campus Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Executive Order Office for Civil Rights Race Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 19, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

WASHINGTON / October 19, 2020 – In response to new federal requirements, college administrators have begun to stop school trainings and curricular offerings that promote stereotypes based on sex or race. For example, the University of Iowa recently announced a decision to suspend all such trainings, workshops, and programs. Noting “the seriousness of penalties for non-compliance with the order,” the pause applies to all harassment and discrimination trainings offered by the institution (1). Other institutions of higher education reportedly have made similar decisions (2).

Two federal policies are driving the re-evaluation. First, the new Department of Education sexual harassment regulation states that Title IX training activities “must not rely on sex stereotypes.” (3) Second, Executive Order 13950 directs federal agencies to suspend funding for any institution that promotes concepts that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” (4)

SAVE is urging administrators at colleges and universities across the country to take immediate steps to end trainings and other activities that may promote sex stereotypes. Title IX and other training programs are known to be promoting sex stereotypes in at least seven ways:

Domestic violence: Each year there are 4.2 million male victims of physical domestic violence, and 3.5 female victims, according to the Centers for Disease Control (5). University training programs need to clearly and accurately state these numbers.
Sexual assault: Nearly identical numbers of men and women are victims of sexual assault, according to the federal National Intimate Partner and Violence Survey. Each year, 1.267 million men report they were “made to sexually penetrate,” compared to 1.270 million women who report they were raped (6). But many university training programs utilize data from surveys relying on methodologies that undercount the number of male victims who were made to penetrate.
Annual vs. lifetime incidence: Due to well-known problems with recall and memory retrieval, lifetime incidence numbers significantly undercount domestic violence and sexual harassment incidents, especially less serious incidents that occurred in previous years. University trainings should use annual, “in the past 12 months” numbers, not “lifetime” numbers.
Sex-specific pronouns: In referring to domestic violence or sexual assault perpetrators and victims, many training materials misleadingly refer to the perpetrator as “he” and the victim as “she.”
Examples: Training materials often provide hypothetical examples to illustrate key concepts. Such examples need to highlight approximately equal number of male and female victims.
Imagery: Some university websites feature domestic violence incidents that portray a threatening male standing over a fearful, often cowering female. Such one-sided portrayals are misleading.
Negative stereotyping of men as a group: Some universities offer campus-wide programs that seek to redefine, reform, and/or stigmatize masculinity. University-sponsored courses that promote theories of “toxic masculinity,” “rape culture,” and “patriarchal privilege” are likely to be in violation of the federal ban on sex stereotyping. Such stereotypes serve to undermine principles of fairness and equity for male students.

For example, the University of Texas offers a program titled “MasculinUT.” The program’s website states that concerns about sexual assault and interpersonal violence justify the “need to engage men in discussions about masculinity as one tool to prevent violence.” (7) The university does not offer a similar program directed at females, thereby creating an unlawful stereotype of male perpetrators and female victims.

Some universities teach courses that feature the American Psychological Association report, “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.” (8) The accompanying APA article made the stereotyping claim that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

To date, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has submitted 20 complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights for non-compliance with regulatory requirements for Title IX training materials (10).

Links:

https://diversity.uiowa.edu/regarding-executive-order-13950?utm
https://blog.aspb.org/policy-update-uneven-implementation-of-executive-order-on-race-and-sex-stereotyping/
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf 45(b)(1)(iii)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf Tables 9 and 11.
Lara Stemple and Ilan Meyer. The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
https://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/masculinut.php
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner
http://www.saveservices.org/equity/

Accountability Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Discrimination Due Process False Allegations Investigations Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sex Education Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Training Victims Violence

Double Jeopardy: SAVE Calls on College Administrators to Assure Due Process Protections for Black Students in Title IX Proceedings

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 28, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart
Telephone: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org

Double Jeopardy: SAVE Calls on College Administrators to Assure Due Process Protections for Black Students in Title IX Proceedings

WASHINGTON / July 28, 2020 – SAVE recently released a study that shows black male students face a type of “double jeopardy” by virtue of being male and black. (1) Analyses show although black male students are far outnumbered on college campuses, they are four times more likely than white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in Title IX proceedings (2), and at one university OCR investigated for racial discrimination, black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violence reported to the university yet they comprised only 4.2% of the student population. (3)

In 2015, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley raised an alarm to the U.S. Senate HELP committee that, “the rate of complaints and sanctions against male students of color is unreasonably high.” (4) She advised school administrators to, “not only to secure sex equality but also to be on the lookout for racial bias and racially disproportionate impact and for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity – not only against complainants but also against the accused.” (5)

Her powerful words were ignored. Over the past 5 years numerous black males have been caught up in campus Title IX proceedings. Their lawsuits often claim a lack of due process in the procedures.

Grant Neal, a black student athlete, was suspended by Colorado State University – Pueblo for a rape his white partner denied ever happened. (6) Two black males students accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student recently settled a lawsuit against University of Findlay for racial, gender and ethnic discrimination. (7) Nikki Yovino was sentenced to a year in prison for making false rape accusations against two black Sacred Heart University football players whose lives were ruined by her accusations. (8) These are just a few examples.

Wheaton College in suburban Chicago, a major stop along the Underground Railroad, recently dismissed Chaplain Tim Blackmon, its first nonwhite chaplain in its 155-year history. Blackmon claims Wheaton’s Title IX office failed to investigate a previous Title IX complaint against him in a “clear misuse of the Title IX investigative process,” and he was “completely blind-sided by this Title IX investigation.” Blackmon’s attorney believes the professor’s race heavily factored into his firing, and that Wheaton was looking for an excuse to sever its relationship with its first African American chaplain and return to being a predominantly white educational institution. (9)

The impact to black male students and faculty could be even greater than any data or media reports imply since only those who can afford a costly litigation file lawsuits and make the news. More data is needed, but anecdotally black males are disproportionately harmed in campus Title IX proceedings.

SAVE recently spoke with Republican and Democrat offices in the House and Senate regarding this issue. Virtually all staffers agreed members of Congress are concerned about harm to black students and supportive of ways to offer protections to all students, including those of color.

The new Title IX regulation offers necessary due process protections that black students need. By complying with the regulation, college administrators will protect the rights of all students and address the serious problem that black men are accused and punished at unreasonably high rates. At a time when activists on college campuses are clamoring that Black Lives Matter, college administrators should assure they are doing everything they can to help their black students.

Citations:

SAVE is leading the policy movement for fairness and due process on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/

Campus Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Scholarships

PR: Growing Number of Schools Being Investigated for Title IX Violations of Sex-Specific Scholarships

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 13, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Growing Number of Schools Being Investigated for Title IX Violations of Sex-Specific Scholarships

WASHINGTON / July 14, 2020 – Title IX administrators are placing their institutions at risk of a burdensome OCR investigation as colleges continue to violate federal requirements banning scholarships that discriminate on the basis of sex. Title IX’s regulation 34 CFR 106.37(a) prohibits schools from offering scholarships that, “On the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance which is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate.” (1)

On March 16, 2020, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project issued a press release identifying 237 schools that offered sex-scholarships that discriminate against male students (2). In response to complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights, 84 new investigations were opened, with additional complaints still under consideration by the federal agency (3).

In the month of June, OCR opened investigations for single-sex scholarship violations against the following schools:

Auburn University, AL
University of Central Arkansas
Colorado State University-Fort Collins
University of Hawaii System
Boise State University
College of Western Idaho
Ivy Tech Community College, IN
Fort Hays State University, KS
University of Kansas-Lawrence
University of Louisville, KY
Montgomery College, MD
Community College of Baltimore County
University of Missouri-Columbia
University of Missouri-Kansas City
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Montana State University-Great Falls College
University of Montana-Missoula
East Carolina University, NC
Central Community College, NE
Metropolitan Community College, NE
Southeast Community College, NE
University of Nebraska-Omaha
New Hampshire Technical Institute-Concord’s Community College
Truckee Meadows Community College, NV
Kent State University, OH
Chemeketa Community College, OR
University of Memphis
University of Tennessee
Brigham Young University-Provo, UT
Weber State University, UT
Virginia Commonwealth University
Bellevue College, WA
University of Washington-Seattle
Washington State University
Madison Area Technical College, WI
Central Wyoming College

Two of the investigations involve allegations of particularly egregious misconduct. The University of Missouri-Columbia offers 70 scholarships to female students and only 1 scholarship to male students. Similarly, Auburn University in Alabama offers 67 scholarships to females and only 1 scholarship to male students (4).

Tulane University, an institution with not only a history of being investigated by OCR for sexual discrimination but also a history of offering female only scholarships (5), has again found itself under OCR’s microscope. Although Tulane entered into a Resolution Agreement with OCR in 2019 (6), OCR is currently evaluating yet another complaint filed in April against the institution for allegedly violating federal requirements that bar sex-discriminatory scholarships.

Mark Perry, an economist at University of Michigan-Flint who himself files OCR complaints against schools with single-sex campus programs, recently opined, “Universities are for the first time being challenged for violating Title IX by offering single sex programs/scholarships, as they continue to live in the past, as if we’re still in the 1960s or 1970s, by pretending that women are handicapped and disadvantaged.” (7)

These findings highlight how university administrators and general counsel need to exercise greater oversight to correct discriminatory practices or risk a costly investigation by the federal Office for Civil Rights.

Citations:

Campus Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Stalking Title IX

Title IX Regulatory Text — 34 CFR 106

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 9, 2020

PART 106—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

1. The authority citation for part 106 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 106.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation.

(a) Remedial action. If the Assistant Secretary finds that a recipient has discriminated
against persons on the basis of sex in an education program or activity under this part, or
otherwise violated this part, such recipient must take such remedial action as the Assistant
Secretary deems necessary to remedy the violation, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1682.

* * * * *

3. Section 106.6 is amended by revising the section heading and adding paragraphs (d),
(e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:
§ 106.6 Effect of other requirements and preservation of rights.

* * * * *

(d) Constitutional protections. Nothing in this part requires a recipient to:
(1) Restrict any rights that would otherwise be protected from government action by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;
(2) Deprive a person of any rights that would otherwise be protected from government action under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; or
(3) Restrict any other rights guaranteed against government action by the U.S.
Constitution.
(e) Effect of Section 444 of General Education Provisions Act (GEPA)/Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The obligation to comply with this part is not
obviated or alleviated by the FERPA statute, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, or FERPA regulations, 34 CFR
part 99.
(f) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nothing in this part may be read in derogation
of any individual’s rights under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.
or any regulations promulgated thereunder.
(g) Exercise of rights by parents or guardians. Nothing in this part may be read in
derogation of any legal right of a parent or guardian to act on behalf of a “complainant,”
“respondent,” “party,” or other individual, subject to paragraph (e) of this section, including but
not limited to filing a formal complaint.
(h) Preemptive effect. To the extent of a conflict between State or local law and title IX as
implemented by §§ 106.30, 106.44, and 106.45, the obligation to comply with §§ 106.30, 106.44,
and 106.45 is not obviated or alleviated by any State or local law.

*****

4. Section 106.8 is revised to read as follows:
§ 106.8 Designation of coordinator, dissemination of policy, and adoption of grievance
procedures.
(a) Designation of coordinator. Each recipient must designate and authorize at least one
employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with its responsibilities under this part, which
employee must be referred to as the “Title IX Coordinator.” The recipient must notify applicants
for admission and employment, students, parents or legal guardians of elementary and secondary
school students, employees, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective
bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient, of the name or title, office address,
electronic mail address, and telephone number of the employee or employees designated as the
Title IX Coordinator pursuant to this paragraph. Any person may report sex discrimination,
including sexual harassment (whether or not the person reporting is the person alleged to be the
victim of conduct that could constitute sex discrimination or sexual harassment), in person, by
mail, by telephone, or by electronic mail, using the contact information listed for the Title IX
Coordinator, or by any other means that results in the Title IX Coordinator receiving the person’s
verbal or written report. Such a report may be made at any time (including during non-business
hours) by using the telephone number or electronic mail address, or by mail to the office address,
listed for the Title IX Coordinator.
(b) Dissemination of policy—(1) Notification of policy. Each recipient must notify
persons entitled to a notification under paragraph (a) of this section that the recipient does not
discriminate on the basis of sex in the education program or activity that it operates, and that it is
required by title IX and this part not to discriminate in such a manner. Such notification must
state that the requirement not to discriminate in the education program or activity extends to
admission (unless subpart C of this part does not apply) and employment, and that inquiries
about the application of title IX and this part to such recipient may be referred to the recipient’s
Title IX Coordinator, to the Assistant Secretary, or both.
(2) Publications. (i) Each recipient must prominently display the contact information
required to be listed for the Title IX Coordinator under paragraph (a) of this section and the
policy described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section on its website, if any, and in each handbook
or catalog that it makes available to persons entitled to a notification under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(ii) A recipient must not use or distribute a publication stating that the recipient treats
applicants, students, or employees differently on the basis of sex except as such treatment is
permitted by title IX or this part.
(c) Adoption of grievance procedures. A recipient must adopt and publish grievance
procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee
complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by this part and a grievance process that
complies with § 106.45 for formal complaints as defined in § 106.30. A recipient must provide to
persons entitled to a notification under paragraph (a) of this section notice of the recipient’s
grievance procedures and grievance process, including how to report or file a complaint of sex
discrimination, how to report or file a formal complaint of sexual harassment, and how the
recipient will respond.
(d) Application outside the United States. The requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section apply only to sex discrimination occurring against a person in the United States.
5. Section 106.9 is revised to read as follows:
§ 106.9 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or
practice shall not be affected thereby.

6. Section 106.12 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations.

* * * * *

(b) Assurance of exemption. An educational institution that seeks assurance of the
exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section may do so by submitting in writing to the
Assistant Secretary a statement by the highest ranking official of the institution, identifying the
provisions of this part that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization. An
institution is not required to seek assurance from the Assistant Secretary in order to assert such
an exemption. In the event the Department notifies an institution that it is under investigation for
noncompliance with this part and the institution wishes to assert an exemption set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section, the institution may at that time raise its exemption by submitting in
writing to the Assistant Secretary a statement by the highest ranking official of the institution,
identifying the provisions of this part which conflict with a specific tenet of the religious
organization, whether or not the institution had previously sought assurance of an exemption
from the Assistant Secretary.

* * * * *

7. Add § 106.18 to subpart B to read as follows:
§ 106.18 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or
practice shall not be affected thereby.

8. Add § 106.24 to subpart C to read as follows:
§ 106.24 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or
practice shall not be affected thereby.
9. Add § 106.30 to subpart D to read as follows:

§ 106.30 Definitions.
(a) As used in this part:
Actual knowledge means notice of sexual harassment or allegations of sexual harassment
to a recipient’s Title IX Coordinator or any official of the recipient who has authority to institute
corrective measures on behalf of the recipient, or to any employee of an elementary and
secondary school. Imputation of knowledge based solely on vicarious liability or constructive
notice is insufficient to constitute actual knowledge. This standard is not met when the only
official of the recipient with actual knowledge is the respondent. The mere ability or obligation
to report sexual harassment or to inform a student about how to report sexual harassment, or
having been trained to do so, does not qualify an individual as one who has authority to institute
corrective measures on behalf of the recipient. “Notice” as used in this paragraph includes, but is
not limited to, a report of sexual harassment to the Title IX Coordinator as described in §
106.8(a).
Complainant means an individual who is alleged to be the victim of conduct that could
constitute sexual harassment.
Consent. The Assistant Secretary will not require recipients to adopt a particular
definition of consent with respect to sexual assault, as referenced in this section.
Formal complaint means a document filed by a complainant or signed by the Title IX
Coordinator alleging sexual harassment against a respondent and requesting that the recipient
investigate the allegation of sexual harassment. At the time of filing a formal complaint, a
complainant must be participating in or attempting to participate in the education program or
activity of the recipient with which the formal complaint is filed. A formal complaint may be
filed with the Title IX Coordinator in person, by mail, or by electronic mail, by using the contact
information required to be listed for the Title IX Coordinator under § 106.8(a), and by any
additional method designated by the recipient. As used in this paragraph, the phrase “document
filed by a complainant” means a document or electronic submission (such as by electronic mail
or through an online portal provided for this purpose by the recipient) that contains the
complainant’s physical or digital signature, or otherwise indicates that the complainant is the
person filing the formal complaint. Where the Title IX Coordinator signs a formal complaint, the
Title IX Coordinator is not a complainant or otherwise a party under this part or under § 106.45,
and must comply with the requirements of this part, including § 106.45(b)(1)(iii).
Respondent means an individual who has been reported to be the perpetrator of conduct
that could constitute sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment means conduct on the basis of sex that satisfies one or more of the
following:
(1) An employee of the recipient conditioning the provision of an aid, benefit, or service
of the recipient on an individual’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct;
(2) Unwelcome conduct determined by a reasonable person to be so severe, pervasive,
and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s
education program or activity; or
(3) “Sexual assault” as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(6)(A)(v), “dating violence” as
defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(10), “domestic violence” as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(8), or
“stalking” as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(30).
Supportive measures means non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services
offered as appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or charge to the complainant or
the respondent before or after the filing of a formal complaint or where no formal complaint has
been filed. Such measures are designed to restore or preserve equal access to the recipient’s
education program or activity without unreasonably burdening the other party, including
measures designed to protect the safety of all parties or the recipient’s educational environment,
or deter sexual harassment. Supportive measures may include counseling, extensions of
deadlines or other course-related adjustments, modifications of work or class schedules, campus
escort services, mutual restrictions on contact between the parties, changes in work or housing
locations, leaves of absence, increased security and monitoring of certain areas of the campus,
and other similar measures. The recipient must maintain as confidential any supportive measures
provided to the complainant or respondent, to the extent that maintaining such confidentiality
would not impair the ability of the recipient to provide the supportive measures. The Title IX
Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the effective implementation of supportive
measures.
(b) As used in §§ 106.44 and 106.45:
Elementary and secondary school means a local educational agency (LEA), as defined in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student
Succeeds Act, a preschool, or a private elementary or secondary school.
Postsecondary institution means an institution of graduate higher education as defined in
§ 106.2(l), an institution of undergraduate higher education as defined in § 106.2(m), an
institution of professional education as defined in § 106.2(n), or an institution of vocational
education as defined in § 106.2(o).
10. Add § 106.44 to subpart D to read as follows:
§ 106.44 Recipient’s response to sexual harassment.
(a) General response to sexual harassment. A recipient with actual knowledge of sexual
harassment in an education program or activity of the recipient against a person in the United
States, must respond promptly in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent. A recipient is
deliberately indifferent only if its response to sexual harassment is clearly unreasonable in light
of the known circumstances. For the purposes of this section, §§ 106.30, and 106.45, “education
program or activity” includes locations, events, or circumstances over which the recipient
exercised substantial control over both the respondent and the context in which the sexual
harassment occurs, and also includes any building owned or controlled by a student organization
that is officially recognized by a postsecondary institution. A recipient’s response must treat
complainants and respondents equitably by offering supportive measures as defined in § 106.30
to a complainant, and by following a grievance process that complies with § 106.45 before the
imposition of any disciplinary sanctions or other actions that are not supportive measures as
defined in § 106.30, against a respondent. The Title IX Coordinator must promptly contact the
complainant to discuss the availability of supportive measures as defined in § 106.30, consider
the complainant’s wishes with respect to supportive measures, inform the complainant of the
availability of supportive measures with or without the filing of a formal complaint, and explain
to the complainant the process for filing a formal complaint. The Department may not deem a
recipient to have satisfied the recipient’s duty to not be deliberately indifferent under this part
based on the recipient’s restriction of rights protected under the U.S. Constitution, including the
First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment.
(b) Response to a formal complaint. (1) In response to a formal complaint, a recipient
must follow a grievance process that complies with § 106.45. With or without a formal
complaint, a recipient must comply with § 106.44(a).
(2) The Assistant Secretary will not deem a recipient’s determination regarding
responsibility to be evidence of deliberate indifference by the recipient, or otherwise evidence of
discrimination under title IX by the recipient, solely because the Assistant Secretary would have
reached a different determination based on an independent weighing of the evidence.
(c) Emergency removal. Nothing in this part precludes a recipient from removing a
respondent from the recipient’s education program or activity on an emergency basis, provided
that the recipient undertakes an individualized safety and risk analysis, determines that an
immediate threat to the physical health or safety of any student or other individual arising from
the allegations of sexual harassment justifies removal, and provides the respondent with notice
and an opportunity to challenge the decision immediately following the removal. This provision
may not be construed to modify any rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(d) Administrative leave. Nothing in this subpart precludes a recipient from placing a
non-student employee respondent on administrative leave during the pendency of a grievance
process that complies with § 106.45. This provision may not be construed to modify any rights
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
11. Add § 106.45 to subpart D to read as follows:
§ 106.45 Grievance process for formal complaints of sexual harassment.
(a) Discrimination on the basis of sex. A recipient’s treatment of a complainant or a
respondent in response to a formal complaint of sexual harassment may constitute discrimination
on the basis of sex under title IX.
(b) Grievance process. For the purpose of addressing formal complaints of sexual
harassment, a recipient’s grievance process must comply with the requirements of this section.
Any provisions, rules, or practices other than those required by this section that a recipient
adopts as part of its grievance process for handling formal complaints of sexual harassment as
defined in § 106.30, must apply equally to both parties.
(1) Basic requirements for grievance process. A recipient’s grievance process must—
(i) Treat complainants and respondents equitably by providing remedies to a complainant
where a determination of responsibility for sexual harassment has been made against the
respondent, and by following a grievance process that complies with this section before the
imposition of any disciplinary sanctions or other actions that are not supportive measures as
defined in § 106.30, against a respondent. Remedies must be designed to restore or preserve
equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity. Such remedies may include the
same individualized services described in § 106.30 as “supportive measures”; however, remedies
need not be non-disciplinary or non-punitive and need not avoid burdening the respondent;
(ii) Require an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence – including both inculpatory
and exculpatory evidence – and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a
person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness;
(iii) Require that any individual designated by a recipient as a Title IX Coordinator,
investigator, decision-maker, or any person designated by a recipient to facilitate an informal
resolution process, not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or
respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent. A recipient must ensure that
Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal
resolution process, receive training on the definition of sexual harassment in § 106.30, the scope
of the recipient’s education program or activity, how to conduct an investigation and grievance
process including hearings, appeals, and informal resolution processes, as applicable, and how to
serve impartially, including by avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest,
and bias. A recipient must ensure that decision-makers receive training on any technology to be
used at a live hearing and on issues of relevance of questions and evidence, including when
questions and evidence about the complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior
are not relevant, as set forth in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. A recipient also must ensure that
investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly
summarizes relevant evidence, as set forth in paragraph (b)(5)(vii) of this section. Any materials
used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who
facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote
impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment;
(iv) Include a presumption that the respondent is not responsible for the alleged conduct
until a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of the grievance process;
(v) Include reasonably prompt time frames for conclusion of the grievance process,
including reasonably prompt time frames for filing and resolving appeals and informal resolution
processes if the recipient offers informal resolution processes, and a process that allows for the
temporary delay of the grievance process or the limited extension of time frames for good cause
with written notice to the complainant and the respondent of the delay or extension and the
reasons for the action. Good cause may include considerations such as the absence of a party, a
party’s advisor, or a witness; concurrent law enforcement activity; or the need for language
assistance or accommodation of disabilities;
(vi) Describe the range of possible disciplinary sanctions and remedies or list the possible
disciplinary sanctions and remedies that the recipient may implement following any
determination of responsibility;
(vii) State whether the standard of evidence to be used to determine responsibility is the
preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard, apply the
same standard of evidence for formal complaints against students as for formal complaints
against employees, including faculty, and apply the same standard of evidence to all formal
complaints of sexual harassment;
(viii) Include the procedures and permissible bases for the complainant and respondent to
appeal;
(ix) Describe the range of supportive measures available to complainants and
respondents; and
(x) Not require, allow, rely upon, or otherwise use questions or evidence that constitute,
or seek disclosure of, information protected under a legally recognized privilege, unless the
person holding such privilege has waived the privilege.
(2) Notice of allegations—(i) Upon receipt of a formal complaint, a recipient must
provide the following written notice to the parties who are known:
(A) Notice of the recipient’s grievance process that complies with this section, including
any informal resolution process.
(B) Notice of the allegations of sexual harassment potentially constituting sexual
harassment as defined in § 106.30, including sufficient details known at the time and with
sufficient time to prepare a response before any initial interview. Sufficient details include the
identities of the parties involved in the incident, if known, the conduct allegedly constituting
sexual harassment under § 106.30, and the date and location of the alleged incident, if known.
The written notice must include a statement that the respondent is presumed not responsible for
the alleged conduct and that a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of
the grievance process. The written notice must inform the parties that they may have an advisor
of their choice, who may be, but is not required to be, an attorney, under paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of
this section, and may inspect and review evidence under paragraph (b)(5)(vi) of this section. The
written notice must inform the parties of any provision in the recipient’s code of conduct that
prohibits knowingly making false statements or knowingly submitting false information during
the grievance process.
(ii) If, in the course of an investigation, the recipient decides to investigate allegations
about the complainant or respondent that are not included in the notice provided pursuant to
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the recipient must provide notice of the additional
allegations to the parties whose identities are known.
(3) Dismissal of a formal complaint—(i) The recipient must investigate the allegations in
a formal complaint. If the conduct alleged in the formal complaint would not constitute sexual
harassment as defined in § 106.30 even if proved, did not occur in the recipient’s education
program or activity, or did not occur against a person in the United States, then the recipient
must dismiss the formal complaint with regard to that conduct for purposes of sexual harassment
under title IX or this part; such a dismissal does not preclude action under another provision of
the recipient’s code of conduct.
(ii) The recipient may dismiss the formal complaint or any allegations therein, if at any
time during the investigation or hearing: a complainant notifies the Title IX Coordinator in
writing that the complainant would like to withdraw the formal complaint or any allegations
therein; the respondent is no longer enrolled or employed by the recipient; or specific
circumstances prevent the recipient from gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination
as to the formal complaint or allegations therein.
(iii) Upon a dismissal required or permitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of
this section, the recipient must promptly send written notice of the dismissal and reason(s)
therefor simultaneously to the parties.
(4) Consolidation of formal complaints. A recipient may consolidate formal complaints
as to allegations of sexual harassment against more than one respondent, or by more than one
complainant against one or more respondents, or by one party against the other party, where the
allegations of sexual harassment arise out of the same facts or circumstances. Where a grievance
process involves more than one complainant or more than one respondent, references in this
section to the singular “party,” “complainant,” or “respondent” include the plural, as applicable.
(5) Investigation of a formal complaint. When investigating a formal complaint and
throughout the grievance process, a recipient must—
(i) Ensure that the burden of proof and the burden of gathering evidence sufficient to
reach a determination regarding responsibility rest on the recipient and not on the parties
provided that the recipient cannot access, consider, disclose, or otherwise use a party’s records
that are made or maintained by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other recognized
professional or paraprofessional acting in the professional’s or paraprofessional’s capacity, or
assisting in that capacity, and which are made and maintained in connection with the provision of
treatment to the party, unless the recipient obtains that party’s voluntary, written consent to do so
for a grievance process under this section (if a party is not an “eligible student,” as defined in 34
CFR 99.3, then the recipient must obtain the voluntary, written consent of a “parent,” as defined
in 34 CFR 99.3);
(ii) Provide an equal opportunity for the parties to present witnesses, including fact and
expert witnesses, and other inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
(iii) Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the allegations under investigation or
to gather and present relevant evidence;
(iv) Provide the parties with the same opportunities to have others present during any
grievance proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or
proceeding by the advisor of their choice, who may be, but is not required to be, an attorney, and
not limit the choice or presence of advisor for either the complainant or respondent in any
meeting or grievance proceeding; however, the recipient may establish restrictions regarding the
extent to which the advisor may participate in the proceedings, as long as the restrictions apply
equally to both parties;
(v) Provide, to a party whose participation is invited or expected, written notice of the
date, time, location, participants, and purpose of all hearings, investigative interviews, or other
meetings, with sufficient time for the party to prepare to participate;
(vi) Provide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence
obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations raised in a formal
complaint, including the evidence upon which the recipient does not intend to rely in reaching a
determination regarding responsibility and inculpatory or exculpatory evidence whether obtained
from a party or other source, so that each party can meaningfully respond to the evidence prior to
conclusion of the investigation. Prior to completion of the investigative report, the recipient must
send to each party and the party’s advisor, if any, the evidence subject to inspection and review
in an electronic format or a hard copy, and the parties must have at least 10 days to submit a
written response, which the investigator will consider prior to completion of the investigative
report. The recipient must make all such evidence subject to the parties’ inspection and review
available at any hearing to give each party equal opportunity to refer to such evidence during the
hearing, including for purposes of cross-examination; and
(vii) Create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence and, at least
10 days prior to a hearing (if a hearing is required under this section or otherwise provided) or
other time of determination regarding responsibility, send to each party and the party’s advisor, if
any, the investigative report in an electronic format or a hard copy, for their review and written
response.
(6) Hearings. (i) For postsecondary institutions, the recipient’s grievance process must
provide for a live hearing. At the live hearing, the decision-maker(s) must permit each party’s
advisor to ask the other party and any witnesses all relevant questions and follow-up questions,
including those challenging credibility. Such cross-examination at the live hearing must be
conducted directly, orally, and in real time by the party’s advisor of choice and never by a party
personally, notwithstanding the discretion of the recipient under paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this
section to otherwise restrict the extent to which advisors may participate in the proceedings. At
the request of either party, the recipient must provide for the live hearing to occur with the
parties located in separate rooms with technology enabling the decision-maker(s) and parties to
simultaneously see and hear the party or the witness answering questions. Only relevant crossexamination and other questions may be asked of a party or witness. Before a complainant,
respondent, or witness answers a cross-examination or other question, the decision-maker(s)
must first determine whether the question is relevant and explain any decision to exclude a
question as not relevant. If a party does not have an advisor present at the live hearing, the
recipient must provide without fee or charge to that party, an advisor of the recipient’s choice,
who may be, but is not required to be, an attorney, to conduct cross-examination on behalf of that
party. Questions and evidence about the complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual
behavior are not relevant, unless such questions and evidence about the complainant’s prior
sexual behavior are offered to prove that someone other than the respondent committed the
conduct alleged by the complainant, or if the questions and evidence concern specific incidents
of the complainant’s prior sexual behavior with respect to the respondent and are offered to
prove consent. If a party or witness does not submit to cross-examination at the live hearing, the
decision-maker(s) must not rely on any statement of that party or witness in reaching a
determination regarding responsibility; provided, however, that the decision-maker(s) cannot
draw an inference about the determination regarding responsibility based solely on a party’s or
witness’s absence from the live hearing or refusal to answer cross-examination or other
questions. Live hearings pursuant to this paragraph may be conducted with all parties physically
present in the same geographic location or, at the recipient’s discretion, any or all parties,
witnesses, and other participants may appear at the live hearing virtually, with technology
enabling participants simultaneously to see and hear each other. Recipients must create an audio
or audiovisual recording, or transcript, of any live hearing and make it available to the parties for
inspection and review.
(ii) For recipients that are elementary and secondary schools, and other recipients that are
not postsecondary institutions, the recipient’s grievance process may, but need not, provide for a
hearing. With or without a hearing, after the recipient has sent the investigative report to the
parties pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(vii) of this section and before reaching a determination
regarding responsibility, the decision-maker(s) must afford each party the opportunity to submit
written, relevant questions that a party wants asked of any party or witness, provide each party
with the answers, and allow for additional, limited follow-up questions from each party. With or
without a hearing, questions and evidence about the complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior
sexual behavior are not relevant, unless such questions and evidence about the complainant’s
prior sexual behavior are offered to prove that someone other than the respondent committed the
conduct alleged by the complainant, or if the questions and evidence concern specific incidents
of the complainant’s prior sexual behavior with respect to the respondent and are offered to
prove consent. The decision-maker(s) must explain to the party proposing the questions any
decision to exclude a question as not relevant.
(7) Determination regarding responsibility. (i) The decision-maker(s), who cannot be the
same person(s) as the Title IX Coordinator or the investigator(s), must issue a written
determination regarding responsibility. To reach this determination, the recipient must apply the
standard of evidence described in paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this section.
(ii) The written determination must include—
(A) Identification of the allegations potentially constituting sexual harassment as defined
in § 106.30;
2027
(B) A description of the procedural steps taken from the receipt of the formal complaint
through the determination, including any notifications to the parties, interviews with parties and
witnesses, site visits, methods used to gather other evidence, and hearings held;
(C) Findings of fact supporting the determination;
(D) Conclusions regarding the application of the recipient’s code of conduct to the facts;
(E) A statement of, and rationale for, the result as to each allegation, including a
determination regarding responsibility, any disciplinary sanctions the recipient imposes on the
respondent, and whether remedies designed to restore or preserve equal access to the recipient’s
education program or activity will be provided by the recipient to the complainant; and
(F) The recipient’s procedures and permissible bases for the complainant and respondent
to appeal.
(iii) The recipient must provide the written determination to the parties simultaneously.
The determination regarding responsibility becomes final either on the date that the recipient
provides the parties with the written determination of the result of the appeal, if an appeal is
filed, or if an appeal is not filed, the date on which an appeal would no longer be considered
timely.
(iv) The Title IX Coordinator is responsible for effective implementation of any
remedies.
(8) Appeals. (i) A recipient must offer both parties an appeal from a determination
regarding responsibility, and from a recipient’s dismissal of a formal complaint or any
allegations therein, on the following bases:
(A) Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter;
(B) New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination
regarding responsibility or dismissal was made, that could affect the outcome of the matter; and
(C) The Title IX Coordinator, investigator(s), or decision-maker(s) had a conflict of
interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or the individual
complainant or respondent that affected the outcome of the matter.
(ii) A recipient may offer an appeal equally to both parties on additional bases.
(iii) As to all appeals, the recipient must:
(A) Notify the other party in writing when an appeal is filed and implement appeal
procedures equally for both parties;
(B) Ensure that the decision-maker(s) for the appeal is not the same person as the
decision-maker(s) that reached the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal, the
investigator(s), or the Title IX Coordinator;
(C) Ensure that the decision-maker(s) for the appeal complies with the standards set forth
in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section;
(D) Give both parties a reasonable, equal opportunity to submit a written statement in
support of, or challenging, the outcome;
(E) Issue a written decision describing the result of the appeal and the rationale for the
result; and
(F) Provide the written decision simultaneously to both parties.
(9) Informal resolution. A recipient may not require as a condition of enrollment or
continuing enrollment, or employment or continuing employment, or enjoyment of any other
right, waiver of the right to an investigation and adjudication of formal complaints of sexual
harassment consistent with this section. Similarly, a recipient may not require the parties to
participate in an informal resolution process under this section and may not offer an informal
resolution process unless a formal complaint is filed. However, at any time prior to reaching a
determination regarding responsibility the recipient may facilitate an informal resolution process,
such as mediation, that does not involve a full investigation and adjudication, provided that the
recipient –
(i) Provides to the parties a written notice disclosing: the allegations, the requirements of
the informal resolution process including the circumstances under which it precludes the parties
from resuming a formal complaint arising from the same allegations, provided, however, that at
any time prior to agreeing to a resolution, any party has the right to withdraw from the informal
resolution process and resume the grievance process with respect to the formal complaint, and
any consequences resulting from participating in the informal resolution process, including the
records that will be maintained or could be shared;
(ii) Obtains the parties’ voluntary, written consent to the informal resolution process; and
(iii) Does not offer or facilitate an informal resolution process to resolve allegations that
an employee sexually harassed a student.
(10) Recordkeeping. (i) A recipient must maintain for a period of seven years records of –
(A) Each sexual harassment investigation including any determination regarding
responsibility and any audio or audiovisual recording or transcript required under paragraph
(b)(6)(i) of this section, any disciplinary sanctions imposed on the respondent, and any remedies
provided to the complainant designed to restore or preserve equal access to the recipient’s
education program or activity;
(B) Any appeal and the result therefrom;
(C) Any informal resolution and the result therefrom; and
(D) All materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and
any person who facilitates an informal resolution process. A recipient must make these training
materials publicly available on its website, or if the recipient does not maintain a website the
recipient must make these materials available upon request for inspection by members of the
public.
(ii) For each response required under § 106.44, a recipient must create, and maintain for a
period of seven years, records of any actions, including any supportive measures, taken in
response to a report or formal complaint of sexual harassment. In each instance, the recipient
must document the basis for its conclusion that its response was not deliberately indifferent, and
document that it has taken measures designed to restore or preserve equal access to the
recipient’s education program or activity. If a recipient does not provide a complainant with
supportive measures, then the recipient must document the reasons why such a response was not
clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. The documentation of certain bases or
measures does not limit the recipient in the future from providing additional explanations or
detailing additional measures taken.

12. Add § 106.46 to subpart D to read as follows:
§ 106.46 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or
practice shall not be affected thereby.

13. Add § 106.62 to subpart E to read as follows:
§ 106.62 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or
practice shall not be affected thereby.

14. Subpart F is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F–Retaliation
Sec.
106.71 Retaliation
106.72 Severability

Subpart F–Retaliation

§ 106.71 Retaliation.
(a) Retaliation prohibited. No recipient or other person may intimidate, threaten, coerce,
or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege
secured by title IX or this part, or because the individual has made a report or complaint,
testified, assisted, or participated or refused to participate in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding, or hearing under this part. Intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination,
including charges against an individual for code of conduct violations that do not involve sex
discrimination or sexual harassment, but arise out of the same facts or circumstances as a report
or complaint of sex discrimination, or a report or formal complaint of sexual harassment, for the
purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by title IX or this part, constitutes
retaliation. The recipient must keep confidential the identity of any individual who has made a
report or complaint of sex discrimination, including any individual who has made a report or
filed a formal complaint of sexual harassment, any complainant, any individual who has been
reported to be the perpetrator of sex discrimination, any respondent, and any witness, except as
may be permitted by the FERPA statute, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, or FERPA regulations, 34 CFR part
99, or as required by law, or to carry out the purposes of 34 CFR part 106, including the conduct
of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising thereunder. Complaints alleging
retaliation may be filed according to the grievance procedures for sex discrimination required to
be adopted under § 106.8(c).
(b) Specific circumstances. (1) The exercise of rights protected under the First
Amendment does not constitute retaliation prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Charging an individual with a code of conduct violation for making a materially false
statement in bad faith in the course of a grievance proceeding under this part does not constitute
retaliation prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section, provided, however, that a determination
regarding responsibility, alone, is not sufficient to conclude that any party made a materially
false statement in bad faith.

§ 106.72 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or
practice shall not be affected thereby.

15. Add subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G – Procedures
Sec.
106.81 Procedures
106.82 Severability

Subpart G – Procedures
§ 106.81 Procedures.
The procedural provisions applicable to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are
hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. These procedures may be found at 34 CFR
100.6-100.11 and 34 CFR part 101. The definitions in § 106.30 do not apply to 34 CFR 100.6-
100.11 and 34 CFR part 101.

§ 106.82 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or
practice shall not be affected thereby.
Subject Index to Title IX Preamble and Regulation [Removed]
16. Remove the Subject Index to Title IX Preamble and Regulation.
17. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 34 CFR part 106, remove the
parenthetical authority citation at the ends of §§ 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, 106.4, 106.5, 106.6, 106.7, ,
106.11, 106.12, 106.13, 106.14, 106.15, 106.16, 106.17, 106.21, 106.22, 106.23, 106.31, 106.32,
106.33, 106.34, 106.35, 106.36, 106.37, 106.38, 106.39, 106.40, 106.41, 106.42, 106.43, 106.51,
106.52, 106.53, 106.54, 106.55, 106.56, 106.57, 106.58, 106.59, 106.60, and 106.61.

Source: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf , pages 2008-2033.

Campus Dating Violence Department of Education Domestic Violence Due Process Investigations Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Victims

PR: New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 8, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

WASHINGTON / May 8, 2020 – SAVE is today releasing an analysis that enumerates the many ways by which the newly released Title IX regulation will benefit victims of campus sexual assault. Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools. The new regulation was released on Wednesday by the Department of Education (1).

Titled, “Analysis: New Title IX Regulation Will Support and Assist Complainants in Multiple Ways,” the SAVE report identifies seven broad ways that the new federal regulation benefits victims and survivors:

Establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.
Requires the school to investigate allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and harassment.
Requires the school to offer complainants supportive measures, such as class or dorm reassignments or no-contact orders, even if an investigation is not initiated.
Defines the procedures to properly investigate and adjudicate such complaints.
Promotes victim autonomy by allowing the complainant to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw a complaint if desired.
Ensures complainants are not required to disclose any confidential medical, psychological, or similar records.
Discourages minor complaints that tend to dilute the availability of resources and harm the credibility of future victims.

Nashville attorney Michelle Owens provides examples of lawsuits from her own practice that fall into the category of minor and trivial complaints:

A student who was charged under Title IX for allegedly touching a girl on her head. This was not on a date or in a romantic setting.
One client was charged for sexual misconduct for touching a student on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of another person.
One male student was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.

The new SAVE document identifies 28 legally enforceable provisions in the new regulation that will benefit and support victims. Three examples of these provisions are: “Complainants are assured that unwelcome conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive will not be tolerated at their institution;” “Complainants are assured that respondents that are deemed an immediate threat to safety will be removed from campus;” and “Complainants must be provided an advisor free of charge to conduct cross-examination on their behalf.”

SAVE has identified numerous cases in which campus disciplinary committees, sometimes derisively referred to as “kangaroo courts,” have shortchanged victims (2). The Independent Women’s Forum argues that “Survivors should praise efforts to ensure that disciplinary decisions are not overturned by courts or regarded as illegitimate in the court of public opinion.” (3)

There is no evidence that the previous campus policies have succeeded in reducing campus sexual assault. A recent report from the American Association of Universities revealed an actual increase in campus sexual assaults from 2015 to 2019 (4).

The SAVE analysis is available online: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/analysis-new-title-ix-regulation-will-support-and-assist-complainants-in-multiple-ways/

Links: