January 24, 2019

“A recipient’s treatment of the respondent may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX.”[1]

Docket No. ED-2018-OCR-0064, RIN 1870–AA14, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

Supplemental Comment submitted by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)

On November 29, 2018 the Department of Education issued proposed Title IX regulatory changes.[2] Although these proposed regulations often have been referred to as “due process” regulations, it is clear that these regulations, once implemented, will help remedy widespread sex bias against male students at colleges and universities.

This Comment discusses the broader problem of sex discrimination in the arena of campus sexual assault, examining the barriers faced by male students in reporting and defending themselves against sexual assault allegations. The Appendix of this Comment features a listing of 38 judicial opinions issued 2014 to 2018 that upheld a male accused student’s sex discrimination cause of action in a campus sexual assault action.

SEX DISCRIMINATION CAN ASSUME MANY FORMS, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANTI-MALE ANIMUS

Sex discrimination can assume many guises, even within a single case. In Wells v. Xavier Univ., the judge recognized that anti-male bias resulted in an unfair process: “[Wells’] Complaint, however, recounts Defendants having rushed to judgment, having failed to train UCB members, having ignored the Prosecutor, having denied Plaintiff counsel, and having denied Plaintiff witnesses. These actions came against Plaintiff, he contends, because he was a male accused of sexual assault.”

Discrimination against male student was also demonstrated in 2014, in adjudication of a Duke University female student’s complaint alleging that she was too intoxicated to give consent. Duke found the male respondent guilty and a federal lawsuit ensued. During a hearing in federal court, Duke’s dean was asked whether both students could have assaulted one another since both were heavily intoxicated. The dean responded no and stated, “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”[3]

This admission by the dean demonstrated that Duke was in violation of Title IX.

The discriminatory impact of policies such as those above violates Title IX, whether or not the school was expressly motivated by anti-male bias. In Doe v. Columbia Univ., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appropriately observed,

“A defendant is not excused from liability for discrimination because the discriminatory motivation does not result from a discriminatory heart, but rather from a desire to avoid practical disadvantages that might result from unbiased action. A covered university that adopts, even temporarily, a policy of bias favoring one sex over the other in a disciplinary dispute, doing so in order to avoid liability or bad publicity, has practiced sex discrimination, notwithstanding that the motive for the discrimination did not come from ingrained or permanent bias against that particular sex.” (emphasis added).

MALE VICTIMS FACE BARRIERS IN REPORTING AND OBTAINING SUPPORT

According to the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, similar percentages of men and women (Men: 5.3%; Women: 5.6%) experience sexual violence other than rape each year.[4] Of the 25.1 million men who have experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes:[5]

• 5.4 million were forced to penetrate
• 6.8 million experienced sexual coercion
• 13.3 million had unwanted sexual contact

Similarly, among college populations, large percentages of male students are known to have been victimized. According to an American Association of Universities survey at 27 institutions of higher education, 40.9% of undergraduate heterosexual males have experienced sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, or stalking, compared to 60.5% of undergraduate heterosexual females.[6]

According to the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, “About 14% of reported rapes involve men or boys, 1 in 6 reported sexual assaults is against a boy, and 1 in 25 reported sexual assaults is against a man.”[7] Though it may not be apparent, “Male victims experience similar effects of sexual violence as female victims such as shame, grief, anger and fear…Men and boys who have been sexually victimized have a right to a full range of recovery services in settings that fully support their needs.”[8]

But on campus, male students are “Up Against A System That’s Not Designed To Help Us.”[9] In one survey, 475 undergraduate students “believed that campus resources are more helpful for female than male survivors.”[10] MaleSurvivor notes:

For many boys and men the harm of the initial betrayal of sexual abuse is compounded by the lack of a compassionate response from friends, family, and their community. In addition, toxic stereotypes about masculinity create powerful disincentives to disclosure by men of their pain and suffering. As a result, it is not uncommon for a male survivor to ignore, repress, or avoid disclosure and help-seeking for years – sometimes decades.[11]

Nevertheless, campus processes, websites and training materials are permeated with female -victim centric information, while wholly ignoring the possibility that men may also be sexual assault victims.

Proposed Title IX Regulations

The proposed Title IX rules attempt to resolve sex discrimination against men and treat students equally in several ways.

Section 106.30: General

“. . . [D]efines “supportive measures” as 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 . . . [S]uch measures are designed to restore or preserve access to the recipient’s education program or activity, without unreasonably burdening the other party; protect the safety of all parties and the recipient’s educational environment; and deter sexual harassment. Supportive measures may include counseling, extensions of deadlines or other course-related adjustments, modifications of work or class schedules, . . . and other similar measures . . .”[12]

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“. . . [G]rievance procedures must . . . [r]equire that a recipient ensure that coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers receive training on the definition of sexual harassment and how to conduct an investigation and grievance process . . . that protect the safety of students, ensure due process protections for all parties, and promote accountability; and that any materials used to train coordinators, investigators, or decision-makers not rely on sex stereotypes and instead promote impartial investigations and adjudications of sexual harassment . . .”[13]

Indeed, in court decisions involving the University of Pennsylvania, University of Mississippi, and Drexel University, judges ruled the institutions’ use of seemingly biased training material might have violated Title IX.

FAILURE TO CONSIDER COMPLAINTS BY MALE STUDENTS

A 2015 survey of college students revealed that “Students perceived that barriers to disclosure were more likely to prevent men than women from telling someone they were assaulted and seeking help.”[14] One of these barriers is campus disciplinary committees that refuse to consider allegations of sexual assault when they are made by a male student.

Relevant Case Law

In several lawsuits filed by male accused students, institutions failed to investigate evidence developed during the course of the institution’s own investigation that the accused student was a victim of sexual misconduct according to school policies: Rollins College (2017), Miami University, Amherst College, Williams College, and Drake University.

Rollins College

On January 16, 2019 U.S. District Court Judge Roy Dalton allowed a lawsuit against Rollins College – the second against the institution within two years — to move forward under the theories of breach-of-contract and selective enforcement.[15]

According to the male accused student, his female accuser had taken advantage of him sexually while he was inebriated. During its investigation, the college ignored evidence in favor of the male and overlooked contradictions in the woman’s testimony.[16]

The judge determined that the complaint raised the possibility that Rollins had effectively discriminated against the male student by: rejecting testimony from his witnesses “based, in part, on the male witnesses’ fraternity associations,” while allowing testimony from his accuser’s sorority witnesses; “excus[ing] any inconsistencies” in her testimony concerning whether she had “verbalized consent;” and made “irrelevant, inflammatory, and conclusory statements” about the accused. Rollins College prejudged the male accused student as guilty in order “to protect its image,” according to Judge Dalton.

in the Rollins College case the Title IX office maintained a web page that predominantly displayed the words “Rollins, It’s On Us. We are proud to support the national ‘It’s on Us’ campaign to stop sexual assault. To learn more, click here.”[17] Clicking on the link takes the viewer to the website of the It’s On Us campaign, which is designed to promote “a culture of consent, bystander intervention, and survivor support.”[18] Rollins’ It’s On Us webpage features the following statements focused on women as potential victims of sexual assault:

• “Only 20% of female student victims, age 18-24, report to law enforcement”
• “Among college women, 9 in 10 victims of rape and sexual assault knew their offender”

Rollins’ It’s On Us page does not include mention of how many male student victims report to law enforcement or knew their offender. Neither does the Rollins’ Title IX page provide any information specific to male victims of sexual assault.

In his ruling, Judge Dalton relied on federal appellate court decisions in lawsuits against Columbia University[19] and Miami University of Ohio[20] involving allegations of sex discrimination. The Columbia University appellate court decision was notable because it overruled a lower court decision that, if allowed to stand, would have made it nearly impossible for male victims of sexual assault to make viable complaints to campus sex tribunals.[21] The Columbia University court determined that a plaintiff can defeat a motion for summary judgment if his or her complaint meets the minimal burden of showing discriminatory intent.[22]

Judge Dalton found sufficient evidence to allow the male accused student’s lawsuit to go forward based on Rollins College’s refusal to even consider the possibility that the female was the sexual aggressor, its biased investigative process, and its subsequent decision to expel the male student.

Proposed Title IX Regulations

Section 106.45(a): Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

“. . . [A] recipient’s treatment of a complainant in response to a formal complaint of sexual harassment may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, and also states that a recipient’s treatment of the respondent may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX.”[23]

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“. . . [G]rievance procedures must . . . Treat complainants and respondents equitably . . .; [r]equire an investigation of the allegations and an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence . . . and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness . . .; and that a ensure . . . that any materials used to train coordinators, investigators, or decision-makers not rely on sex stereotypes . . .”[24]

SEX-BIASED INVESTIGATIONS

Biased investigations against male students have become a serious problem in campus sexual assault cases. The following strategies are three investigative approaches used by universities, which have resulted in discrimination against men:

1. Start By Believing program materials instruct sexual assault investigators to:
   1. Focus on witness statements “that corroborate the victim’s account.”
   2. Make sure the incident report does “not look like a consensual sexual experience.”[25]
   3. Make the complainant “appear more innocent.”[26]
   4. Tell the accuser, “I am sorry this happened to you. I’m an advocate, and I’m here to help.”[27]
   5. Collect any “information necessary to undermine” “potential defense strategies.”[28]

2. Training materials developed by the national consulting firm Margolis Healy:[29]
   1. Consistently use the term “victim,” not complainant.
   2. Refer to the accused student using the gendered pronoun, “he.”
   3. Advise investigators to turn “He said, she said” into “He said, they said,” meaning the investigator should interview multiple witnesses to corroborate the complainant’s version of events, but not interview witnesses for the defense.

3. The University of Texas School of Social Work’s Blueprint for Campus Police has two tables[30] that coach investigators how to thwart defense strategies, and discusses factors that are traditionally suggestive of innocence, but interprets them as indicative of guilt:
   1. “The alleged perpetrator knows what happened and therefore, appears to make more sense, which can be mistaken for credibility.”[31]
   2. “Studies have consistently shown that detecting deception is difficult, so officers may not realize when a perpetrator is lying.”[32]

These policies discriminate against men because the vast majority of respondents in Title IX proceedings are men. In fact, we have seen less than a handful of cases in which women have been accused, while there have been thousands of Title IX adjudications.

Furthermore, when school officials assume a female complainant is the victim and the accused male the perpetrator, then discount or ignore exonerating evidence, and refuse to consider male, the process necessarily favors women over men. As discussed above, in Doe v. Columbia Univ., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that, though the school’s intent in adopting its policies may not have been specifically to discriminate against men, any “policy of bias favoring one sex over the other” constitutes sex discrimination.

Relevant Case Law

Over the years, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against universities by accused men alleging a broad range of investigational biases and errors, based on the types of policies described above.[33] In five decisions, judges affirmed the accused students’ allegations of investigational deficiencies stemming from sex bias: Columbia University, Lynn University, Syracuse University, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, and Cornell University.

In each of these cases (with minor variations), the accused male student presented credible evidence of non-responsibility, e.g., witnesses contradicting the accuser at Columbia, a contemporaneous video of the sexual encounter at Lynn University, or a toxicology report at Cornell undermining the accuser’s claims of incapacitation. In each case the university essentially ignored exonerating evidence because of preconceived notions about how men and women behave (ie., Duke, as discussed above) and/or to allegedly preempt criticism from campus activists, the media, or the federal government that the institution was being insufficiently tough on sexual assault.

This issue was on display in Doe v. Amherst College after a federal district court denied Amherst’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.[34]

In Amherst, the male plaintiff (Doe) had been incapacitated when the female complainant gave him oral sex. However, the school found the male student repsponsible for sexual assault. It was not until the accused filed his lawsuit that discovery revealed text message that proved his claim thast he was the victim.

The plaintiff in Amherst asserted several causes of action, including that the school had violated Title IX based on selective enforcement and deliberate indifference:

In order to prevail on a selective enforcement claim, Doe was required to to establish that his gender was a “motivating factor behind either the College’s decision to pursue disciplinary action . . . or its decision as to the severity of punishment . . .”[35] The Court found that the accused student plaintiff  had met his burden on this claim, because he had alleged that Amherst encouraged the female complainant to file her complaint but did not do the same for him. Amherst did not even investigate his allegations despite his repeated allegations that he had had been “blacked out” when the female complainant initiated sexual activity with him.[36]

The plaintiff’s deliberate Indifference claim required him to show that Amherst was deliberately indifferent when handling his sexual harassment claim. The court found the male student had met this burden after he asserted that the female complainant initiated sexual activity with him while he was incapacitated. According the Court, “the College did not take even minimal steps to determine whether [the plaintiff] should have been viewed as a victim under the terms of the policy.”[37]

Proposed Title IX Regulations

The proposed Title IX regulations include two provisions designed to reduce investigative bias:

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“[G]rievance procedures must . . . [t]reat complainants and respondents equitably; an equitable resolution must . . .; [r]equire an investigation of the allegations and 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.”[38]

Section 106.45(b)(3): Investigations of a Formal Complaint

“[W]hen investigating a formal complaint, a recipient must . . . “[p]rovide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review evidence . . . so that each party can meaningfully respond to the evidence prior to conclusion of the investigation . . . [and] [c]reate an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence and, at least ten days prior to a hearing . . . , provide a copy of the report to the parties for their review and written responses.”[39]

FLAWED ADJUDICATIONS

In many cases, flawed adjudications are a direct result of the use of a single-investigator model in which the same college official serves as the investigator and adjudicator. Sex-biased adjudications have been well documented by accused male student lawsuits.

Relevant Case Law

In six decisions, the judge ruled the institution purportedly found all accused male students responsible for engaging in sexual misconduct (or) employed Title IX officials who were openly biased against male students: University of Oregon, Penn State University, University of Cincinnati, Muskingum University, University of Chicago, and Washington and Lee University.

Proposed Title IX Regulations

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“[G]rievance procedures must . . . [t]reat complainants and respondents equitably; an equitable resolution must . . .; [r]equire that any individual designated by a recipient as a coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker not have have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent; and that a recipient must ensure that coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers receive training on the definition of sexual harassment and how to conduct an investigation and grievance process – including hearings, if applicable – that protect the safety of students, ensure due process protections for all parties, and promote accountability . . .”[40]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Cynthia Garrett, Esq. did the final case review and analysis of the report.

Appendix

JUDICIAL DECISIONS UPHOLDING A CAUSE OF ACTION OF SEX DISCRIMINATION, 2014-2018

1. Wells v. Xavier Univ., 7 F.Supp.3d 746 (S.D. Ohio 2014)
2. Harris v. St. Joseph’s Univ., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65452 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2014)
3. Doe v. Salisbury Univ., 107 F.Supp.3d 481 (D. Md. 2015)
4. Doe v. Washington and Lee Univ., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102426 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015)
5. Doe v. Salisbury Univ., 123 F.Supp.3d 748 (D. Md. 2015)
6. Doe v. Brown Univ., 166 F.Supp.3d 177 (D.R.I. 2016)
7. Prasad v. Cornell Univ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161297 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)
8. Marshall v. Indiana Univ., 170 F.Supp.3d 1201 (S.D. Ind. 2016)
9. Doe v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., No. 15-cv-04079 (N.D. Ga. April 19, 2016)
10. Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016)
11. Collick v. William Paterson Univ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160359 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2016)
12. Doe v. Lynn Univ., 235 F.Supp.3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2017)
13. Neal v. Colo. State Univ. – Pueblo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22196 (D. Colo. Feb. 16, 2017)
14. Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F.Supp.3d 195 (D. Mass. 2017)
15. Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 239 F.Supp.3d 1048 (S.D. Ohio 2017)
16. Doe v. Williams Coll., No. 3:16-cv-30184 (D. Mass. Apr. 28, 2017)
17. Mancini v. Rollins Coll., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113160 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2017)
18. Doe v. Case Western Reserve Univ., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142002 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2017)
19. Doe v. Univ. of Pa., 270 F.Supp.3d 799 (E.D. Pa. 2017)
20. Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colls., 271 F.Supp.3d 386 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)
21. Doe v. Univ. of Chicago, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153355 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2017)
22. Saravanan v. Drexel Univ., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193925 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017)
23. Doe v. Pa. State Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3184 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2018)
24. Gischel v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 302 F.Supp.3d 961 (S.D. Ohio 2018)
25. Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018)
26. Schaumleffel v. Muskingum Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36350 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2018)
27. Doe v. Marymount Univ., 297 F.Supp.3d 573 (E.D. Va. 2018)
28. Doe v. Univ. of Or., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49431 (D. Or. Mar. 26, 2018)
29. Elmore v. Bellarmine Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52564 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 29, 2018)
30. Werner v. Albright Coll., No. 5:17-cv-05402 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2018)
31. Doe v. Johnson & Wales Univ., No. 1:18-cv-00106 (D.R.I. May 14, 2018)
32. Doe v. Univ. of Miss., 2018S. Dist. LEXIS 123181 (S.D. Miss. July 24, 2018)
33. Doe v. Brown Univ., 327 F.Supp.3d 397 (D.R.I. 2018)
34. Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018)
35. Doe v. Syracuse Univ., 341 F.Supp.3d 125 (N.D.N.Y. 2018)
36. Rossley v. Drake Univ., No. 4:16-cv-00623 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 12, 2018)
37. Doe v. Rider Univ., No. 3:16-cv-04882 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2018)
38. Powell v. Mont. State Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215891 (D. Mont. December 21, 2018)

Citations:

[1] Proposed Title IX regulation, Section 106.45(a): Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

[2] Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. Prop. Dep’t Educ., 83 Fed. Reg. 61462, 61499 (Nov. 29, 2018).

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001

[3] City Journal, “Mainstream Ideas, Fringe Opposition.” January 18, 2019. https://www.city-journal.org/neomi-rao-college-oped

[4] NISVS, Tables 2.1 and 2.2. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

[5] NISVS,Table 2.2.

[6] Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, 2015. Table 5-3. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/AAU-Campus-Climate-Survey-FINAL-10-20-17.pdf

[7]  https://www.endsexualviolence.org/where_we_stand/male-victims/

[8] https://www.endsexualviolence.org/where_we_stand/male-victims/

[9] Emily Kassie, Male Victims Of Campus Sexual Assault Speak Out ‘We’re Up Against A System That’s Not Designed To Help Us’ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/male-victims-sexual-assault_n_6535730.html

[10] Christopher T. Allen, Rebecca Ridgeway & Suzanne C. Swan, College Students’ Beliefs Regarding Help Seeking for Male and Female Sexual Assault Survivors: Even Less Support for Male Survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2015. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926771.2015.982237

[11] MaleSurvivor. https://www.malesurvivor.org/for-professionals/

[12] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61479.

[13] Id. at 61472.

[14] Christopher T. Allen, Rebecca Ridgeway & Suzanne C. Swan, College Students’ Beliefs Regarding Help Seeking for Male and Female Sexual Assault Survivors: Even Less Support for Male Survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2015. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926771.2015.982237

[15] https://www.scribd.com/document/397618499/Judge-allows-anti-male-bias-lawsuit-to-proceed-against-Rollins-College-for-Title-IX-investigation#from_embed

[16] Greg Piper, Judge approves gender-bias lawsuit against Florida college for ignoring evidence in male’s favor. January 17, 2019. https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-approves-gender-bias-lawsuit-against-florida-college-for-ignoring-evidence-in-males-favor/

[17] https://www.rollins.edu/sexual-misconduct/

[18] https://www.itsonus.org/pledge/

[19] https://www.thecollegefix.com/appeals-court-reinstates-reverse-discrimination-case-columbia-student-accused-rape/

[20] Doe v. Miami Univ., 822 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018).

[21] Greg Piper, Appeals court reinstates reverse discrimination case against Columbia by student accused of rape. July 29, 2016. https://www.thecollegefix.com/appeals-court-reinstates-reverse-discrimination-case-columbia-student-accused-rape/

[22] Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir. 2016).

[23] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61472.

[24] Id.

[25] EVAWI Effective Report Writing, at 14. http://olti.evawintl.org/images/docs/REPORT%20WRITING%205-15-12.pdf

[26] EVAWI Effective Report Writing, at 11.

[27] EVAWI, http://www.startbybelieving.org/home

[28] EVAWI Effective Report Writing, at 4, 26.

[29] Margolis Healy, Title IX Investigations. Slide 28 (2012). http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Margolis-Healy-VCI-presentation.docx

[30] Busch-Armendariz, N.B., Sulley, C., & Hill, K. (2016). The Blueprint for campus police: Responding to sexual assault. Austin, TX: Institute on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, The University of Texas at Austin” Tables 7.3 and 7.4. https://utexas.app.box.com/v/blueprintforcampuspolice

[31] Id. at 97.

[32] Id.

[33] SAVE, “Victim-Centered Investigations: New Liability Risk for Universities.” 2016. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf

[34] Amherst Coll., 238 F.Supp.3d at 229.

[35] Id. at 223.

[36] Id.

[37] Id. at 224.

[38] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61472.

[39] Id. at 61475.

[40] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61472.