Category: Sexual Harassment

Betsy DeVos Thanks Assistant Secretary Marcus for His Service Leading Civil Rights Office

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 19, 2020

WASHINGTON—U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos praised Assistant Secretary Kenneth L. Marcus for his strong leadership of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and for the remarkable results achieved after Marcus announced his upcoming departure from government service to return to the private sector.

“I am so thankful for Ken’s strong leadership over the last two years,” said Secretary DeVos. “He helped drive incredible results for students by vigorously enforcing civil rights laws, expanding protections from discrimination, and refocusing OCR on resolving cases efficiently and effectively. He has been a tremendous asset to us and an ally to students, and I will always be grateful he agreed to return to government service to join the President’s and my team. While we are sad to see him go, I know in his next professional chapter he will further build on his successful career of advocating for the civil rights of America’s students.”

“I am grateful to President Donald J. Trump and Secretary Betsy DeVos for the honor of directing, over the last two years, OCR’s talented and committed staff,” said Assistant Secretary Marcus. “Throughout my tenure, OCR has reinforced its status as a neutral, impartial civil rights law enforcement agency that faithfully executes the laws as written and in full, no more and no less, focusing carefully on the needs of each individual student. The data demonstrate that this approach works. While I am sad to leave colleagues for whom I have so much respect and affection, I am heartened to know that I am leaving the institution in excellent hands.”

During the last two fiscal years and the first several months of the current fiscal year, OCR has made historic advances in protecting the civil rights of America’s students:

Resolving some of OCR’s most extensive systemic investigations of Title IX violations in American higher education, as well as the largest investigation that OCR ever conducted into systemic sexual assault problems in an urban public school system;
Launching the Outreach, Prevention, Education, and Non-discrimination (OPEN) Center to focus on outreach and proactive compliance with federal civil rights laws;
Commencing nationwide initiatives to address sexual assault in elementary and secondary schools and inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities (with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services);
Launching over three times more proactive civil rights investigations last year than the prior administration launched in all eight years combined;
Establishing the National Web Accessibility Team to resolve technology accessibility problems in educational institutions;
Advancing the Administration’s deregulatory initiative, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, by rescinding sub-regulatory guidance that exceeded statutory authorization;
Improving the quality of OCR’s authoritative Civil Rights Data Collection through numerous reforms facilitated by a newly-expanded partnership with the National Center for Education Statistics;
Reforming the Department’s approach to civil rights in career and technical education, through a new Memorandum of Procedures issued in conjunction with the Department’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education;
Providing timely and important guidance on protection of student civil rights in light of COVID-19;
Administering President Trump’s historic Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism through vigorous enforcement; and
Strengthening Title IX protections for survivors of sexual misconduct and restoring due process in campus proceedings to ensure all students can pursue education free from sex discrimination through game-changing Title IX regulatory reform.

The data demonstrate the vigor with which OCR has been conducting its work in recent years. For example, during fiscal years 2018 and 2019, OCR resolved nearly 1,000 more allegations of discrimination by requiring corrective action than the previous administration had during its last two fiscal years. During this period, OCR achieved a 45% increase in the total number of Title VI allegations resolved with change and a 78% increase in the total number of Title IX allegations resolved with change compared to the last two fiscal years under the previous administration.

Assistant Secretary Marcus will continue his service until the end of the month in order to ensure appropriate continuity within OCR. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Kimberly Richey will succeed Marcus as Acting Assistant Secretary.

Source: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USED/bulletins/294dcb0

Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Ringing the Bell of Justice, 14 Attorneys General Remind Colleges of their Legal Duties Under Title IX

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 19, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Ringing the Bell of Justice, 14 Attorneys General Remind Colleges of their Legal Duties Under Title IX

WASHINGTON / July 20, 2020 – The Attorneys General from 14 states have released an Amicus Brief that summarizes the legal obligations of colleges and universities in responding to allegations of campus sexual misconduct. The Attorneys General represent the states of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

On May 6, the federal Department of Education issued a new regulation creating a legal obligation for colleges to investigate and adjudicate allegations of sexual assault. The regulation, known as the Final Rule, increased legal protections both for complainants (1) and the accused (2).

But one month later the Attorneys General from 18 other states filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to block the implementation of the new regulation, claiming the policy would cause “immediate and irreparable harm” to schools and students (3).

Last week’s Amicus Brief by the 14 Attorneys General is grounded in schools’ constitutional and other legal obligations to assure fairness for all students. The AGs note, “the Final Rule’s due process protections requiring live hearings, direct cross examination, and neutral fact-finders, reflect a reasonable, straightforward approach to resolution of Title IX complaints that protects both complainants’ and respondents’ due process rights.”

The Brief charges that current campus policies represent a “constant recycling of discredited, unconstitutional policies” that “effectively eliminated a presumption of innocence for those accused of sexual misconduct.” The Brief concludes, “The Final Rule aims to provide robust protections for individual rights by ameliorating the constitutional and statutory deficiencies caused by prior regulations and guidance.”

The Amicus Brief also disputes the “immediate and irreparable harm” claim, accurately explaining that the plaintiffs “have known for years that constitutional norms favor more procedural protections for students accused of sexual harassment, not less.” Therefore, “If Plaintiffs and these institutions suffer harm because of the Final Rule’s effective date, then that harm was self-inflicted.”

To date, 650 lawsuits have been filed by accused students against their schools (4). In a majority of cases, judges have ruled in favor of these students (5).

The Editorial Boards of the following newspapers have endorsed the new Title IX regulation: New York Daily News, Detroit News, Wall Street Journal, The Oklahoman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Philadelphia Inquirer (6).

The Attorneys General Amicus Brief is available online (7).

NOTE: The original AG Brief, filed on July 15, listed 14 Attorneys General. The following day, the Nebraska Attorney General also agreed to support the Brief. So now 15 Attorneys General are included. This is the revised Brief: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/04517937890.pdf

Links:

Campus Civil Rights Due Process False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Why Are Some Members of Congress Opposing Due Process Protections for Black Male Students?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 14, 2020

SAVE

July 14, 2020

During the Senate HELP Committee’s 2015 hearing on campus sexual assault, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley made the surprising observation that in her experience, “male students of color are accused and punished at ‘unreasonably high rates’ in campus sexual misconduct investigations.” (1) Two years later, journalist Emily Yoffe posed this question in The Atlantic: “Is the system biased against men of color?” explaining, “black men make up only about 6 percent of college undergraduates, yet are vastly overrepresented in the cases I’ve tracked.” (2) Lara Bazelon, director of the racial justice clinics at the University of San Francisco School of Law, likewise has opined about the troubling racial dynamics at play under the current Title IX system, and urged Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to “take important steps to fix these problems.” (3)

During this time of national reflection on race relationships, stories mount of black men whose lives were irrevocably harmed by false allegations or poorly administered campus tribunals (4). The examples of unfair treatment are numerous and egregious:

Two years ago, Nikki Yovino was sentenced to one year in jail for falsely accusing two black male football players, students at Sacred Heart University, of sexual assault (5).
Grant Neal, a black student athlete suspended by Colorado State University-Pueblo for a rape his white partner denied ever happened, sued and settled with his university (6).
Two black male students accused of sexual assault recently settled a lawsuit against University of Findlay for racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination (7).

Black faculty members also have been targeted by the campus kangaroo courts. The nation’s first elected black governor, former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder, penned a scathing letter regarding his “unimaginable nightmare at Virginia Commonwealth University” after he was erroneously accused of sexual misconduct. He aptly titled his letter, “Secretary DeVos Right to Restore Due Process on Campus.” (9) Similarly, Howard University castigated law professor Reginald Robinson for allegations of sexual harassment, although his actions were clearly an expression of academic freedom consistent with university policy. (10)

So how widespread is the problem?

In 2017, the Office for Civil Rights investigated Colgate University for potential race discrimination in its sexual assault adjudication process. During the course of the investigation, the institution had to reveal the embarrassing fact that “black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violations reported to the university,” (11) even though black students represent only 5.2% of all undergraduate students (12).

More recently, Title IX For All analyzed demographic data from the approximately 650 lawsuits filed against institutions of higher education since 2011. Among the 30% of cases in which the race of the accused student was known, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in Title IX disciplinary proceedings. Title IX For All concludes, “These findings come at a time when public officials who have long regarded themselves as champions of civil rights for minorities suspected or accused of crimes advocate a heightened awareness of their rights, while simultaneously working to undermine their rights in higher education settings.” (13)

The new Title IX regulation will ensure fairness, equitability, and credibility, and will support and assist sexual assault complainants, as well (14). Some members of Congress in both the Senate (15) and the House of Representatives (16) have urged Secretary DeVos to rescind the new regulation with vague claims that it is harmful to students.

At a time when activists across the country are clamoring that Black Lives Matter, why are some members of Congress opposed to a regulation that will help improve the lives of black men?

Citations:

Campus Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

PR: SAVE Files Amicus Brief Against 18 Attorneys’ General, In Support of New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 10, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Files Amicus Brief Against 18 Attorneys’ General, In Support of New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / July 10, 2020 – SAVE filed an Amicus Brief yesterday in support of the recently released Title IX regulation, which seeks to restore fairness and due process in campus sexual harassment cases. The Amicus Brief highlights the legal inadequacies of the attorneys’ general Complaint, and urges that the Court dismiss their request for a preliminary injunction.

In 2011 the Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” that imposed a range of new campus adjudication procedures for sexual assault cases. These changes removed a number of due process protections, such as the right of parties to be represented by counsel. As a result, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against colleges (1). Amidst intense public pressure, the Department of Education revoked its notorious Dear Colleague Letter in 2017, and later issued a new regulation on May 6, 2020. (2)

One month later, the attorneys’ general from 18 states filed a lawsuit seeking to block the long-awaited regulation. The lawsuit claimed the new regulation will “reverse decades of effort to end the corrosive effects of sexual harassment on equal access to education.” (3)

In response, the SAVE Brief highlights that Title IX “is not limited to the protection of one sex or gender; it protects all.” (page 9) This contrasts with the assertion by the California Women’s Law Center Amicus that states Title IX only serves to protect “women and girls.” (page 8).

The SAVE Brief enumerates the types of sex-based discrimination against male students: Biased educational materials; inconsistent enforcement of policies for male and female students; and a double-standard for intoxication policies. (pages 10-16).

The Brief also provides examples of universities that refused to investigate allegations by male students claiming to be victims of female-perpetrated sexual assault. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, each year 1.7 million men are sexually “made to penetrate,” compared to 1.5 million women who are raped (4).

Noting the hundreds of lawsuits filed against colleges, the SAVE Brief reaches a resounding conclusion:

“This demonstrates a simple truth: male students constitute the overwhelming majority of victims of proceedings on campus that are unlawful and constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, in violation of Title IX. Plaintiffs totally ignore this truth in their Complaint and subsequent Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This is especially astounding given that the deprivation of students’ rights in the disciplinary process,…was a substantial predicate for the issuance of the Regulation.” (pages 9-10)

The SAVE Amicus Brief is available online (5).

Links:

Campus Free Speech Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Universities and Colleges Take Steps to Implement New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 24, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Universities and Colleges Take Steps to Implement New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / June 25, 2020 – Following lengthy public debate, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new Title IX regulation on May 6, 2020, which carries the force and effect of law. [1]

The new regulation takes effect on August 14, 2020. This means school administrators and Title IX Coordinators have only about 50 days to enact policies and revise training procedures to ensure fairness and equality for all students.

Within this time frame, schools must restore fairness on campuses by upholding students’ rights to written notice of allegations, the right to an advisor, as well as the right to submit, cross-examine, and challenge evidence at a live hearing. One of the key provisions will require colleges to post their Title IX training materials on the websites for public review.[2]

To date, the regulation has been endorsed by editorial boards of the following newspapers: Detroit News, The Oklahoman, New York Daily News, Wall Street Journal, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Philadelphia Enquirer. [3] The Independent Women’s Forum has highlighted how the new regulation will help restore due process on campus and bring an end to the so-called “Kangaroo Courts.” [4]

SAVE has identified numerous ways that the new rule will support sexual assault complainants. [5] Most importantly, the regulation establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.

Schools have varied in their initial responses to the new standard.

In a letter to the University of Wisconsin System (UWS), Governor Tony Evers stated, “UWS is required to implement these changes through administrative rule making.” Evers mandated his Board of Regents to do so by submitting a scope statement to him, but rejected the first one on the grounds it was too vague. [6]

The South Dakota Board of Regents was scheduled to vote this week to implement the procedures: “Using a hearing examiner and affording full due process at the onset enhances the probability of getting to the correct outcome sooner, rather than a later, an issue that has haunted Title IX nationally in a litany of high profile court appeals in recent years.” [7]

Anecdotal reports indicate other leading universities have initiated the process of implementing the new regulation.

In contrast, a memo from University of Denver Chancellor Jeremy Haefner indicates the University is focusing on ensuring the changes in the final rule support survivors: “I am writing to ensure you that these changes will in no way compromise our commitment to creating an environment in which all members of the DU community feel safe reporting their experiences and remain confident that their cases will be heard thoroughly, fairly, and with respect.” [8] Unlike other schools, the memo does not mention fair and equitable procedures for all parties.

In October 2019, SAVE launched its Title IX Equity Project to assure compliance with Title IX requirements. As a result, the Office of Civil Rights has opened over 100 investigations to date regarding university scholarship policies that discriminate against male or female students. [9] The Title IX Equity Project has enjoyed extensive media coverage, as well. [10]

Citations:

[1] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/newsroom.html

[2] https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-takes-historic-action-strengthen-title-ix-protections-all-students

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/

[4] https://www.iwf.org/2020/05/06/new-title-ix-regulations-restore-due-process-on-campus/

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/analysis-new-title-ix-regulation-will-support-and-assist-complainants-in-multiple-ways/

[6]https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/WIGOV/2020/06/15/file_attachments/1474234/Evers_2020_06_15_UWS%20Ch%2017.pdf

[7] https://www.sdbor.edu/the-board/agendaitems/2014AgendaItems/2020%20Agenda%20Items/June24_20/5_B_BOR0620.pdf

[8] http://www.saveservices.org/2020/06/university-of-denver-chancellor-memo-regarding-title-ix-compliance/

[9] http://www.saveservices.org/equity/ocr-investigations/

[10] http://www.saveservices.org/equity/

Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Secretary DeVos Right to Restore Due Process on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 3, 2020

By L. Douglas Wilder

June 3, 2020

Wilder is the former governor of Virginia. He currently serves as a distinguished professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs.

As colleges and universities across the country plan what higher education will look like on the post-pandemic campus, the Department of Education has taken a major step toward improving one area with a longtime culture of injustice.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos recently strengthened Title IX protections for the survivors of sexual misconduct on campus, while instituting due process in campus proceedings. For the first time ever, the Education Department’s Title IX regulations define sexual harassment, including sexual assault, as “unlawful sex discrimination.” Codifying prohibitions against sexual harassment requires schools to take meaningful action to support accusers and the accused, without sacrificing the safeguards to ensure fair and transparent proceedings.

Of course, our top priority is clamping down on sexual misconduct. Every year, thousands of students are exposed to unwanted sexual activity on campus, most of them being women. This ruins their college experience and can leave them traumatized long after they graduate.

Sexual misconduct is simply unacceptable. Campus officials must do their best to hold the perpetrators accountable and keep our students safe.

What they cannot do, however, is ignore due process — the bedrock of our judicial system. Too often, those accused of sexual misconduct are publicly vilified before their side of the story is ever heard. Too often, the accused are presumed to be guilty before the facts of their case are even known. This is just as unacceptable.

In America, people are always innocent until they’re proven guilty. “Guilty until proven innocent” is a perversion of our judicial system. The system relies on due process to keep both the accusers and the accused on a level playing field. Only then can we assess the validity of the allegations at hand and draw the right conclusions from them.

Unfortunately, I’ve experienced the presumption of guilt firsthand. For over a year now, I have undergone an unimaginable nightmare at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), where I lecture at the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs. In December 2018, a complaint was filed against me by a 20-year-old student, alleging that I had touched her leg and kissed her without consent. The complainant was directed to file criminal charges with the Richmond Police Department. However, the charge was determined to be “unfounded.”

Nevertheless, VCU’s Title IX office carried on behind my back. Although the office notified the complainant that her complaint would be investigated thoroughly within two days of receiving it, I wasn’t notified of anything relative to any complaint until almost two months later.

At the end of January 2019, I finally received a “Notice of Investigation” letter, which detailed four specific allegations: Non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, Sex-Gender-based Discrimination, and Retaliation. The matter was assigned to an external investigator by Laura Walsh Rugless, the Executive Director of Equity Access Services and Title IX Coordinator, who has subsequently resigned her position at VCU.

Weeks later, I was notified that the initial external investigator was removed and replaced by Jody Shipper, co-founder and managing director of Grand River Solutions. This is the same Jody Shipper who conducted a Title IX investigation at the University of Southern California, an investigation whose determination was overturned by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District Court in December 2018.

Why? Because the accused was denied a fair and transparent Title IX proceeding. Yet VCU recruited Shipper anyway, and she subsequently concluded that the “unfounded” charge against me was true (while determining the three other allegations were not true).

To the hearing panel’s credit, they rejected Shipper’s findings, ruling that I was not in fact responsible for non-consensual sexual contact. But it was too late: Shipper’s reckless pursuit of guilt — emboldened by VCU’s Title IX office — was the most unsettling experience of my life. Becoming the first elected African American governor in U.S. history was a walk in the park compared to this ordeal. And it has permanently damaged my reputation, regardless of my innocence.

Hopefully, campus officials can learn from the mistakes of the past. I came to learn that VCU was already under a voluntary resolution agreement signed by President Michael Rao in 2014, due to issues with its mishandling of previous Title IX cases. It is imperative that VCU and all institutions of higher education ensure fairness for both parties in situations such as these.

I hope that my experience will inform future Title IX proceedings, as we continue to clamp down on sexual misconduct. I pray that we can protect accusers and the accused by upholding due process.

Fortunately, the Department of Education is doing its part to guarantee due process for all parties, while recognizing the tragedy of sexual misconduct on campus. Following Secretary DeVos’ lead, administrators, faculty, staff, and students can rest assured that their voices will be heard.

With due process, we can all rest assured that the presumption of innocence will prevail—followed by the truth.

Source: https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/wilder-secretary-devos-right-to-restore-due-process-on-campus/article_dfac7ff4-7d4d-5109-9657-2532a0816f1d.html

Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Uncategorized

The Tale of ATIXA

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 22, 2020

SAVE

May 22, 2020

A dramatic tale includes the elements of conflict, controversy, unexpected character behavior, and resolution. Here’s how the Tale of ATIXA recently unfolded….

On Monday, May 11, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) sponsored a webinar titled, Ten Things to Know About the New Title IX Regulations. Brett Sokolow, President of ATIXA, instructed over 4,200 webinar attendees that they were not to follow the Department of Education regulation to post all training materials on university websites.

Instead, they were to follow ATIXA’s guidance to post only the training material titles. Inquirers could request to look at the training material in person, but could not photocopy or make a copy.

An audio recording of the webinar was then posted on the ATIXA website [1].

SAVE then wrote a commentary regarding Sokolow’s instruction to the ATIXA membership. The article, ATIXA Puts Members into Legal Jeopardy Regarding Requirement to Publicly Post Training Materials, posed this question: “So what part of ‘A recipient must make these training materials publicly available on its website’ does the Association for Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) not understand?” [2]

SAVE’s commentary was posted on May 13 at 12:19pm. That’s when the elements of conflict, controversy, and unexpected character behavior came into play.

Within hours, Sokolow posted a series of critical remarks directed at SAVE. Sokolow deleted the posts several days later, but not before they were captured by screenshot: [3]

5/13/20 @BrettSokolow

3:54pm

“I suppose I should respond with a tweet “SAVE Advocates Colleges and Schools Engage in Violation of Federal Copyright Laws.” Somehow you seem to think OCR has the authority to abrogate other federal laws. Interesting.”

“How embarrassed are you that you worked this hard, transcribed our content (sharing of which likely violates fair use), and never even bothered to read the regs, which explicitly protect our copyright. Egg on your face much? Going off half-cocked much? You’re a hack.”

“Ed. Take this crap down. Immediately.”

Sokolow then quoted a passage from the new Title IX regulation [4]:

1/2 “Read ‘em and weep. To the extent that commenters’ concerns that a recipient may be unable to publicize its training materials because some recipients hire outside consultants to provide training, the materials for which may be owned by the outside consultant and not by the….

2/2…recipient itself, the Department acknowledges that a recipient in that situation would need to secure permission from the consultant to publish the training materials…Rescind your garbage communication, now, Ed. It violates our copyright, too.”

SAVE did not respond to these inaccurate posts, because the truth is its own witness.

The plot thickens.

On Monday, May 18, just one week after the ATIXA webinar, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Blog cleared up any misunderstanding. The Department issued a clarification for posting (1) Contact information for the school’s Title IX Coordinators; (2) A school’s non-discrimination policy; and (3) Training Materials used to train the school’s Title IX personnel.

The blog post reads in part [5]:

Section 106.45(b)(10)(i)(D) does not permit a school to choose whether to post the training materials or offer a public inspection option.
If a school’s current training materials are copyrighted or otherwise protected as proprietary business information (for example, by an outside consultant), the school still must comply with the Title IX Rule.
- If a school is unable to secure permission from a third party to post copyrighted training materials, then the school must create or obtain training materials that can lawfully be posted on the school’s website.

This clarification soon led to the tale’s resolution…

5/19/20 @BrettSokolow to another Twitter user:

“We have withdrawn and are revising this guidance based on the most recent OCR clarification of its expectations.”

Conflict, controversy, unexpected character behavior, and resolution.

This cautionary Tale represents a victory for students and faculty members who are facing a Title IX investigation; and for universities who will not have to face legal battles for ignoring federal Title IX law.

Citations:

[1] https://atixa.org/r3/#Webinars

[2]http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/atixa-puts-members-into-legal-jeopardy-regarding-requirement-to-publicly-post-training-materials/

[3] Available upon request at info@saveservices.org

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

[5] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/blog/20200518.html

Accountability Campus Civil Rights False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Uncategorized Victims

Addressing common misconceptions about the new Title IX regulations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 22, 2020

by Susan Kruth, FIRE

May 21, 2020

The Department of Education finalized its new Title IX regulations less than two weeks ago, and already, a lot of misinformation about them has been published in various forms of media. We can’t address it all here, but we wanted to at least clarify some points that many commenting on the regulations are getting wrong.

Often, misinformation about the law proliferates because people don’t have the time or energy to check original sources. Commentary doesn’t always include citations, and sometimes people think they won’t be able to read or understand legalese anyway. On the second point, they’re usually wrong. So when in doubt, readers: Be skeptical of any source that doesn’t quote and link to the regulations themselves, and go back and read them yourselves.

Without further ado, here are some commonly shared incorrect or misleading statements about the regulations:

The regulations mandate that sexual harassment cases be treated differently from racial harassment cases.

The regulations require that federally funded educational institutions — all but a few colleges and universities across the country — respond a certain way to sexual misconduct, and these requirements do not all apply in non-sexual misconduct cases. ED isn’t instructing schools to treat non-sexual misconduct cases differently, per se; it just can’t create obligations for how institutions handle non-sexual misconduct allegations in Title IX regulations, because Title IX governs sex discrimination only. Under the new regulations, institutions will no longer be required or encouraged to provide respondents in sexual misconduct cases fewer free speech and due process rights than they have been providing respondents in non-sexual misconduct cases.

With respect to the definition of harassment, for example, critics argue that sexual harassment will have to reach a higher threshold before schools can and must punish someone engaging in sexual harassment compared with racial harassment.

[T]here are many sources of misinformation out there, including individuals and organizations that should know better.

It’s easy to see where this misinformation comes from: In the spring of 2013, the Department of Education promoted an unconstitutionally broad definition of sexual harassment — “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct” — although it publicly backed away from this definition just months later. As FIRE explained at the time, the Supreme Court of the United States established the legal definition of student-on-student (or peer) sexual harassment in the 1999 case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education: conduct “that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

Moreover, in its 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance, issued by President Bill Clinton’s Department of Education the day before President George W. Bush was inaugurated, ED’s Office for Civil Rights addressed requests “to provide distinct definitions of sexual harassment to be used in administrative enforcement as distinguished from criteria used to maintain private actions for monetary damages.” It declined to do so, explaining that “schools benefit from consistency and simplicity in understanding what is sexual harassment for which the school must take responsive action. A multiplicity of definitions would not serve this purpose.”

The new regulations’ definition of hostile environment harassment tracks the Davis standard: “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.” So if critics have a problem, their problem is with the Supreme Court, or perhaps with the Clinton administration, not with the current Secretary of Education.

In any case, courts have been applying the Davis standard to racial harassment cases for almost Davis’ entire existence. When ED instructed institutions to punish “any unwelcome [speech] of a sexual nature,” it didn’t make the same instruction with respect to racial harassment. As a result, institutions were left with the impression that they should be punishing a far broader spectrum of sex-related speech than race-related speech. The new regulations simply clarify that both types of harassment should be assessed according to the Davis standard.

FIRE would be very pleased to see the regulations’ procedural safeguards guaranteed in all serious, non-academic misconduct cases.

Similarly, with respect to the standard of evidence, schools are already treating sexual and racial misconduct cases differently, and the regulations explicitly allow institutions to treat them the same way. In a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, ED mandated for the first time that all institutions governed by Title IX use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in adjudicating sexual misconduct cases — but again, it made no such mandate with respect to race-related cases.

As a result, most colleges maintain a bifurcated system where sexual misconduct cases are dealt with differently from all other cases, including racial harassment cases. Some schools, inclined to require “clear and convincing evidence” for a responsible finding, have been using a higher standard of evidence for non-sex-related cases than for sex-related cases since 2011. ED’s rescission of this 2011 mandate and finalization of the new regulations gives institutions a path (and ED has encouraged institutions) to use the same standard for both types of cases.

Finally, with respect to the adjudication procedure aside from the standard of evidence, the same is true. Many institutions already provide live hearings for non-sexual misconduct cases, but not for sexual misconduct cases. This may be in part due to a 2014 report by the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault, which encouraged schools to use a single-investigator model for sexual misconduct cases. Under the new regulations, these schools will give students facing non-sexual misconduct cases and students facing sexual misconduct cases more similar opportunities to defend themselves and challenge the evidence against them in a meaningful hearing.

FIRE would be very pleased to see the regulations’ procedural safeguards guaranteed in all serious, non-academic misconduct cases. (In fact, FIRE has worked with legislatures to enact bipartisan legislation that provides consistent, robust safeguards in campus proceedings whenever there is a potential penalty of 10 or more days of suspension or expulsion on the line.) But for now, the regulations at least help ensure that respondents in sexual misconduct cases possess many safeguards they are often granted already in non-sexual misconduct cases.

Students walk near Healy Hall at Georgetown University. (Sharkshock / Shutterstock.com)

The regulations raise the standard of evidence for campus disciplinary cases.

Somewhat relatedly, critics have argued that the regulations effectively require institutions to use a higher standard of evidence for sexual misconduct cases than they did previously. This is easily demonstrated to be false. The regulations plainly state that an institution may choose “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,” so long as it uses the same standard for “all formal complaints of sexual harassment,” including against employees. If an institution wants to use the “preponderance” standard, it still can do so. Furthermore, institutions were in the same position before the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, and have remained in the same position even after 2011 with respect to non-sexual misconduct cases. There is no drastic new requirement here.

The same could not be said for the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, which did impose new requirements on schools — without ED soliciting notice and comment from stakeholders, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The ACLU and others argue that the preponderance standard should be required anyway because it is the standard used in Title IX cases in civil court. But those cases are against institutions that are guaranteed many more procedural safeguards in court than students are afforded in campus disciplinary systems, including some of the safeguards to which some commenters have objected now that they are required by the new regulations. Institutions also have lawyers and money and other resources at their disposal to assist in their defense. These institutions will not be punished because three out of five fact-finding panelists believe it is more likely than not that they committed wrongdoing, as students can be.

Still, if institutions want to use the low, preponderance standard, they may.

The regulations gut Title IX protections.

Critics of the regulations claim that they “gut[] Title IX protections for students.” To the contrary, as my colleague Joe Cohn explained in a post earlier this month, the regulations require that schools provide new and important safeguards, options, and tools to both complainants and respondents, and they bring the focus of the regulations back to the original purpose of Title IX — ensuring equal access to education.

Right now, too many institutions aim for whatever result is worst for the respondent, not whatever result is best for the complainant. They are concerned with punishing students who they deem guilty, but they are not necessarily asking what complainants feel would be most helpful for them to continue their education. That serves no one.

Safeguards like the opportunity to question witnesses aren’t just useful for respondents; they can be used by complainants and their representatives to demonstrate to fact-finders the truth of their complaints, too. With more information shared in advance of the hearing, complainants will be better able to prepare for it. And with a guarantee of impartial fact-finders and public training materials, complainants can have more confidence that their cases will be handled fairly — or more recourse if they aren’t.

As Shiwali Patel, senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, has written, “[T]here isn’t a conflict between ensuring a fair process for both survivors and for alleged perpetrators.” We agree. With both parties guaranteed many safeguards that they do not receive on most campuses now, fact-finders will be better equipped to reach accurate, reliable findings of fact, whether they’re responsible findings or not responsible findings. Procedural safeguards help ensure more innocent students are not punished and more guilty students are punished.

Procedural safeguards help ensure more innocent students are not punished and more guilty students are punished.

Moreover, some provisions of the regulations and supplementary information will help protect against common hurdles that self-identified survivors have faced. For one example, after recognizing commenters’ concerns about complainants bearing the burden of gathering relevant evidence themselves, ED emphasized that institutions, not students, should bear that responsibility. It explained: “Title IX obligates recipients to operate education programs and activities free from sex discrimination, and does not place burdens on students or employees who are seeking to maintain the equal educational access that recipients are obligated to provide.”

One victims’ rights advocate said in a recent interview that she received only two days’ notice that the person she alleged raped her would be questioning her. She was afraid of hearing her attacker’s voice again, and ended up dropping her case. We can’t say whether she would have dropped her case if the hearing process complied with the new regulations, but there are, at least, provisions in the regulations to address several of these factors. She would never have had only two days’ notice of cross-examination.

Between clear policies requiring an opportunity for questioning and the several weeks of aggregate time guaranteed to students as they collect and review evidence, she would not have been caught off-guard in this way. And she wouldn’t have to face her alleged rapist directly — she wouldn’t have to hear his voice if she didn’t want to. With questioning conducted by both parties’ representatives, and with the ability to participate from another room, she would have to endure less direct exposure to her alleged rapist than she did without the regulations.

This is not a comprehensive review of provisions that will help protect complainants, but these examples should at least cast doubt on claims that the regulations benefit only respondents.

Yet, many responses to the regulations have been extreme. Catherine E. Lhamon, chairwoman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights and former ED’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, tweeted: “[Betsy DeVos] presides over taking us back to the bad old days, that predate my birth, when it was permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity.”

FIRE understands that too often, complaints of sexual harassment and assault are not taken seriously, and that FIRE’s mission of defending accused students’ due process rights does not align with everyone’s first priorities. However, it is just not true that affording students more robust due process rights means that anyone can rape and harass “with impunity.”

The physical act of assault — sexual or not — is still prohibited and punishable under university rules and state laws. The determination of whether speech may be punished as discriminatory harassment will follow the same analysis as it has in courts for decades. ED retains the ability to deny funding to institutions governed by Title IX. Schools will be able to mete out more serious punishments with more confidence that respondents found responsible have earned it, and that the case won’t be overturned in court. And, if anything, schools will be less able to hide wrongdoing (including bias in favor of respondents) behind closed doors, from training to investigations to decisions to appeals.

In a similar vein, critics of the regulations assert that the regulations instruct institutions to ignore harassment until a student drops out of school, rather than addressing problems early enough that a complainant can continue her education at that institution. But the supplementary information accompanying the regulations explicitly states that the applicable standard requires only “that a person’s ‘equal’ access to education has been denied, not that a person’s total or entire educational access has been denied”; it “does not require that a complainant has already suffered loss of education before being able to report sexual harassment.”

Again: Read the document yourself.

Meier Commons at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (Ken Wolter / Shutterstock.com)

“But my school already provides a fair disciplinary procedure!”

We’ve spoken with many administrators who think that they already provide procedural safeguards like notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard. But these administrators’ institutions often do not actually guarantee these safeguards; instead, they maintain policies that allow an administrator to grant those safeguards or to omit them, at their discretion. This is problematic on several levels. First, it means that one student (indeed, a complainant or respondent) may be treated better or worse based on an administrator’s personal feelings about them or their case. Such a result cannot stand. Second, it means that many students will, in practice, be denied these procedural safeguards, effectively depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to present their cases.

It’s not enough to have policies that an administrator could theoretically interpret in a way that affords a student procedural safeguards. Policies must be clear and specific enough that they will be applied the same way in all cases, whether applied by the person who wrote them, or a hypothetical administrative robot, or someone who thinks the policies should say the opposite of what they say. And administrators should want this clarity, too. After all, if you went through the trouble of crafting a policy you think is fair, wouldn’t you want it to be applied as you intended if you left the school or something happened to you?

The regulations require this clarity and specificity. And if an administrator thinks their institution already provides these safeguards, surely no harm can come from making that indisputable.

Institutions can’t handle this right now.

Critics of the regulations have argued that now was the wrong time to finalize these regulations. Subsequent headlines described the regulations as “quietly” enacted, as if there hasn’t been constant discussion of their imminence for nearly 18 months among those with an interest. Here’s the timeline:

The regulations were proposed in November 2018. Over 120,000 comments were submitted, and ED had to read and prepare a response to them all. (Hence, also, the length of the supplementary information.) When that was finished, organizations opposing the regulations reportedly (according to a college administrator who also opposes the regulations) implemented a strategy to delay their release for months more. Then COVID-19 hit. Institutions had over a year before then to plan for policy revisions. And without the delay strategy, the regulations may have, indeed, been finalized before this pandemic reached the United States, or at least before it changed the landscape for schools nationwide.

[M]any institutions already have language they can use to comply with the regulations … Institutions do not have to start from scratch.

Delay aside, these opponents of the regulations are essentially arguing that colleges must be required to adjudicate these cases during the pandemic, but that the executive branch is powerless to take steps to ensure they are adjudicated fairly. We doubt the same people would hold this stance if ED had finalized regulations identical to the 2011 Dear Colleague letter. After all, the 2011 letter was enacted without notice and comment and effectively required immediate changes, and we didn’t see objections to the letter on that basis from those who supported the new requirements.

Finally, two practical notes: First, if institutions aren’t looking forward to revising their policies mid-pandemic, they should be even less excited about facing potential litigation for denying respondents due process, especially with an ever-increasing number of rulings in favor of those respondents.

Second, many institutions already have language they can use to comply with the regulations, because they already provide live hearings in non-sexual misconduct cases. These institutions can simply start with this framework, take out language leaving safeguards at the discretion of various administrators, and add in the specific notice and other requirements from the new regulations. Institutions do not have to start from scratch.

A closing note

There are other arguments against the regulations that we will be addressing in the coming weeks and months. We hope that our coverage will serve not only as a source of substantive information about the regulations and their context, but also as a reminder that there are many sources of misinformation out there, including individuals and organizations that should know better.

This is not a black-and-white issue, student rights are not a zero sum game, and there is no easy solution. Not everything in the regulations is exactly what FIRE would have written, or even something FIRE would try to write, given our narrow mission. But the regulations contain many procedural safeguards that ultimately will benefit students on either side of the disciplinary process.

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 Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Stalking Title IX Victims

Analysis: New Title IX Regulation Will Support and Assist Complainants in Multiple Ways

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 8, 2020

Commentators have previously argued that the draft Title IX regulation would be beneficial to victims and survivors of sexual assault. For example, Professor of Political Theory Meg Mott has highlighted “the substantial powers the new rules grant to survivors.”

Following publication of the final regulation, SAVE conducted a detailed analysis to identify ways the final policy will benefit victims of sexual assault and other offenses. The analysis reveals the new regulation benefits victims in seven broad ways:

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. Owens recounts:

“I have one client 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 touching a girl on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of someone else.
“Another of my clients was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.
“One student was charged for tickling his female friend on her stomach, something they had done to each other previously.
“One student was charged for putting his arm around his girlfriend — nothing more.

“I also have cases where the girlfriend files a charge after the couple gets in a fight or breaks up. But when they get back together, the charge still stands. In such cases, you have a couple who had sexual relations 32 times, but number 28 was rape, according to the charge. All the times before and after that were consensual.”

Specific Beneficial Provisions

The new Title IX regulation contains dozens of provisions that are designed to support the rights sexual assault victims. A summary of these 28 provisions is listed in the order that they appear in the regulation:

§106.8(c) Adoption of grievance procedures:

Complainants will be notified of the grievance process, including how to file a complaint and how the institution is expected to respond.

§106.30 Definitions:

Complainants are assured of protection against “quid pro quo” sexual harassment by faculty and staff.
Complainants are assured that unwelcome conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive will not be tolerated at their institution.
Complainants can include allegations sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking in a formal complaint.

School response:

§106.44(a) General response to sexual harassment:
- Complainants are assured their institution must respond promptly to a formal complaint in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent.
- Complainants must be offered supportive measures (with or without filing a formal complaint) and be explained the process for filing a formal complaint.

106.44(b) Response to a formal complaint:
- Complainants are assured that once a formal complaint is filed, a grievance process that complies with the regulation must be followed.

§106.44(c)(d) Emergency removal:
- Complainants are assured that respondents who are deemed an immediate threat to safety will be removed from campus.

§106.45(b)(1) Basic requirements for grievance process:

- Complainants are assured that all remedies and supportive measures are designed to restore or preserve their access to the institution’s educational program or activity
- Complainants are assured they have the right to see all evidence, and that all relevant evidence will be evaluated.
- Complainants are assured of no conflict of interest or bias among the persons involved with evaluating, investigating or decision-making of the formal complaint, or facilitating an informal resolution, and that all parties involved will be properly trained on the processes and all technology involved.
- Complainants are assured of a reasonably prompt timeframe of the grievance process or informal resolution, which still allows for delays for good cause.

§106.45(b)(5) Investigations of a formal complaint:

- Complainants are not responsible for proving an alleged perpetrator’s responsibility.
- Complainant’s medical and therapy records cannot be used for the grievance process without written consent.
- Complainants are allowed to present fact and expert witnesses and inculpatory evidence.
- Complainants are allowed to discuss the allegation with others – no “gag” rules.
- Complainants may have an advisor of their choice (who may be an attorney), and the advisor may participate in the proceedings.

§106.45(b)(6) Hearings:

Complainants must be allowed to cross-examine the alleged perpetrator, and may challenge the alleged perpetrator’s credibility at a live hearing.
Complainants must be provided an advisor free of charge to conduct cross-examination on their behalf

- Complainants’ sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior is considered to be not relevant to the allegation, except under specific circumstances.
- Complainants do not need to be in the same room as the alleged perpetrator, and the live hearing may be conducted virtually.

§106.45(b)(7) Determination of responsibility:

- Complainants are assured the decision-maker will be neutral.
- Complainants must receive written documentation of the steps taken in the adjudication process, in the event they choose to file an OCR complaint or lawsuit.

§106.45(b)(8) Appeals:

- Complainants have the right to appeal determinations regarding responsibility or any dismissal of their complaint.
- Complainants are assured the appeal decision-maker has not been previously involved in the case.

§106.45(b)(9) Informal resolution:

- Complainants can seek an informal resolution once a formal complaint has been filed, and can withdraw from the informal resolution process and resume the formal complaint grievance process at any time
§106.45(b)(10) Recordkeeping:
- Complainants have access to all training materials used to train persons involved in the proceedings of a formal complaint.

106.71 Retaliation
- Complainants are protected from retaliation arising from their complaint.