# data[].attributes.body
What's next?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Online courses -- and especially the special brand of massive open classes that emerged earlier this decade -- have helped colleges expand their reach geographically as well as educationally; they are far likelier today than they were a decade or more ago to be educating students in, and from, other countries.

An unfolding lawsuit shows that a key federal law may not be keeping up with that reality.

The case in question may be familiar to Inside Higher Ed readers and fans of physics, because it involves the former Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor emeritus Walter Lewin, whose enigmatic teaching videos have millions of views on YouTube. However, no videos of Lewin remain on any official MIT platforms. They were removed after an internal investigation at MIT found that Lewin had sexually harassed one of his students online, and consequently his " For the Love of Physics " MOOC, and his emeritus title, were removed.

Lewin's accuser, Faïza Harbi, is now suing MIT and Lewin for compensation for the emotional distress she says she suffered as a result of Lewin's conduct. Harbi's legal team has made claims under tort law, state antidiscrimination laws and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal statute that prohibits gender-based discrimination in educational programs.

Both MIT and Lewin tried to dismiss Harbi's claims, but they have only been partially successful. On Sept. 1, the federal judge in the case ruled that six of the nine claims that Harbi made would stand -- including a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against MIT. Harbi's Title IX claim, however, was dismissed.

Were Harbi an American, or an international student living in the U.S., her Title IX claim would likely have stood. However, as the judge explained in his ruling, because Harbi is French and was living in France, she did not qualify for protection under Title IX.
'Title IX May Well Be Outdated'
Explaining his decision to dismiss Harbi's Title IX claim, Judge F. Dennis Saylor said that "no reported case appears to have examined the precise question at issue here: whether Title IX protects a person abroad with respect to conduct committed in the United States and transmitted over the internet."

Given that online learning allows students to be located anywhere in the world, Judge Saylor said that Title IX, enacted in 1972 with (understandably) no mention of the internet, "may well be outdated." Despite this, Saylor said, it was not his job to dispute the law -- "this court is not empowered to 'fix' outdated statutes, no matter how worthy the goal may be."

Ted Folkman, a lawyer at Murphy & King who has written about the Harbi case on his blog, said the issue comes down to extraterritoriality -- a "hot topic" in legal circles. "Congress wrote into the statute a limitation on who is entitled to the law's protection and expressly excluded people not in the United States. Judge Saylor's view [that Title IX does not apply to Harbi] is probably right, because there is a general presumption that federal laws do not have extraterritorial effect, and the words of the statute seem to reinforce that presumption here," Folkman said via email. "It would be up to Congress to extend the law's protection to foreign students studying abroad."

Adele Kimmel, a senior lawyer at Public Justice, said it is understood that Title IX applies to any university or college that receives federal funds, even if that institution is completely online. But she concurred with Saylor's assertion that while the law covers international students taking online courses while living in the U.S., it does not cover international students residing in another country. "Separate from Title IX, students may have protections under state antidiscrimination laws, but this will vary from state to state," said Kimmel.
Looking for Guidance
Laura Dunn, founder and executive director of SurvJustice, which offers legal assistance to survivors of sexual violence on campus, said that she would like to see a thoughtful discussion about the limitations of Title IX, but she doesn't expect the law to change. "Of course the issue of extraterritoriality comes up -- how can you enforce a law from one country in another country?" she said. "For now, I think the statute as written offers pretty significant protection for students."

The Harbi case has, however, highlighted the need for more direction on how Title IX should be applied in contemporary situations, said Dunn. "This is an issue that would be perfect for [Education Department] guidance," she said.

Khalilah Burton, assistant provost for institutional effectiveness and accreditation at Columbia Southern University, an online-only institution, agreed that there are areas in which Title IX guidance could be improved. "I'll be interested to see in the future whether there are changes regarding clarity in the regulations for online interactions, not necessarily just at online schools ... Brick-and-mortar institutions are having larger online platforms, and they will need guidance as well," she said.

Burton said that her institution, a for-profit in Alabama, would treat all its students as if they were protected by Title IX, no matter where they were located. Jennifer Kalfsbeek-Goetz, dean of student learning and Title IX coordinator at Moorpark College, in California, said that her institution would do the same. "The most conservative look at Title IX or the Clery Act [a federal law relating to campus safety] might suggest that students have to be in the geography of the campus for it to apply. However, we would certainly consider an online classroom to be within the space of our campus," said Kalfsbeek-Goetz.

Dunn, Burton and Kalfsbeek-Goetz all agreed that beyond having a Title IX coordinator and ensuring that employees have suitable training, institutions should ensure that the policies they provide to students and staff regarding expected behavior are clear.

Dunn suggested that institutions with online learning options, and even study abroad programs (where there is some confusion whether American students studying outside the country are covered), should contractually extend Title IX protections to students outside the U.S. "The relationship between that school and student is still there in that other country -- that doesn't disappear. Schools could be progressive beyond the limitations of the law to assure students are protected," said Dunn.

Asked what incentive there would be for colleges to do this, Dunn said, "I think schools do what people ask them to do, or what they will get in trouble for not doing. If a group of parents banded together and asked for this, I think some schools, perhaps some more progressive ones, would do it."
The Social Media Problem
Billie Dziech, a professor of English at the University of Cincinnati and co-author of The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus, said institutions need to do more to acknowledge the responsibility they have for students online. "It's not as if the technology just appeared out of nowhere. We've known for a long time that online courses were going to pose all kinds of responsibilities to us."

Dziech said that students engaging in online learning should be able to expect that courses be delivered "in a professional manner." Very little is known about the prevalence of sexual harassment in the context of online learning, said Dziech, but she suspects that online-only students could be less likely to report incidents of harassment than campus-based students who have closer ties with their institution.

To combat this, Dziech suggested that faculty members and students be encouraged to report inappropriate exchanges they see or experience online. She added that institutions should also have clear and strict penalties for breaking the rules -- not just a "slap on the wrist."

"If a professor sends someone's 18-year-old daughter a picture of their private parts, and we send them on a Title IX sexual harassment training course, that accomplishes nothing. It sends a message to other faculty that they can do the same sort of stuff," said Dziech. As a preventative measure, Dziech suggested that faculty should agree, as a condition of them being hired or keeping tenure, to not communicate with students through social media. "Why would a professor need to contact a student on Facebook? What's wrong with using your .edu email?" asked Dziech.

In court documents, Harbi's legal team said that Lewin originally reached out to Harbi through a Facebook group she created for students taking his MOOC. Evidence shared in court by Harbi's legal team suggests the nature of Harbi and Lewin's communications through Facebook, email and Skype quickly crossed professional lines -- with Harbi telling Lewin how she struggled to concentrate on her studies because of a history of sexual abuse, and Lewin offering to help her gain confidence by teaching her to masturbate.

Communicating through social media makes it almost impossible for institutions to spot red flags, said Stephen Downes, a senior researcher in online learning for Canada's National Research Council. He said that online education providers typically encourage communications through their own discussion forums or Listservs, but there have always been cases of students and professors communicating by other means. "If there's a way to message someone, people have been using it," said Downes.

Unlike Dziech, Downes doesn't believe a social media communication ban is necessary. Instead, he made an appeal to common sense online. "I don't wish to sound naïve, but why don't people, especially those in positions of power, just behave better online? Forget the legalisms, forget the codes of conduct. Just behave better. That would be my No. 1 suggestion," said Downes.

"This isn't an issue that's specific to online courses, education or social media. It seems odd to me that people would think because something is online that they can behave differently. If you wouldn't say it face-to-face to a person, why say it online?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abroad and online -- beyond Title IX's reach?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Online courses -- and especially the special brand of massive open classes that emerged earlier this decade -- have helped colleges expand their reach geographically as well as educationally; they are far likelier today than they were a decade or more ago to be educating students in, and from, other countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration drew back Title IX guidance on campus sexual misconduct on Friday, replacing it with "interim" guidance in the form of a question-and-answer document.

U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos promised to rescind previous guidance earlier this month, saying that "the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students." She declared the "era of rule by letter" to be over, pledging to create new regulation after a public comment and notice period.

Last week, DeVos introduced new interim instructions to institutions while the department waits to implement a more formal rulemaking process. In a statement, the secretary said that the new guidance was an attempt to ensure that all students are treated fairly, be they the victim or the accused.

"Schools must continue to confront these horrific crimes and behaviors head-on," DeVos said. "There will be no more sweeping them under the rug. But the process also must be fair and impartial, giving everyone more confidence in its outcomes."

The new guidance contained several important changes. One particularly controversial element of the Obama-era 2011 mandate was its call for schools to use the preponderance of evidence standard - a lower standard of proof - when adjudicating campus sexual assault. Under the ED's new question-and- answer document, institutions may now use either a preponderance of the evidence standard or a clear and convincing evidence standard.

Bisi Okubadejo, an attorney who served in the Office for Civil Rights during both the Bush and Obama administrations, said that the new policy leaves some leverage for schools to maintain the status quo, at least until ED issues more formal guidance. "I think in at least the near term, most schools are likely to implement their existing Title IX policies," Okubadejo said. "While the rescission of the letter obviously is significant I think there still remains flexibility for schools to retain aspects of their current practices," Okubadejo said.

Sexual assault survivors argue that the changes represent a step backwards.

"I think this new question-and-answer document shows that Betsy DeVos is more concerned about protecting students who are accused of sexual assault than students who are survivors," said Alyssa Peterson, policy and advocacy coordinator at Know Your IX, a survivor and youth-led organization that empowers students to end sexual and dating violence at their schools.

The new guidance removed a prior recommendation that schools complete investigations within a 60-day period. ED instead specifies that "there is no fixed time frame under which a school must complete a Title IX investigations." Sexual assault survivors and their advocates had viewed the Office for Civil Rights' previous call to schools to conclude investigations within a specific timeframe as a win, since without that recommendation schools could drag investigations on indefinitely if they so desired.

Schools will now be allowed to resort to informal resolutions to sexual misconduct cases, including mediations between the complainant and the respondent, provided that both parties voluntarily agree to the arrangement. Institutions may also choose to allow appeals to their decisions. If so, they may either choose to allow the option of appeal to respondents alone, or to respondents and complainants equally.

"I think [this] is just another sign of how they want to stack the deck against survivors and are completely misunderstanding what the Title IX process is about," Peterson said. "It's about equal access to education. They're moving towards a quasi-criminal system, which is not what Title IX is nor what it is intended to do."

Some said they were disheartened but unsurprised by the new guidance.

"I think anyone who has been paying attention to the Trump candidacy through to his administration is very aware that Title IX has been on the cutting block as part of any progressive Obama legacy and that there have been concerted efforts from conservative groups for quite some time now attacking the Dear Colleague letter and trying to chip away at it," said Laura Dunn, executive director of SurvJustice, a national nonprofit that advocates for victims.

"I think this should point out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration," Dunn continued. "They're not here because they're concerned about rule by letter. They just issued a letter [themselves]."

Others counted Friday as a victory for due process rights. "When the government sprang its 2011 letter on colleges and students without warning, it made it impossible for campuses to serve the needs of victims while also respecting the rights of the accused," FIRE executive director Robert Shibley said in a statement. "With the end of this destructive policy, we finally have the opportunity to get it right."
Staff writer Catherine Morris can be reached at cmorris@diverseeducation.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DeVos Rolls Back Obama Title IX Rules on Campus Sexual Assault

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration drew back Title IX guidance on campus sexual misconduct on Friday, replacing it with "interim" guidance in the form of a question-and-answer document. U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos promised to rescind previous guidance earlier this month, saying that "the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued guidance Friday granting colleges new discretion in how they comply with requirements under federal Title IX law to resolve and adjudicate allegations of sexual misconduct on campus.

DeVos at the same time rescinded 2011 and 2014 guidelines issued by the Obama administration that survivor advocates say have been critical in pushing for new protections, including guarantees that victims of assault are not denied access to an education. The department's Office for Civil Rights will use the new guidance document to assess institutions' compliance with Title IX until a promised federal regulation dealing with campus sexual misconduct is finalized.

The new guidance from the department grants colleges the ability to set their own evidentiary standard for misconduct findings, to pursue informal resolutions such as mediation and to establish an appeals process for disciplinary sanctions. It also includes language dealing with protections for accused students.

"This interim guidance will help schools as they work to combat sexual misconduct and will treat all students fairly," DeVos said in a written statement. "Schools must continue to confront these horrific crimes and behaviors head-on. There will be no more sweeping them under the rug. But the process also must be fair and impartial, giving everyone more confidence in its outcomes."

The 2011 Obama administration guidance, frequently referred to as the Dear Colleague letter, became a focus of ongoing controversy over federal Title IX policy in recent years, even though it drew largely on already existing guidelines and federal law. Congressional Republicans as well as groups that advocated for more "due process" protections for accused students argued that the administration overreached and had issued new mandates through the guidance process without appropriate formal input.

Advocates for survivors of sexual assault called the document -- and the decision to rescind the Obama guidance -- a betrayal of protections long fought for on campuses. And they said language issued by the department tips the scales toward protecting the rights of accused students, rather than victims, noting that sexual misconduct only in recent years became recognized as a major issue to be addressed in higher education.

Some higher education organizations were receptive to the additional flexibility in resolving misconduct complaints, however. And longtime critics of the Dear Colleague letter praised the secretary's focus on fairness for accused students.

Colleges and universities are unlikely to undertake major changes to existing policies after the release of the new federal guidelines, at least immediately. A binding regulation should be finalized sometime in the next year to 18 months. But advocates said the document released Friday rolls back clear protections and removes clarification colleges themselves had asked for to better fulfill their responsibilities under Title IX.

"It sets up a system where schools can, with the consent of the department, stack the deck against us in a way that is just profoundly unfair," said Alyssa Peterson, a policy and advocacy coordinator with Know Your IX, a group that works to end sexual violence on campuses.

Among the notable changes from previous guidelines:

Colleges can apply either a preponderance of evidence standard or a clear and convincing evidence standard to reach findings about alleged misconduct. Previous guidance from the Obama administration stated clearly that institutions should use the preponderance standard, which sets a lower burden or proof for findings of misconduct.

The department says there is "no fixed time frame" under which a school must complete a Title IX investigation. The 2011 guidance stated that a "typical investigation" takes about 60 days after a complaint is made but said more complex cases could take longer.

Campuses may opt to set an appeals process policy that allows appeals by both parties or by accused students only.

Where colleges determine it is appropriate, the new guidelines say they may facilitate an "informal resolution" such as mediation.

Reactions to the New Guidance
The guidance released Friday said campus administrators have an obligation to respond when they know or should reasonably know of incidents of sexual misconduct, whether or not a student files a complaint. And it clarifies that existing voluntary resolution agreements reached between the Office for Civil Rights and institutions remain in effect.

"When the government sprang its 2011 letter on colleges and students without warning, it made it impossible for campuses to serve the needs of victims while also respecting the rights of the accused," Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group that's been highly critical of Obama administration policies on Title IX, said in a written statement. "With the end of this destructive policy, we finally have the opportunity to get it right."

While the 2011 Dear Colleague letter didn't go through a formal comment process, it was preceded by discussions and meetings with students, parents and administrators, including multiple visits to campuses. (Survivor advocates have noted no such public engagement preceded the rescinding of the DCL or the release of the new guidance Friday.) It also drew heavily on 2001 guidance on Title IX that did go through a formal notice and comment period, advocates say.

DeVos initially offered no comment on the 2011 letter when discussing federal Title IX policy this summer, even as she said current federal policy should be improved. In a one-day Title IX summit in July that included a meeting with university presidents and campus lawyers, no higher education institutions called for the department to rescind the letter. But in a speech earlier this month, the secretary blasted Obama administration policies and said the guidance had created a "failed system" that encouraged violations of students' rights. Proponents of the Obama-era guidance noted that it made clear that both parties involved in campus proceedings should get equal treatment.

And they say language in the interim guidance issued by DeVos could make the process less equitable for victims of sexual misconduct. Survivor advocates, for example, point to the directions regarding appeals as allowing a system less fair to victims. They say a mention of cross examination doesn't clarify how it would be handled appropriately and would potentially open the possibility of campuses allowing victims to be questioned directly by their alleged assailants and worry that administrators could push victims into mediation when it's not in their best interest. And although colleges rarely completed investigations within the 60 day timeframe suggested in previous guidance, advocates say the Q&A includes no benchmark to push schools to act more quickly to resolve complaints of misconduct.

"This is all a roll back," Peterson said. "There's nothing they did that affirmatively advanced our rights."

Naomi Shatz, a lawyer with the firm Zalkind Duncan and Bernstein, who represents students in campus disciplinary proceedings, said the new instructions from the department do make meaningful clarifications spelling out that both parties are entitled to see and respond to investigative findings before a decision is reached on alleged misconduct. However, she said she didn't expect major changes to campus policies in response to the guidance document.

"They're not going to turn on a dime and revamp everything based on nonbinding recommendations, especially when they know there are going to be binding regulations coming out," Shatz said.

Higher education groups made similar comments Friday, even as they said colleges would have serious work to do to determine the effects of the new guidance document. Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, said the new guidelines provide some additional flexibility to schools that were not there before. But the department's decision to rescind Obama administration guidance wouldn't affect the commitment of colleges to address sexual assault, he said.

"There are some things where institutions will have to take a careful look at their own practices relative to what the new guidance requires," he said. "The default setting on this for most institutions will continue to be to do what we have been doing."

Campus administrators handling Title IX investigations said they do not anticipate altering their processes following the new directive.

"It won't change our response to sexual misconduct; we're not going to change our current policy in any way and we're going to await formal guidance from the department," said Howard Kallem, Duke University's director for Title IX compliance. "We're focused on making sure Duke continues to have a fair and balanced and transparent process, and we think we do."

Crystal C. Coombes, the senior deputy Title IX coordinator at the University of South Florida, said she was pleasantly surprised by the department's action.

This changes little for her institution, Coombes said, and seems to hark back instead to Title IX guidance issued in 2001. She said some colleges were not abiding by the rules the 2001 guidance established, and that the 2011 Dear Colleague letter served as a "stronger fist" for some of those older requirements. Most institutions operate far beyond the minimum standards required by the 2011 guidance, she said.

Coombes complimented the removal of the 60-day window for investigations, saying it was "very, very rare" that the entire process could be wrapped up in two months.

While the new information does allow colleges to choose between two standards of evidence, Coombes said the preponderance standard is preferred because "clear and convincing" comes too close to a judicial model that does not fit in a university setting.

Eric Butler, the Title IX coordinator at the University of Denver, agreed on the evidentiary standard, saying that preponderance should remain.

"This is not a criminal proceeding, even though people like to compare it to criminal proceedings," Butler said. "The government should have to hop through every possible hoop to send someone to jail. Part of this is controlling its community; a student has to agree to certain standards of conduct, and sexual misconduct is one of them."

The department's communications seemed to emphasize only the rights of the accused, said Butler, highlighting that universities can pick whether to extend appeal rights to both parties -- or just the accused.

Amy Foerster, general counsel at Bucknell University, said there is a perception among some that the steps taken by DeVos were necessitated by the fact that colleges and universities have been getting Title IX wrong.

"I simply don't think that's the case as a general rule," she said. "Colleges and universities have been working really hard over the last several years to ensure that they have processes that provide a level of fundamental fairness for all students involved in these really difficult cases."

Proponents of the Obama guidelines say many institutions have made progress in recent years, while others still have significant work to do. Alexandra Brodsky, a lawyer and fellow at the National Women's Law Center, said many colleges will read DeVos's actions as a signal to slow down their efforts to improve protections for students.

"I also worry about schools that have been and continue to be hostile, and have really chafed at the department's calls to respect students' rights," she said. "I think the overwhelming thing we have heard from schools is that they wanted guidance, they wanted help, they wanted clarity."

DeVos's decision will make the work of those colleges harder, Brodsky said.

Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for civil rights at the department during the Obama administration, said DeVos's action showed that the federal government is no longer looking out for students.

"The Trump administration's new guidance is dangerously silent on critical parts of Title IX. This backward step invites colleges to once again sweep sexual violence under the rug," she said in a written statement. "Students deserve better, the law demands better, our college and university community must continue to commit to better, and we as a country must demand more from the U.S. Department of Education."
-- Jeremy Bauer-Wolf contributed to this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Department releases interim directions for Title IX compliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued guidance Friday granting colleges new discretion in how they comply with requirements under federal Title IX law to resolve and adjudicate allegations of sexual misconduct on campus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Campus Sexual Assault Under Investigation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore hundreds of cases opened in the recent wave of federal enforcement of Title IX.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, the Secretary of Education issued a new Title IX guidance Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) and a companion Q&A document that rescinds the 2011 DCL and the 2014 Q&A guidance issued by the Department of Education during the Obama administration. This move was signaled by Secretary DeVos earlier this month when she stated that the era of "rule by letter" is over and that a review and comment process would be initiated around future Title IX guidance. In an interview with CBS following her remarks, Ms. DeVos indicated that the she intended to repeal at least part of the 2011 DCL to move campuses toward a more strict standard of evidence in sexual assault cases, though today's guidance does not take that step.

Today's DCL does not require campuses to alter the basic policies and principles they use currently to resolve sexual misconduct cases. While it does remove the obligation to use "preponderance of the evidence" as the standard, it does not require campuses to use a stricter standard. Campuses are under no requirement to change their current standard of evidence, and we encourage them not to in response to today's guidance. Perhaps more concerning, though, is the removal of any timeline for case resolution. While the 60-day resolution requirement previously required may have been too short, the absence of any timeline risks leaving both survivors and accused in perpetual states of limbo awaiting adjudication. The past seven years have seen significant work on campuses across the country in developing fair and equitable process to resolve Title IX cases, a significant increase in education and prevention efforts, and an increase in services and supports for victims of sexual violence. We strongly believe that our campuses have the best interests of students in mind and that, as Terry Hartle, vice president at the American Council on Education, has said, "No school is going to go back to doing what they were doing before the 2011 guidance."

NASPA and the Higher Education community welcome the opportunity for a review and comment process and subsequent negotiated rulemaking as ED develops new guidance. This will insure that any new guidance reflects important perspectives from campus-based student affairs professionals and Title IX staff who engage in this work every day. It would also allow for input from the victims advocate community, whose work has provided systems to support victims and survivors of sexual assault.

We also would welcome a more collaborative relationship between the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and colleges and universities. The sentiment that colleges have an interest in "sweeping sexual assault under the rug" is not based in any evidence and belies the fact that creating fair and equitable processes related to sexual violence and creating supports for victims of sexual assault has been and always will be a prime motivation of education institutions. While there are examples of egregious behavior around sexual assault that exist, sadly often involving high-profile college athletic teams, the vast majority of campuses work hard every day to get it right. We need an OCR that will work with campuses to improve and clarify guidance, not an OCR that is determined to catch an institution doing something wrong.

As review and comment proceed, we will support keeping the preponderance of evidence standard that, as S. Daniel Carter stated in the Huffington Post, "has long been upheld by courts that have evaluated the due process protections of educational conduct proceedings which aren't criminal proceedings". Singling out sexual assault incidents as requiring a higher burden of proof than other civil rights serves only to silence survivors and perpetuate rape culture on our campuses.

As we move forward in future guidance, let us also not forget the brave survivors who have overcome barriers to reporting in an attempt to pursue justice. Data indicate that survivor reports of sexual assault and false accusations against student respondents do not occur at the same rate, as more than 90% of survivors do not report their experiences to the campus, while only between 2% and 8% of sexual assault reports are false. These data make a clear point: respondents are not being falsely accused at rates even approaching the underreporting of sexual assault incidents. It is clear that as the Department considers a new process, one that accounts for both the accused and victims, the context of the data and information gathered from the field is integral to selecting an appropriate set of guidelines.

NASPA stands by the student affairs professionals and advocates who work on behalf of students every day and who have spent countless hours in extensive training to ensure that campuses are handling these cases appropriately. We hope to provide examples of best practice and tangible examples that counter Secretary DeVos's characterization of campus proceedings as "kangaroo courts." This is frankly insulting and undermines the efforts of higher education professionals who have worked tirelessly alongside the Department of Education to correct the few examples of flawed processes on campuses. That is, after all, the role of OCR: to address the exceptions where a process or proceeding errs too far in favoring one side or the other. To imply that such missteps are the norm on all campuses is a misrepresentation of the many professionals who have dedicated their careers to ensuring fair and equitable campus conduct proceedings.

Our national conversation around campus sexual assault has evolved greatly since the Obama administration directly addressed the culture of under-reporting on college campuses. NASPA will continue to work alongside higher education professionals to advocate for the continued protection of students who have experienced harm at our institutions and will vehemently challenge actions that would return them to silent endurance of their trauma. This work is far from over, and together, I hope we can move toward rather than against efforts to protect students on our campuses.

For now, until the review and comment process and negotiated rulemaking results in more guidance, campuses will have to make sense of the most recent Q&A. To begin this conversation, NASPA and ASCA will host an informational webinar next week to discuss the implications of this new guidance. We hope you will tune in.

Register now for Title IX Turmoil: Initial Analysis and Next Steps After the Withdrawal of the 2011 DCL
Wednesday, September 27 | 3:00 - 4:00 pm ET | Free
co-sponsored by ASCA

Moderated by Kevin Kruger, NASPA President and Tanya L. Jachimiak, Director, Title IX Office, Wake Forest University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Initial Response to latest from DOE on Title IX

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, the Secretary of Education issued a new Title IX guidance Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) and a companion Q&A document that rescinds the 2011 DCL and the 2014 Q&A guidance issued by the Department of Education during the Obama administration.