# data[].attributes.body
I have worked in higher education for eight years and most recently work as an Academic Advisor at Midland College. Upon competition of my Masters of Education in Student Development and Leadership in Higher Education, I aspire to take a leadership role within Student Affairs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option #2: American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option #2: American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) 

# data[].attributes.body
While searching the AACC website, I found an article regarding the House Immigration Bill and DACA students.  The article discusses the importance of granting Dreamers citizenship and how it would benefit not only the student but the county as well.  The AACC is in full support of the Dreamers receiving citizenship.  They also aspire to find a solution for this student population (AACC).

Another topic discussed on the website is the new legislation approved by the House.  The Perkins Career and Technical Education Act will fund additional career and technical education and training programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Border Security and Immigration Reform Act (BSIRA) of 2018 would grant Dreamers contingent non-immigrant status with a subsequent path to citizenship. This is a positive step forward but Congress must do better than what is contained in BSIRA. AACC has joined the other major higher education associations in a letter that expresses appreciation for Congressional efforts to address this issue, but notes that the resulting provisions fall short of a satisfactory solution for Dreamers. The following are some of our specific concerns with these provisions.

First and foremost, the path to permanent legal status and eventual citizenship laid out in BSIRA is too lengthy, costly, and cumbersome, potentially resulting in few Dreamers reaching that goal. In fact, the Cato Institute estimates that BSIRA would only provide a path to citizenship for 18% of the full Dreamer population. While the bill would provide immediate relief to many DACA-eligible people through contingent non-immigrant status, this must be paired with a straightforward path to citizenship.

Community colleges support minimum requirements and the concept that earning citizenship may entail further education, work, or military service. However, granting a path to citizenship to Dreamers should be done mainly to reflect the reality of their situation: they grew up in this country, consider it their home, and make positive contributions to our society. They are citizens in every way but for their legal status. For this reason, a merit-based point system in which Dreamers compete for a limited number of green cards is inappropriate. This is especially true of a system that potentially disadvantages associate degree and certificate holders vis-à-vis Dreamers with more advanced degrees.

For the same reasons, any path to legal status should not be contingent on future appropriations for a border wall, as it is in BSIRA. AACC has no position on the border wall, but it is not right to link the Dreamers' fate to its future funding. Finally, as past supporters of extending the DACA program to older individuals, AACC supports elimination of the provision denying legal status to Dreamers who were older than 31 in 2012, in addition to other steps to broaden the number of Dreamers covered by the legislation.

Community colleges strongly support solving the predicament faced by Dreamers in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion. AACC has long supported the Dream Act and believes that passing that bill or the Uniting and Securing America Act, both of which enjoy bipartisan support, would be the best way forward. In the immediate circumstance, however, should BSIRA progress, we hope that any final legislation would address the concerns laid out above.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis of House Immigration Bill's DACA Provisions - AACC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Border Security and Immigration Reform Act (BSIRA) of 2018 would grant Dreamers contingent non-immigrant status with a subsequent path to citizenship. This is a positive step forward but Congress must do better than what is contained in BSIRA. AACC has joined the other major higher education associations in a letter that expresses appreciation for ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option #2: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option #2: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) 

# data[].attributes.body
The NASPA website had many posts related to higher education issues.  One that stood out to me was a listening session regarding Title IX.  The sessions were conducted in anticipation for the Department of Education changes to the Title IX.  NASPA was able to meet with several higher education administrators and receive feedback relating to the changes.  There has been a lot of controversy over the Title IX proposed changes to the 60-day timeline.  The Department of Education decided to postpone any ruling until later in the fall.

Another topic I found while searching the NASPA website is the topic of free speech.  This is another important topic being discussed around higher education institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back in April, NASPA conducted a series of listening sessions on Title IX in anticipation of what was then expected to be a late April notice of proposed rulemaking announcement from the Department of Education (ED). In anticipation of that process, NASPA held a series of nine listening sessions with more than 250 student affairs administrators. Although the timeline for the NPRM process has since been delayed until September or possibly October, NASPA has compiled several themes from the listening sessions which will ultimately be used to guide NASPA in its official comments to ED as an association. The comments we received represent a diverse range of opinions from student affairs professionals whose roles involve an array of vantage points and connectedness to sexual misconduct cases.

Interim Guidance

Most participants in the listening sessions indicated that they had not made large-scale policy or procedural changes regarding sexual misconduct since the issuance of interim guidance by ED. Many indicated that their institutions had communicated a message to that effect to reassure students that they still plan to take these cases seriously. As the process has been repeatedly delayed, NASPA has continued to hear from members, and to stress to the Department, that existing under interim guidance for so long has also caused frustrations for those doing this work every day on campus.

More or Less Guidance

While there are conflicting feelings among student affairs professionals about the removal of the 60 day timeline under the Obama administration, many participants expressed concern about the complete lack of a timeline under the interim guidance. Among NASPA's priorities for the notice and comment period include encouraging ED to reaffirm the preponderance of the evidence standard for sexual misconduct cases and provide further guidance around the nature of informal resolutions processes that campuses may use.

The 60 Day Question

Some participants in the listening sessions indicated that there was a bit of relief among investigators about the elimination of the 60-day timeline for completing investigations. Other participants expressed unease about there being no timeline or what is meant by the Department's "reasonableness" standard in completing the investigations. And still other participants believed that it will be difficult for both respondents and complainants to invest in a process without clear timelines for how it will take to complete. The greatest point of agreement centered on the idea that if a new timeline is established under future guidance, that clear expectations about calendar days versus academic days and flexibility with regard to the process will be essential.

Informal Resolutions

On this topic again, there were a broad range of opinions. Some participants expressed serious hesitation about opening the door to the use of informal resolutions without more guidance about what type of informal resolutions will be allowed. Others agreed saying that certain types of informal resolutions require well-trained staff to ensure that the processes don't disadvantage either respondents or complainants and that any process used is trauma-informed. Still others indicated that the lifting of the prohibition on informal resolutions will allow them to explore alternatives that are both less adversarial and also very much informed by complainants' wishes.

In many instances, NASPA members who participated in the listening sessions agreed that institutions aren't in a place where they are likely to roll back progress toward better adjudication of campus sexual misconduct that have been achieved in recent years. Many participants indicated that they would continue to keep certain aspects of their current policies, such as appeals processes for both complainants and respondents, regardless of ED's stance that only the respondent must be allowed to access an appeal process.

Overall, NASPA members agree that whatever guidance comes from ED on Title IX, it should be evidence-based and equitable for both parties engaged in a Title IX process. The participants also agreed that ED should continue to work with campuses and those student affairs professionals doing this work every day to engage them on any changes to future guidance. Finally, NASPA members also agree that future guidance should provide protections for students engaged in Title IX misconduct cases, while giving institutions the flexibility to comply with the guidance while meeting the unique needs of their students and campuses.

Please see the following for more information on NASPA's positions on Title IX guidance and trans-student guidance afforded under Title IX. And keep engaged with the NASPA Research and Policy blog for news and updates about forthcoming Title IX guidance from the Department of Education.

Photo Courtesy of Pixabay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Take-Aways on Title IX: Emerging Themes from NASPA's Title IX Listening Sessions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back in April, NASPA conducted a series of listening sessions on Title IX in anticipation of what was then expected to be a late April notice of proposed rulemaking announcement from the Department of Education (ED). In anticipation of that process, NASPA held a series of nine listening sessions with more than 250 student affairs administrators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week's decision by NFL owners to exact penalties on players and teams who choose to kneel in protest during the playing of the national anthem is just the most recent in a long history of concerns around speech and protest - who gets to speak on which topics when and how - in our country. A number of high-profile incidents involving controversial speakers on college campuses in recent years has focused the attention of lawmakers on the idea of a crisis of free speech in higher education. The fact that public institutions of higher education are considered government actors held to the strictures of the First Amendment complicates matters, though there are many threads to the conversations around threats to speech on college campuses and not all of them apply to constitutional rights. This post will review some of those threads and provide examples from some of the nearly 50 pieces of legislation in 30 states that has been introduced or considered in 2018 relating to campus speech.

Congressional Hearings

While most of the legislation concerning speech on campus has been introduced at the state level[1], Congressional legislators have shown increased concern about campus speech holding multiple hearings on the topic in the last year. Most recently, on May 22, 2018, the House Oversight Committee Subcommittees on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules and on Intergovernmental Affairs held a joint hearing addressing the topic ( Challenges to the Freedom of Speech on College Campuses: Part II). The witnesses included several higher education faculty members involved in some of the more publicized campus speech incidents and a number of scholars in the field. There was disagreement both among the witnesses and the Committee members as to whether the challenges to speech on college campuses presents a crisis or are simply a matter of a few extreme and highly publicized incidents that are not representative of the typical campus experience. Notably, most of the witnesses seemed to agree that the best remedy to the concerns was not to legislate additional requirements for college campuses, but rather to continue conspicuous oversight so that campuses remain vigilant in protecting the rights of all their students.

Legislative Oversight & the FORUM Act

Model state legislation proposed by the controversial conservative organization American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) entitled the Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act provides a means for states to do just as the witnesses in last week's Congressional hearing recommend. As we noted in February when we first started tracking the FORUM Act in several states, the bill requires campuses to establish and communicate appropriate policies and procedures around campus speech incidents and creates an accountability process for institutions to report on free speech issues to their state legislatures or Governors. Two states, Virginia ( VA H 344) and Georgia ( GA SB 339), enacted versions of the FORUM Act in 2018, though it failed in five other states: Iowa ( SSB 3120 / SF 2344); Oklahoma ( HB 3586); South Carolina ( H 4440); Washington ( HB 2324); and West Virginia ( SB 111). A version of the bill is still pending in California ( CA SB 1388), though failed passage out of committee in April and is unlikely to progress.

Free Speech Zones & the CAFE Act

Concerns around perennially-controversial free speech zones have led to court cases and the state legislation to prohibit their use. We reviewed the history behind free speech zones in our blog post Campus Free Speech 2017 Legislative Round-up & Considerations Following Charlottesville, and noted that at least one recent court case that may work its way up to the Supreme Court to settle the question nationally. In the meantime, state legislation to prohibit campuses for using free speech zones has been considered in at least nine states in 2018. Most of the legislation includes some or all language in model legislation supported by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education called the Campus Free Expression (CAFE) Act. Some of the bills, such as Louisiana SB 364 passed by the state legislature and awaiting Governor Edwards' signature, combine restrictions on use of free speech zones with language from the FORUM Act to require institutional policies, communication, and annual reporting. Legislation prohibiting free speech zones on colleges campuses is pending in California ( SB 1381 / ACA 14 and AB 2081), Illinois ( SB 1560), New Hampshire ( HB 477), and New York ( A 4066 / S 6126). Four states considered similar legislation but did not pass it: Florida ( SB 1234 & HB 909); Kansas ( SB 340); Nebraska ( LB 718); and South Dakota ( SB 198 / HB 1073).

Intellectual Diversity

Concerns related to intellectual diversity, sometimes predicated on a belief that colleges and college faculty intentionally or inadvertently prompt conservative voices to self-censor, have prompted legislation designed to prohibit institutions and individual faculty from expressing opinions or taking stands on some issues. An optional clause in the FORUM Act prohibits campus leaders from speaking out or taking action as an institution on "the public policy controversies of the day" and several states considered legislation that either requires or recommends that faculty "should be cautious in expressing personal views in the classroom". Legislation in this vein, considered and failed in five states[2], also frequently prohibits free speech zones on campus and removes the ability of college administrators to disallow speakers invited to campus by any student, faculty, or officially recognized group. It should be noted that while self-censorship may indicate a chilled environment that is unwelcoming to some ideas, it does not necessarily constitute an unlawful restriction on speech. Self-censorship should be as much of a concern when historically marginalized or oppressed populations feel unable to speak as it seems to be when conservative students self-censor, but an individual choosing not to speak for fear of social repercussions is not necessarily the same as a government actor actively prohibiting speech. NASPA's Policy and Practice brief Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces: Historical Context and Recommendations for Student Affairs Professionals provides more resources for student affairs professionals looking to foster safe and brave spaces that foster supported risk-taking to reduce self-censorship on their campuses.

Sanctions for Disruptions

Provocateurs - speakers some accuse of speaking only to incite a reaction rather than to consider or discuss ideas in a free and open dialogue - seem to seek out colleges and universities specifically because they are noted defenders of free speech. These speakers may use institutional concerns about student safety as weapons to attack campus leaders, claiming their efforts to keep the peace equate to unconstitutional stifling of speech. Advocates seeking to defend the humanity of individuals of historically marginalized populations on the basis of their race, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or religion are targeted by these provocateurs. Model legislation proposed by the libertarian think-tank The Goldwater Institute in January 2017, and discussed in more depth in our August 2017 blog post, represents the most concerning response to campuses seeking to ensure both free speech and student and campus safety. In addition to prohibiting campuses from disinviting speakers, the Goldwater Proposal legislatively mandates specific sanctions of suspension or expulsion for students who are found to "infringed expressive activity" twice. Given that many of those protesting conservative provocateurs are students representing historically marginalized populations, many of which continue to face increased barriers to accessing and completing higher education, this level of proscribed sanctions is especially concerning. Legislation following the Goldwater Proposal passed in Arizona ( HB 2563), is still pending in California ( SB 472), and failed in Minnesota ( SF 2451 / HF 3394), Oklahoma ( SB 1202), West Virginia ( HB 4203), Wisconsin ( AB 299 / SB 250 & AB 440 / SB 351), and Wyoming ( HB 137).

What Do Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know?

Knowing the policy conversations around campus speech is only part of the responsibility of student affairs professionals. Nimble and knowledgeable responses to emerging incidents have long been part of student affairs, though the many tangled threads of the campus speech conversation, as highlighted above, require careful consideration and planning. In November 2017, NASPA Public Policy Division held a virtual Town Hall discussion on free speech on college campuses featuring Bobby Woodard, Vice President of Student Affairs at Auburn University, and Allen W. Groves, University Dean of Students at the University of Virginia. Both speakers provided detailed descriptions of recent events on their campuses involving controversial speakers, including their preparations and lessons learned. NASPA is committed to providing the latest information and analysis to our members and is proud to announce a new Policy and Practice brief on The First Amendment and the Inclusive Campus: Effective Strategies for Leaders in Student Affairs. This brief offers strategies to address key aspects of managing controversial speakers and demonstrations on college and university campuses. Further, it provides ideas and examples for challenging divisive speech when appropriate; that is, engaging such speech as an opportunity for reflection and action in order to uphold the values and promote the intellectual vitality of our campus communities. We are also happy to welcome those who will be attending Free Speech vs. the Inclusive Campus: An Unending Struggle in Alexandria, Virginia Sunday and Monday! As always, if there are particular policy conversations we can provide more information on to help you help your campus and your students, please let us know!

Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net); retrieved from Wikimedia Commons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Untangling the Threads: 2018 State Legislation Addressing Campus Speech Concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week's decision by NFL owners to exact penalties on players and teams who choose to kneel in protest during the playing of the national anthem is just the most recent in a long history of concerns around speech and protest - who gets to speak on which topics when and how - in our country.

# data[].attributes.body
Another article recently published on Inside Higher Ed discusses the dismissal of a Dean of Education as she advocated for a harassment free workplace.  The University offered Christine Zeppos to leave quieting, but when she refused she was dismissed (Whitford, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many a dean leaves the position amid some disagreements with higher-ups, and with a polite announcement about returning to faculty duties. But Christine Zeppos isn't such a departing dean. She posted to Facebook her view that she was forced out of her position at Brandman University after advocating for a harassment-free workplace.

Before her employment as dean of the School of Education was terminated Friday, Zeppos said, the university first offered her a severance package and the opportunity to resign if she agreed to confidentiality. She said no and chose instead to speak up about what she described as "culture of gender bias, discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and defamation" at Brandman.

Zeppos spent eight years at Brandman, a private college in Irvine, Calif., and part of the Chapman University system, before she was fired Friday. In a Facebook post, Zeppos wrote that the decision to terminate her employment was made in late July, and she believed it was a result of her "vocal insistence that women at the university be afforded a harassment-free environment, as well as the same HR processes and practices afforded to our male colleagues -- particularly in higher levels."

She is currently planning to file a complaint in state court to challenge the university's decision. Joseph Preis is representing Zeppos, and wrote in an email that he believes the outcome of the case will be "reinstatement, damages and a positive change to the environment and culture" at Brandman.

It was unusual for Preis, who usually represents defendants, to take on Zeppos's case. "We take on a select few (very few) plaintiff cases in an effort to effect positive change where there is a demonstrably acute need for that change," Preis wrote in an email.

Preis and Zeppos declined to discuss specifics of her allegations.

Brandman University denied Zeppos's allegations in the statement below.

"Brandman University is deeply committed to providing an inclusive, welcoming environment for our students and faculty which emphasizes respect for all individuals regardless of race, gender, age, religion, sexual or gender orientation. We take any allegation contrary to this commitment extremely seriously," the statement read. "We regularly follow a specific and thorough process for investigating claims that includes independent, third-party review, in accordance with our published Code of Ethics, Equal Employment Opportunity and Title IX policies. We categorically deny the allegations being made against the university and stand behind a process that was both fair and thorough. Preserving an environment of inclusion is essential to fulfilling our mission as a university and we will continue to work to ensure that all students and faculty are welcome and treated with the respect they deserve."

Gary Brahm, Brandman University chancellor, echoed the statement in an email to Brandman faculty and staff.

"While we appreciate the contributions that Dean Zeppos made during her tenure, the decision to replace Dr. Zeppos was made following a very thorough, independent, third-party review," he wrote. "We categorically deny the allegations being made against the university and fully stand behind the process that led to this decision."

Several other former and current Brandman employees, who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, spoke with Inside Higher Ed and agreed with Zeppos's descriptions of gender bias, discrimination and hostility among Brandman's leadership. They also named other current and former employees who had experienced discrimination or been forced out of their positions in instances similar to Zeppos's.

Brahm declined to comment on the anonymous allegations and did not answer questions about whether the university has plans to change the work environment or culture.

Zeppos hopes that Daniele Struppa, Chapman University president, and the Board of Regents will re-examine the situation.

"I have faith that the Board of Regents, and specifically Chapman President Daniele Struppa, will take a close look at this situation (now that he is aware) and perhaps ensure that justice prevails," Zeppos wrote in her Facebook post.​

A petition calling for Zeppos's reinstatement has been circulating on social media. Nearly 300 supporters had signed it as of Tuesday evening.

"Brandman University needs to recognize how this decision impacts their reputation and the retention and recruitment of students. The values Brandman purports do not match their actions against Dr. Zeppos," the petition read. "Please sign and share this petition to show our solidarity and support for Dr. Zeppos. We demand reinstatement at the same position or higher with the same compensation and authority as Dr. Zeppos' male counterparts."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dean says she was fired for fighting workplace harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many a dean leaves the position amid some disagreements with higher-ups, and with a polite announcement about returning to faculty duties. But Christine Zeppos isn't such a departing dean. She posted to Facebook her view that she was forced out of her position at Brandman University after advocating for a harassment-free workplace.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal and Ethical Issue of Interest to me: Title IX

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal and Ethical Issue of Interest to me: Title IX

# data[].attributes.body
For the purpose of this assignment, I chose to continue researching the topic of Title IX.  Title IX and how colleges handle certain situations has been on the spotlight over the last year.  I think understanding the law and regulations as it pertains to Title IX is important for higher education professionals.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Role of Title IX Coordinators on College and University Campuses 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Role of Title IX Coordinators on College and University Campuses 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701-1201, USA

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Title IX coordinators; college campus; sexual violence

1. Introduction

Sexual violence against college women continues to be a pervasive public health issue with approximately one in five women experiencing sexual assault and one in nine women experiencing rape while in college [ 1, 2, 3]. In 2011, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) [ 4] issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) [ 5] focused on the need to address sexual violence under Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 (Title IX) [ 6], which prohibits gender-based discrimination in educational programming or activities receiving federal funding. Specifically, the letter stated that "The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students' right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime." In response to these guidelines, the United States Department of Education began investigating Title IX violations. They have subsequently released a list of college campuses under investigation for mishandling or inappropriately handling cases of sexual violence in accordance with Title IX. The list, which started out with 55 campuses in 2014, has increased to 337 active investigations for possible mishandling of reports of sexual violence at 242 colleges as of 2018 (see the Chronicle of Higher Education Title IX Tracker [ 7]).

Originally established for the first time within OCR's 2001 guidance document and again within the 2011 DCL, campuses must appoint a specific Title IX coordinator with the primary responsibility of coordinating campus compliance with Title IX, including grievance procedures for resolving Title IX complaints. The Title IX coordinator is responsible for coordinating responses to all complaints involving possible sex discrimination. This responsibility includes monitoring outcomes, identifying and addressing any patterns, and assessing effects on the campus climate. Such coordination can help campuses avoid Title IX violations, particularly violations involving sexual harassment and violence, by preventing incidents from recurring or becoming systemic problems that affect the wider community.

However, there is little, if any, empirical research that has examined the role of Title IX coordinators regarding how they handle Title IX complaints, their training, background, and their specific knowledge of campus resources and Title IX federal legislation. Title IX coordinators directly impact campus response to victims of sexual violence and, as the number of OCR investigations rises, are increasingly under pressure to manage this issue within institutions of higher education. The purpose of this study was to better understand the role of Title IX coordinators and their Title IX policies across four-year public/private universities and two-year community colleges in the United States (U.S.). A better understanding of these coordinators on campuses could assist in the effort to develop or improve current campuses and their Title IX policies and programming. It could also provide information that can assist campuses in understanding how to improve their Title IX presence to help victims to better understand the resources available to them.

1.1. History of Title IX Guidelines

Title IX of the Education Amendments (1972) is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in higher education. In 1990, the Clery Act (also known as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act) [ 8] was amended to the federal financial aid laws to require all college campuses to disclose their campus crime statistics and security information. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) [ 9], established in 1994, provided legal definitions of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and was added to the crimes disclosed under the Clery Act [ 8].

In 2001, the Department of Education issued Revised Harassment Guidance [ 10], which first noted the legal obligation of schools to establish one individual on campus who would be responsible for all matters relating to Title IX compliance. This individual is required to have appropriate training on the law and the issues covered under it. In 2011, the Department of Education issued two letters regarding Title IX protections, including a new Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance [ 10], which reiterated that "schools are to ensure that employees are trained so that those with authority to address harassment know how to respond effectively". ORC also issued the Dear Colleague Letter [ 5], which stated unequivocally that all education institutions, including college campuses (both public and private), as well as K-12 secondary schools, must take immediate action to eliminate hostile environments, prevent recurrences, and address any effects. The letter also provided specific guidance procedures: campuses and schools must adopt and publish grievance procedures; employees must be trained to know how to report to officials (including teachers, law enforcement, administrators, counselors, general legal counsels, health personnel, and residential assistants (RAs)); polices must be published that include a notice of nondiscrimination; and all of these must be combined with education and training programs. In addition, their appointed Title IX coordinator must be easily accessible for all students and employees and must be included on a campus webpage that lists their name and contact information. And if more than one coordinator exists, campuses and schools must decide who will handle cases separately for students and faculty. The DCL also indicated that Title IX coordinators should not have any other job responsibilities that may create a conflict of interest (e.g., serving as general legal counsel). They must have adequate training on sexual harassment, sexual assault, and all grievance procedures that include equitable and prompt resolutions. Their resolutions can include voluntary mediation, but this was not strongly encouraged for sexual assault complaints. Lastly, "prompt time frames for major stages of the complaint process" (DCL, [ 5], p. 9) were defined as 60 calendar days following the receipt of a complaint.

According to OCR, there are certain rules campuses should abide by when dealing with Title IX issues. Not only is it difficult to determine whether campuses even abide by these rules, there is very little information about their entire processes given that campuses across the country operate differently. In terms of student conduct boards and appeal panels, there is no empirical research that examines who hears sexual assault cases and meets with victims and perpetrators. There is also little research that assesses whether Title IX coordinators are creating mandatory training sessions for those handling cases at the campus-level, especially given that one study discovered that approximately 30% of universities did not train the persons on the hearing panels [ 11].

1.2. Campus Responses

Prior to the 2011 guidance document published by OCR, Karjane, Fisher, and Cullen [ 12] assessed campus policies from 2438 institutions of higher education (IHE) and found that: 97% of campuses did not have anti-stalking measures in their school policies, only 46% had a separate sexual harassment policy; only 20% even mentioned harassment in their policies; 25% of schools did not provide a Title IX coordinators' contact information; 40% of campuses were not training their students or faculty in regards to Title IX policies; and training was only mandatory in 34% of campuses. Following the 2011 updated guidelines and the DCL [ 5], Amar et al.'s study [ 13] included over 1000 campus administrators at four-year universities and found that most campuses were using hearing panels for their investigations that included students, faculty, staff, and administrators. However, 33% of those campuses reported a single decisionmaker, usually an individual within the Student Affairs department not associated with the case or an outside investigator. When respondents were found responsible for sexual misconduct, sanctions varied from suspension, expulsion, no-contact orders, counseling, community service hours, restitution, or fines.

Richards [ 14] conducted a follow-up study to Karjane et al. [ 12] with 820 IHEs, and found that 95% of campuses had a Title IX policy, 67% of campuses identified a Title IX coordinator, and 81% of campuses listed their policies and procedures regarding Title IX. However, the specific training and level of commitment of the Title IX coordinators were missing from these studies. Recently, Paul [ 15] conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 college campuses' Title IX coordinators. Most coordinators reported that their jobs were a challenging 'beast' when describing the amount of work and responsibility of their Title IX position. Most wore 'multiple hats' in that they had dual roles/jobs on their campuses, with the majority working in either Student Affairs (33%) or Human Resources (27%) departments. Only 20% had more than four years of experience, while 80% had less than five years of experience. Most were appointed to their position or absorbed the role for various reasons; however, they were not relieved of any other duties and received no increase in their salary. One woman stated "that in order to shift the culture around sexual misconduct, there needed to be more investment in organizational learning than just naming a person" [ 15] (p. 66). Coordinators reported that their roles were emotionally charging and heavy at times, as they needed to know how to work the university political system in terms of getting resources and making things happen. They also needed to be well known by the campus community, which they found challenging. But the dominant theme that emerged from these 15 Title IX coordinators was that connecting to college faculty and training them on Title IX was the most challenging, as they were the "hardest nuts to crack" [ 15] (p. 80). Lastly, one coordinator stated: "The target keeps moving. The rules sometimes keep changing. The interpretation of things is changing. It's not always black and white, so that's one of the challenges" [ 15] (p. 78). Thus, most felt that it was difficult to keep up with changing regulations and the complex issues of Title IX. Time also seemed to be a huge issue; coordinators stated that it was difficult to close cases within 60 days, especially when they held other full-time jobs.

Federal guidelines remain a moving target for administrators; in September 2017, the newly installed republican Secretary of Education reversed many of the newly established policies within the 2011 DCL and the revised guidelines. She also reversed a 2001-established guideline, which strongly discouraged utilizing mediation as a means for adjudication. The current OCR ended the requirement that IHEs utilize the preponderance of evidence standard in adjudicating complaints [ 16]. Currently, the Department of Education has not released the promised revised guidelines. However, attorneys and advocates have indicated in media reports that a large percentage of colleges have ignored this guidance and are maintaining their policies based on the DCL authored by the previous administration [ 17].

In general, many four-year public and private colleges offer a variety of educational programs (e.g., rape awareness and prevention programs) and on- and off-campus services to victims (e.g., counseling, hotlines, and peer support) and have implemented security measures (e.g., card access to buildings and improved lighting) to address the risk of sexual victimization [ 18, 19, 20]. Some campuses have developed or improved sexual assault reporting procedures and investigative training of their public safety/law enforcement officers [ 21]. Most postsecondary institutions, particularly larger public and private colleges, also offer on-campus disciplinary procedures for sexual assault cases. Despite the emergence of concern about the sexual victimization of college students, little empirical research has been published about the Title IX process and the role of coordinators in addressing sexual violence on campus through prevention, support services, reporting, investigation, and adjudication.

1.3. The Current Study

One of the fastest growing fields within Student Affairs departments on college campuses is Title IX-related jobs [ 22]. The qualifications needed are substantial (listening skills, organization, and follow-through) with unpredictable hours, and they have to be extremely knowledgeable about sexual violence and Title IX, yet they must remain neutral and unbiased at all times. Typically their jobs are tacked onto other job duties, with no extra time or pay allotted [ 23]. The job is also stressful with no room for error as students are relying on them to make some of the most important decisions in students' lives. As well, there are changing rules and regulations from OCR and Title IX policies of which coordinators and campuses must be aware, or they could be held accountable (i.e., OCR Title IX investigations). Using empirical data, the aim of this study was to use an exploratory design to understand the roles of a national sample of Title IX coordinators from two-year community colleges and four-year private and public universities. The purpose was to examine Title IX coordinators' backgrounds, training, accessibility, sexual assault policies, and practices on their respective campuses. Understanding how campuses are responding to the ever-changing and often confusing guidelines could inform future policymakers seeking to prevent and adjudicate campus sexual violence.

2. Methods

Procedures and Participants

According to a recent National Center for Education Statistics report [ 24], there were 17 million undergraduate students in the United States attending degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are identified as institutions that are four- or two-year institutions and either public or private (for nonprofit). The focus was on these campuses (excluding those outside the geographical U.S.) with a student enrollment of at least 1000 students. Approximately 850 two-year community colleges and 1478 four-year public and private-nonprofit universities were identified via the Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool provided by the Office of Postsecondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education [ 25]. First, using Google to search campus websites, a team of researchers (including the primary author, a graduate student, and undergraduate students) created a database that included campus Title IX coordinators' names, emails, and other pertinent information that could be derived from campus websites. After collecting the list of names and emails, an online, close-ended, 54-question survey via Qualtrics was created and sent to the Title IX coordinators. The survey was completely anonymous with no identifying information regarding names or campus names to protect all individuals and their respective campuses. Participants were given an incentive opportunity where if they chose to participate by including their email address, one random winner would be chosen for a one-day, free training through the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) [ 26]. Institutional Review Board (IRB) was approved by the primary institution prior to data collection.

A wide range of descriptive information was documented about each campus website, such as whether a Title IX coordinator was listed (and if so, whether their name, their position/title, and email were available), whether a process for Title IX or sexual assault reporting was presented, and whether the website offered an online link for anonymous or confidential reporting for students. For the online survey, coordinators provided general demographic information, as well as answered questions regarding Title IX policies and procedures (i.e., reporting structures) on their campuses.

Researchers identified 850 two-year community colleges with student enrollment ranging from 1005 to 91,179 students. Of those, 785 campuses (92%) listed a Title IX coordinator email on their campus website; however, only 765 emails (90%) were able to be delivered due to emails bouncing. There were 1478 four-year universities identified (n = 614 public, n = 864 private-nonprofit) with student enrollment ranging from 1000 to 66,046 students. Approximately 1448 campuses (98%) listed a Title IX coordinator email on their campus website; however, only 1394 emails (94%) were delivered, due to some emails bouncing.

A total of 718 Title IX coordinators participated in the online survey; however, 26 were removed because the majority of their answers were missing. Thus, the final sample included 692 Title IX coordinators across four-year (private: n = 281; public: n = 198) and two-year campuses (n = 213) and represented 42 different states in the US, for a total response rate of 32%. Of the participants, 7% of their campuses were located in metropolis areas, 22% were located in urban areas, 32% were located in suburban areas, and 40% were located in rural or small-town areas.

Of the 692 Title IX coordinators who participated in the survey, most identified as female (70%), and the average age was 48 (SD = 10.22), ranging from 25 to 78. Most coordinators (71%) identified as Caucasian/White, 16% as African American/Black, 4% as Hispanic/Latino, and 9% as mixed ethnicity or "other". The majority (31%) reported that their salaries were between $100,000 and $149,999, while 29% reported $75,000-$99,999, 24% reported $50,000-$74,999, 12% reported $15,000-$49,999, and 4% did not disclose. As for education backgrounds, 47% reported having a master's degree, 22% had a J.D., 20% had a Ph.D., 8% had a bachelor's degree, and 3% reported "other". The majority of the respondents (94%) reported that they were the primary Title IX coordinator; however, only 33% indicated that this was a full-time position. Some coordinators (18%) reported that they were also the investigator, and 11% reported additional duties (i.e., deputy coordinator or a mixture of these roles). The range of time spent in their Title IX role varied: 18% reported less than one year of experience, 25% had 1-2 years, 22% had 2-3 years, 19% had 3-5 years, 11% had 5-10 years, and 6% reported more than 10 years of experience.

3. Results

3.1. Campus Websites

When researching two-year community college websites, 725 (out of 850; 85%) had a webpage with information regarding their Title IX process. Approximately 793 campuses (93%) listed the name of their Title IX coordinator, and 785 (92%) listed an email of the Title IX coordinator. As for website information regarding Title IX policies, 671 community colleges (79%) listed their policy, but only 101 community college campuses (12%) provided an online link for students to report an incident, and only 57 campuses (7%) provided an anonymous link.

When researching four-year university campuses, 1367 (out of 1478; 92%) had a webpage with information regarding their Title IX process. Approximately 1443 campuses (98%) listed the name of their Title IX coordinator, and 1448 (98%) listed an email of the Title IX coordinator. As for website information regarding Title IX policies, 1173 universities (79%) listed their policy, but only 348 universities (24%) provided an online link for students to report an incident, and only 206 universities (14%) provided an anonymous link.

3.2. Online Survey

There were a wide range of academic roles that the Title IX coordinator was also involved in on their campus: 25% were in Human Resources departments, 16% in Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/EEO roles, 12% in Student Affairs departments as Dean or Director, 10% in Student Affairs departments as Vice President/Chancellor, 20% reported "other" (i.e., in Admissions, Affirmative Action, Student Activities, or Compliance departments or in general counsel, Clery Act coordinator, or advisor roles), and 17% were in a variety of other areas (i.e., Academic Affairs, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Athletics, Compliance, Financial Operations, or the Office of the Provost). With respect to reporting structures on their campuses, the majority (48%) indicated that they report to the President or Chancellor, while 13% report to Student Affairs departments, 8% to the Vice President for Administrative Affairs or Business/Finance, 6% to Human Resources departments, 5% to general counsel/legal departments, 4% to Academic Dean/Provost, 3% to Equity/Inclusion departments, and 13% to "other"; and few (less than 5%) reported to multiple areas. As for their Title IX investigation methods, the majority (72%) reported using multiple methods: 52% use team investigation, 44% have panel adjudication/decisionmakers, 39% use a single investigator (who does not decide), 37% have appellate bodies or offices (when appeals are done), 23% use a single investigator/decisionmaker model, 21% have single decision makers, and 6% reported using another method. Approximately 202 Title IX coordinators reported that their appellate bodies were made up of various entities: administrators, faculty/staff, students, presidents, and provosts.

When a Title IX complaint is received, coordinators reported that an average of 43% of their cases are resolved in adjudication, 18% of their cases are resolved in mediation, 37% are resolved in investigation without adjudication, and 34% are resolved in an informal method (not mediation). If a Title IX complaint required adjudication, the majority (37%) of decisions are made by the Title IX coordinator, while 14% are made by hearing panels (made up of students, faculty, staff, and administrators), 7% by the investigator, 5% by the hearing officer, and 17% reported "other" (such as a deputy or various other entities on campus).

The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter [ 5] sought to establish prompt resolution for investigations by campus officials. Specifically, it states that it should not take longer than 60 days from start to finish. The average length of Title IX coordinators' campus investigation lasted 48 days and ranged up to 270 days (SD = 30.52). Overall, of the 485 coordinators that responded to this question, 15% (n = 73) reported that the average case at their institution surpasses the 60-day threshold. Currently, while the new administration's Department of Education drafts new guidelines, this threshold has been removed.

Title IX coordinators reported various organizations and memberships of which they were a part: 52% were affiliated with ATIXA [ 26], 13% with the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) [ 27], 23% with Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) [ 28], 11% were Greek-affiliated alumni members, and 8% were former campus athletes. As for training, see Table 1 for a list of the various trainings that Title IX coordinators reported for themselves, investigators, and hearing panels, as well as which ones they felt were most helpful. The majority felt they were trained to do their job (88%) and reported that their investigators (82%) and hearing panels (64%) were also well trained.

As a means of ensuring that policies evolve to meet particular, campus-specific needs, the 2011 DCL [ 5] strongly recommends a campus climate survey. The majority of coordinators (57%) reported that they had completed a campus climate survey, 15% had not done so, and 28% were in the planning stages of conducting a survey. Nearly every Title IX coordinator surveyed (97%) provides Title IX training for their students and faculty, and of those, 63% of campuses require mandatory training for students and 78% for faculty.

Lastly, we examined whether there were differences among the three types of campuses (i.e., four-year private, four-year public, and two-year community colleges). First, the age (F = 4.17, p < 0.02) of the Title IX coordinators was significantly younger at four-year public universities (M = 45.91, SD = 9.90) compared to two-year community colleges (M = 48.84, SD = 9.69), but there were no differences in age compared to four-year private universities (M = 47.80, SD = 10.71). There were significantly fewer women in the role of Title IX coordinator at two-year community colleges compared to four-year universities (x ² = 14.64, p < 0.02). Title IX coordinators were less likely to be at full-time positions at two-year community colleges (18%) as compared to four-year private (39%) and four-year public (43%) campuses (x ² = 49.56, p < 0.001). There were no other differences among the three types of campuses in terms of demographics, reporting structures, or policies.

4. Discussion

The current study assessed the role of Title IX coordinators and their policies at 692 college campuses (including two-year community colleges, and four-year private and public universities) representing 42 different states (see Table 2). Similar to Paul's [ 15] interviews with 15 Title IX coordinators, the current study found that most coordinators wore multiple hats, with 67% of them indicating that their Title IX role was part-time. Their university roles were primarily in Human Resources, Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/EEO, or Student Affairs departments or other various roles on campuses. And their role as Title IX coordinator was relatively recent, as 65% had less than three years of experience. This was in light of the fact that the majority of decisions were made by the Title IX coordinators when adjudication was required, which was on average 43% of the time. The burden placed on these part-time administrators is noteworthy. It is not surprising, therefore, that it took coordinators an average of 48 days to conduct the full investigation and decision-making process, which is under the 60-day limit by the Dear Colleague Letter [ 5]; however, the time taken to complete the Title IX processes ranged up to 270 days for some Title IX coordinators, which is concerning.

Due to the lack of knowledge regarding the training that Title IX coordinators receive, the current study assessed organizations and trainings in which they participated, as well as their investigators and hearing panels, if applicable. In general, the majority of Title IX coordinators felt that they were well-trained to do their jobs, along with their investigators, while there seemed to be some concern regarding hearing panels. When asked if they believed that their appellate bodies, regardless of their specific makeup, were adequately trained, 26% answered no. More confidence was shown in investigators and when self-reporting on their own training, with 61% of institutions having confidence in both. There is certainly room for improvement in this area.

The majority of Title IX coordinators were current members of and trained with ATIXA [ 26], as were their investigators and hearing panels. ATIXA was noted as the most helpful of all of the training methods available for learning about the Title IX process. As noted on ATIXA's webpage, their mission is to bring "campus and district Title IX coordinators and administrators into professional collaboration to explore best practices, share resources, and advance the worthy goal of gender equity in education". ATIXA was founded by NCHERM (The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management [ 29]), which is the leading law firm with expertise in Title IX compliance, litigation, and expert witness services. Since 2010, ATIXA has provided a Title IX coordinator training and certification course, thus it is not surprising that it was the most commonly reported training resource used by campus Title IX coordinators.

There was an increase from 40% of campuses [ 14] to 97% of campuses in the current study that reported providing Title IX training for their students and faculty; and the majority of those campuses stated it was mandatory training, which is certainly significant. The majority (57%) of Title IX coordinators in the current study reported that they had completed a campus climate survey. In addition, 28% of the current study's coordinators were planning to conduct a survey, whereas 15% had not completed a survey. In a survey of 440 four-year public/private IHEs, McCaskill [ 30] found that only 16% of campuses had conducted an annual campus climate survey. However, this may have been due to timing (the report was only released in 2014), whereas now it has been several years, and surveys are much easier to distribute due to national companies that assist with campus climate surveys (e.g., Administrator Researcher Campus Climate Consortium (ARC3), Association of American Universities (AAU), and Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium (HEDS) [ 31, 32, 33]). Campus climate surveys are considered one of the most accurate ways to capture the rates of campus sexual assaults [ 34], yet they must also ensure student confidentiality and be short and electronically accessible with incentives to increase participation (e.g., only 7-53% of students responded to the AAU Climate Survey across 27 campuses [ 1]), as well as use variables that assess schools' rates of sexual assault [ 35]. There is a lack of knowledge on the part of schools when they fail to survey their students. Schools that rely strictly on victim reporting, as some schools do, likely get relatively few reports in comparison to the sexual violence actually occurring [ 34]. Victims' reasons for not reporting are dominated by beliefs that others, especially those in positions of authority, will not believe the victim [ 36, 37, 38]. According to the AAU survey [ 1], the primary reason for not reporting an incident was that the victim deemed it not important enough. Going forward, campuses should continue to increase the accessibility of policies, links, and Title IX coordinator information, along with campus climate surveys (by making these public surveys) and training of the university communities, which have all increased substantially in the last few years on college campuses. The increase of these preventative measures demonstrates at least some consistency with the spirit of the 2011 revised guidelines, which, as previously noted, are still utilized by a large contingent of institutions of higher education despite their recent revocation.

The Dear Colleague Letter [ 5] encouraged institutions to value requests for confidentiality by stating that "the school should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the request for confidentiality" (p. 5). While progress has also been shown in this area, only 24% of campuses currently provided an online link for students to report an incident, and a mere 14% provided an anonymous link. Karjane, Fisher, and Cullen [ 12] found that having this option is essential as it "allows student victims to come forward and talk to a trusted school official without the possibility of losing control of the process" (p. 93).

The current study found that 216 Title IX coordinators resolved approximately one out of five (18%) of their cases with mediation. With the revocation of the 2011 DCL, mediation has now been deemed an appropriate way to resolve sexual assault allegations in the interim. This is a stark change from the guidance provided by the Office of Civil Rights under the last few administrations [ 4]. Mediation is not a productive means to adjudicate sexual assaults and could perpetuate already low reporting numbers. Koss, Wilgus, and Williamsen [ 39] explained that

"responses to sexual misconduct must acknowledge and obviate the negative effects of societal and individual norms that operate to silence victims and create opportunities for reabuse. When someone has been harmed by another person, mediation that provides neutrality and treats parties as equal partners in the resolution process is inappropriate".

As such, they argue that this is not an effective or appropriate way to combat campus sexual violence.

The 2011 guidelines note that a Title IX coordinator should not have employment responsibilities that could be a conflict of interest with those of the Title IX coordinator; the document specifically notes that an example of this conflict would be an individual serving as both Title IX coordinator and general counsel. The current study found that this situation does not exist in the majority of campuses. However, there were several campuses who may have a conflict of interest because they use a dual Title IX coordinator/general counsel role, in addition to some coordinators who report directly to general counsel. The conflict of interest with such a structure could easily undermine the entire Title IX process on a campus.

Lastly, one would expect campuses to vary widely in their Title IX processes; however, the current study found that there were few differences among the four-year private and public and two-year community college campuses. It was not surprising that coordinators were less likely to be full-time at two-year community colleges, when it is likely that those campuses have less finances to fund a full-time Title IX coordinator, as compared to four-year universities, which may have more finances and higher student enrollment.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

These analyses provide important empirical insights to the roles of Title IX coordinators and their policies on college campuses in the US. Although the response rate was low (32%) for participation among 2100 possible Title IX coordinators, the current study did provide a national sample that included 692 coordinators/campuses from 42 different states. Even though the responses were anonymous, reporting such controversial and sensitive information could have resulted in social repercussions. Universities face a dilemma because being honest may help them to appear as though they want to end violence against women by encouraging reporting and drawing attention to the problem, but perhaps at the risk of gaining a reputation as a dangerous campus [ 34]. Lastly, the survey did not assess what was working in the Title IX processes on these campuses. Title IX processes and methods (e.g., hearing panels, single investigator, and appellate bodies) that work for one university may not work for another, and thus it is important for future research to assess what types of processes and policies are working more than others, in order to create a better process for both complainants and respondents. This could also help improve communication among all campuses, as there seems to be little, if any, collaboration of campuses regarding their Title IX policies and structures. Lastly, these findings may not only benefit college campuses, they may also overlap with K-12 secondary educational policies and help assist Title IX coordinators working with high schoolers; very little is known about the sexual assault rates among high schoolers, as well as what OCR guidelines K-12 schools are following, although recent research is addressing this gap [ 41].

Future research should examine the number of Title IX cases that occur on campuses, the outcome of those cases, the punishment (if any), and the demographics of the students involved. The Clery Act requires colleges that receive federal funding to disseminate an annual security report to the public every year, and it must include statistics of campus crime, plus details about efforts taken to improve campus safety. The primary purpose of requiring schools to report campus crime data is to provide students, faculty, and staff with an accurate portrayal of crime statistics. However, research [ 12, 42, 43] suggests that most universities underreport Clery statistics. However, a recent study done by Krebs et al. [ 44] concluded that their climate survey produced comparable results to Clery reports in rates of reported rape, which is promising. But for sexual violence to be included in Clery data, victims must know where to report; however, neither victims nor non-victims are likely to know the location of their school's campus sexual assault center [ 45]. Although the current study found that Title IX coordinators and their contact information is indeed accessible via webpages, assessing whether students are actually aware of what Title IX is or what their campus coordinators do is clearly warranted. Thus, campuses should continue to educate students about Title IX, who their coordinators are, and how those Title IX coordinators can address student issues.

4.2. Conclusions

Overall, campuses are taking a diverse approach in their Title IX policies and adjudication, highlighting the challenges university administrators face. The Title IX coordinator position has become a critical and controversial figure in efforts to deal with sexual violence and its effects on campuses. While most regard the DCL [ 5] as being well-intentioned and one of the most comprehensive approaches to reducing campus sexual violence, the document has left much room for interpretation and, consequently, could lead to costly and protracted legal disputes [ 46]. This is evidenced by the large number of Title IX investigations coming from OCR and the news media. However, the work of a Title IX coordinator is not well understood by the public or even the campus community. It is important that Title IX coordinators be fully supported by the campus community, including administrators and faculty [ 15]. In general, Title IX coordinators need to be given full-time positions with additional resources to do their jobs better. The overwhelming pressure, changing policies, the unpopular position, and having to deliver hard news makes this one of the hardest and highest turnover jobs in the country [ 23]. The current study was able to shed light on how Title IX coordinators do their jobs and the role they play in helping with the challenging issues surrounding sexual violence at institutions across the nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Role of Title IX Coordinators on College and University Campuses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The purpose of this study was to better understand the role of Title IX coordinators and their policies across four-year universities and two-year community colleges in the United States (U.S.). There is little information regarding Title IX coordinators' training, background, and policies on how they handle Title IX investigations regarding sexual violence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option #3: Inside Higher Ed 

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option #3: Inside Higher Ed 

# data[].attributes.body
An article published on Inside Higher Ed (2018) discusses the Texas campus carry law approved in 2015.  The law allows concealed weapons on college campus including classrooms.  Instructors at UT challenged the law and brought a federal lawsuit suggesting it would violet their first amendment rights.  The lawsuit was rejected by the courts (Jaschik, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected a challenge by three professors to the 2015 campus carry law in Texas, which permits those who hold permits to carry concealed weapons to have their guns present on public college and university campuses, including in classrooms.

The law has alarmed many academics in the state. Leaders of the state's public universities opposed the measure but have argued that they have no choice but to carry it out now that it is law. Three professors at the University of Texas at Austin filed a federal lawsuit charging, among other things, that their First Amendment rights were violated by the law. They said that fear of students using guns in class would discourage discussion of controversial topics. A federal judge rejected the lawsuit in 2017, but the professors appealed and their appeal received backing from the American Association of University Professors, among others.

Last week's ruling, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upheld the 2017 decision.

In the appeal, the professors argued that classroom speech would be "dampened to some degree by the fear" it could lead to violence by students in class who have "one or more handguns hidden but at the ready if the gun owner is moved to anger and impulsive action." Many classroom topics are controversial and can leave some students angry, the professors noted. Further, the lawsuit noted that professors who barred guns from their classrooms would be violating the regulations UT put in place to carry out the law and would be subject to punishment.

The appeals court said that for the professors' argument to be valid, there must be certainty that gun violence would take place.

The flaw in the professors' argument, the decision says, is "that none of the cited evidence alleges a certainty that a license-holder will illegally brandish a firearm in a classroom," the decision says. "Ultimately, whether concealed-carrying students pose certain harm ... turns on their independent decision-making. Because [the professors fail] to allege certainty as to how these students will exercise their future judgment, the alleged harm is not certainly impending."

Many faculty members have opposed campus carry in Texas and elsewhere, but the legal argument made by the professors in Texas stands out among other efforts to oppose state campus carry laws.

Mia Carter, associate professor of English at UT Austin and one of the professors who sued, said via email that she and her colleagues were not certain on next steps. However, she said, campus carry must be opposed.

"We are disappointed, but not especially surprised by the decision in the Fifth Circuit," she said via email. "It is going to be a long, difficult, and complicated battle to get common sense gun laws in our country. It is going to take a village of citizens to ensure that the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association's 'normal' of loaded lethal weapons in all public spaces at all times does not become a reality. We will not blithely accept the weaponization of the educational environment as the new normal."

The AAUP brief filed in the case said that the law was a direct challenge to academic freedom. The "decision whether to permit or exclude handguns in a given classroom is, at bottom, a decision about educational policy and pedagogical strategy," the brief says.

"It predictably affects not only the choice of course materials, but how a particular professor can and should interact with her students -- how far she should press a student or a class to wrestle with unsettling ideas, how trenchantly and forthrightly she can evaluate student work. Permitting handguns in the classroom also affects the extent to which faculty can or should prompt students to challenge each other. The law and policy thus implicate concerns at the very core of academic freedom: They compel faculty to alter their pedagogical choices, deprive them of the decision to exclude guns from their classrooms, and censor their protected speech."

Quinn Cox, Southeast regional director of Students for Concealed Carry, issued a statement Sunday praising the appeals court's decision.

"I am pleased to see this two-year-old law upheld," Cox said. "Once again, opponents of campus carry have failed to provide evidence that campus carry makes college campuses less safe or inhibits the free exchange of ideas. In Texas, vetted, licensed adults have been allowed to take their concealed firearms into places like movie theaters, churches, and public libraries for more than 20 years. It is silly to think that expanding this law to include the buildings of public colleges would somehow violate the U.S. Constitution."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal appeals court rejects challenge to the Texas campus carry law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected a challenge by three professors to the 2015 campus carry law in Texas, which permits those who hold permits to carry concealed weapons to have their guns present on public college and university campuses, including in classrooms. The law has alarmed many academics in the state.

# data[].attributes.body
Title IX

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-1328
Revised August 2021

Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Scope of Title IX
Title IX applies to schools, local and state educational agencies, and other institutions that receive federal financial assistance from the Department. These recipients include approximately 17,600 local school districts, over 5,000 postsecondary institutions, and charter schools, for-profit schools, libraries, and museums. Also included are vocational rehabilitation agencies and education agencies of 50 states, the District of Columbia, and territories of the United States.

A recipient institution that receives Department funds must operate its education program or activity in a nondiscriminatory manner free of discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Some key issue areas in which recipients have Title IX obligations are: recruitment, admissions, and counseling; financial assistance; athletics; sex-based harassment, which encompasses sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence; treatment of pregnant and parenting students; treatment of LGBTQI+ students; discipline; single-sex education; and employment. Also, 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 its implementing regulations, or because the individual has made a report or complaint, testified, assisted, or participated or refused to participate in a proceeding under Title IX. For a recipient to retaliate in any way is considered a violation of Title IX. The Department's Title IX regulations (Volume 34, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 106) provide additional information about the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title IX.

OCR's Enforcement of Title IX

OCR vigorously enforces Title IX to ensure that institutions that receive federal financial assistance from the Department comply with the law. OCR evaluates, investigates, and resolves complaints alleging sex discrimination. OCR also conducts proactive investigations, through directed investigations or compliance reviews, to examine potential systemic violations based on sources of information other than complaints.

In addition to its enforcement activities, OCR provides information and guidance to schools, universities and other educational institutions and agencies to assist them in voluntarily complying with the law.

To learn more about filing a complaint with OCR, please visit
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html. For assistance related to Title IX or other civil rights laws, please contact OCR at OCR@ed.gov or 800-421-3481, TDD 800-877-8339.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille or large print. For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0818 or via e-mail at alternateformatcenter@ed.gov. If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800- 872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), email us at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov, or write to U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20202.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities which receive Federal financial assistance.

# data[].attributes.body
Dunlap, J.(2018). Take-aways on title IX: Emerging themes from NASPA’s title IX listening sessions.  NASPA. Retrieved from: https://www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/take-aways-on-title-ix-emerging-themes-from-naspas-title-ix-listening-sessi

Jaschik, S. (2018) Federal appeals court rejects challenge to campus carry law. Inside Higher Ed. Retried from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/20/federal-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-texas-campus-carry-law

Title IX and Sex Discrimination. (2015). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html

Whitford, E. (2018). Departure with a message. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/22/dean-says-she-was-fired-fighting-workplace-harassment

Wiersma-Mosley, J. D. & Diloreto, J. (2018). The role of Title IX coordinators on college and university campuses. Behavioral Sciences, Vol 8, Iss 4, P 38 (2018), (4), 38. doi:10.3390/bs8040038

# data[].attributes.body
Title IX states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (Department of Education).

It is the responsibility of college and university to understand the laws, requirements, and abide to those under Title IX.  According to Mosley and Diloreto (2018), 337 colleges were under investigation for not complying or mishandling sexual violence reports.  There are many legal consequences for not complying with Title IX policies, as well as not following up with reports in a timely manner, including lawsuits and loss of federal funding.  Disciplinary procedures at the college level do not result in criminal sentence.  Usually the evidence gathered by the school allows a hearing panel to determine lasting implications for both the student's personal and college life.  The Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) helps colleges meet good standards for resolving Title IX cases (ASCA, n.d).

As an Advisor and higher education employee, I need to be aware of the procedures and requirements relating to Title IX.  Advisors are the first to make connections with students and continue to build relationships throughout the semesters.  Students may feel more comfortable reporting issues to a persona they know and being aware of what steps need to be taken is important.  Colleges have the responsibility to keep all of their students safe.  Training faculty and staff on current trends and interventions is vital.