# data[].attributes.body
I currently work as an Instructional Designer for the military at Goodfellow, Air Force Base (AFB). This legal padlet is a resource guide for employees at military installations to help them understand civilian legal requirements related to sexual assault. I chose this topic because sexual assault and harassment is a pervasive problem in the military. Although the military has separate military law, known as courts-martial, it is important to understand compliance related to civilian legal requirements. Additionally, military professionals should know and understand reporting procedures and how to respond to allegations.

# data[].attributes.body
I spoke with Kimberly Henry, a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Victim Advocate for Goodfellow, AFB, about the SAPR program and their role in training and compliance.

Why is SAPR Training Important to Employees of Higher Education

Ms. Henry explained it is crucial to implement measures geared towards the prevention of sexual assaults, rather than just taking a reactive approach. A key to prevention is training and educating all populations - staff, students, leadership, family, and first responders. The increase in sexual assaults across the military has urged SAPR programs across the world to take a more proactive stance towards training. The training discusses what sexual assault is, what behaviors are appropriate, and what resources are available.

Best Practices in SAPR

Ms. Henry discussed three best practices for educating staff and students on SAPR:
1) In-processing training is provided to all staff and students at Goodfellow. This is the first interaction and establishes the foundation for expectations.
2) Reiteration training is provided 3-6 months after arrival and allows the SAPR Victim Advocates to dive deeper into the training.
3) Separate training is provided to leadership each month. Consistent reminders to the leadership on proper prevention techniques and adequate response enables them to take an active approach within their departments.

Emerging Issues

Ms. Henry expressed a couple of emerging issues related to SAPR in the military. The first is social media. The various communication techniques are adding complexity to sexual harassment and sexual assault cases. In 2017, a large scandal within the military came to light, where members were posting pictures to a website of naked members. Due to this scandal, the military can now punish service members through courts-martial if caught forwarding or posting provocative photographs. Additionally, Ms. Henry spoke to how our culture and society are changing with regard to the 'norm.' Sexual conduct now is viewed differently than in the past. Having explicit policies regarding what is and what is not appropriate is imperative.

Reference
(K. Henry, personal communication, September 17, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The official website of Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, Texas, home of the 17th Training Wing (17TRW)

# data[].attributes.body
The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) has taken an active stance in violence prevention. Each year they host the Sexual Violence Prevention and Response Conference to bring professionals together to address sexual violence in education. NASPA is dedicated to creating lasting cultural change and address the root causes.

Reference
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2018). 2020 NASPA Strategies Conferences. Retrieved from https://www.naspa.org/events/2020strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
January 16 - January 18, 2020
New Orleans, LA

The 2020 NASPA Strategies Conferences provide student affairs practitioners with the knowledge and skills to effectively address collegiate alcohol and drug abuse prevention, mental health, sexual violence prevention and response, and well-being through a variety of comprehensive and integrative approaches.

Your registration allows you to customize your program track even if your interests cover more than one topic - NASPA Strategies converges four conferences in one!

Check back often - as details are finalized our website will be updated on a rolling basis.

Log-in and Register

Important Dates

About

The convergence of the NASPA Alcohol, Other Drug, and Violence Prevention, Mental Health, Sexual Violence Prevention and Response, and the Well-Being and Health Promotion Leadership conferences allows campus practitioners a unique opportunity to learn, network and engage.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

NASPA will apply for continuing education through NBCC, NCHEC (for CHES and MCHES credits), NASW, and the APA through our partnership with the Association of University College Counseling Center Directors. The amount of credits that will be available for the conference will depend upon which sessions are selected by our conference committees. In the past, continuing education credits have been available during every breakout session block for the entirety of the conference. The full schedule and continuing education qualifications will be available by October 2019.

National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC)

NASPA will apply through NBCC for Continuing Education Credits for this conference. Additional information about credit hours will be available by October 2019. Programs that do not qualify for NBCC credit are clearly identified. NASPA is solely responsible for all aspects of the programs.

To receive credit, please complete a reporting form available at the registration desk. In addition, you must complete an online evaluation of individual sessions, which will be emailed to you shortly after the conference. A certificate of completion will be sent via email after the form has been processed and approved.

National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc. (NCHEC)

NASPA will apply through NCHEC for Continuing Education Credits for this conference. NASPA is a designated provider of continuing education contact hours (CECH) in health education by the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc.

To receive credit, please complete a paper evaluation of each individual session that you attend. Forms are available to pick up at the registration desk. A certificate of completion will be sent via email after the form has been processed and approved, and individual hours will be reported to NCHEC in April.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW)

To receive credit, please complete a reporting form available at the registration desk. In addition, you must complete an online evaluation of individual sessions, which will be emailed to you shortly after the conference. A certificate of completion will be sent via email after the form has been processed and approved.

Continuing Education for Psychologists

NASPA thanks the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors for sponsoring this continuing education opportunity for psychologists. Not all sessions are available for continuing education (CE) credit. Sessions which are eligible for APA credit will be identified within the program book.

Participants who would like to receive APA credit must stop by the registration desk to pick up the evaluation form packet and return it to the registration desk at the end of the event. APA certificates can only be given to the participant on-site and will not be mailed following the conference. You must complete the evaluation in order to receive CEs. The Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD) is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. AUCCCD maintains responsibility for this program and its contents.

If you have questions about Continuing Education, please contact Teri Gillmor at [email protected] .

Presented By

Audience

This event is most likely to influence these groups.

Mid-Level

New Professional

Senior Level

Share

Let others know you are coming!

Use this hashtag to see what others are sharing #NASPAStrategies20

Twitter

Tweet with #NASPAStrategies20

Call for Programs

The 2020 NASPA Strategies Conferences invite program proposals from higher education professionals who are part of the essential systems addressing college student safety, health, and well-being. These functions are irreplaceable components of an environment conducive to learning and development, and the field of student affairs prevention professionals passionately dedicated to this work need your expertise. We welcome you to submit a program for this dynamic series of conferences and join us in January to optimize your own programs and services in the company of the largest student affairs health and wellness event in the field.

The conference planning committees encourage program proposals regarding proven practices with content that will engage participants in fruitful discussions and provide meaningful content to bring back to their campuses.

Successful proposals should include:

Lengthy description about session content that you will present.

Relationship of the program to the conference themes outlined on the website.

Identification of the program format (e.g., lecture, panel, debate) including methods for participant involvement (e.g., discussion, effective practice sharing, case study analysis).

Evidence of the conceptual foundation for proposal content including ways the program content is grounded in research, relevant experience, a cogent model, or appropriate theory.

Integration of equity, inclusion, and social justice for identified subpopulations (students of color, LGBTQIA+ students, international students, students with ability differences, undocumented students, etc.) or at a systems level (e.g. colonization, racial oppression and trauma, restrictive statewide policy for trans students' rights, etc.).

There are several different session types at the NASPA Strategies Conferences. Consider sumbitting a proposal to one or more of the following:

General interest sessions (60 minutes)

Roundtable discussion sessions (60 minutes)

Extended general interest sessions (90 minutes)

Poster sessions (discussion during the opening reception)

Pre-conference sessions (3 hours)

Pre-conference institutes (8 hours)

Please note: all presenters must register to attend the 2020 NASPA Strategies Conferences.

The Call for Programs is now closed.

Conference Themes & Suggested Topics

Each proposal will select one theme that most aligns with program content.

Campus or Community Coalitions and Partnerships

Current Trends and Emerging Issues

Sessions that include or ongoing data and research surrounding substance abuse or campus violence prevention efforts, especially those addressing use patterns and implications for 18-25 year olds

Sessions that assess the scope of alcohol and other drug misuse on campus

Sessions that evaluate current alcohol and other drug misuse prevention efforts

Sessions that explore considerations for health equity on prevention efforts

Evidence-Based and Evidence Informed Practices

Sessions that demonstrate strategic use of assessment and data to inform and influence policies, programs, systems, infrastructure and other higher order change that helps build a culture in which instances of substance abuse or campus violence are reduced

Sessions that examine how evidence-based prevention strategies can be modified to fit varying institutions, communities, populations, and resource levels

Sessions that identify sources and repositories for identifying evidence-based programs and strategies

Sessions that explore replicable and adaptable evidence-based policies, programs, and practices

Sessions that identify best practices for campus policies surrounding alcohol and other drugs

Innovative Solutions and Changing Practices

Sessions that address implemented strategies, programs, and policies which have been successful - or which are innovative, based on a foundational theory, model, or adaptation.

Sessions that discuss innovative supports for students who choose not to consume substances, including recovery communities

The Strategic Prevention Framework

Sessions that should address data driven or population level substance abuse prevention efforts in the context of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Strategic Prevention Framework

Sessions that apply sustainability into all efforts in the spectrum of prevention and health promotion

Sessions that show an understanding of cultural competency and its importance in evidence-based prevention efforts

Sessions that evaluate the capacity to implement prevention strategies on campus

Each proposal will select one theme that most aligns with program content.
Access to Services

Sessions that explore new modalities addressing growing waiting lists and stagnant or reduced provider capacity

Sessions that discuss administrative successes and barriers to expand student access

Sessions that discover and compare solutions to promote increased access and awareness of mental health services for students

Cross- Campus Collaboration and Coordination
Cultural and Identity Considerations

Sessions which share models of collaboration, case studies from integrated systems, successful partnerships, and work with student affairs leadership

Sessions may also address collaboration with local, state, and national organizations to promote mental health on campus

Sessions that understand the keys to successful cross-campus collaboration in mental health services

Sessions that explore ways in which mental health intersects with both violence prevention and response and substance misuse on campus to develop and enhance prevention, intervention and response

Current Trends and Emerging Issues

Successful and Innovative Solutions

Each proposal will select one theme that most aligns with program content.
Evidence-based Policy and Practice

Sessions that identify evidence-based approaches to sexual violence prevention and response

Sessions that demonstrate strategic use of assessment and data to inform and influence policies, programs, systems, infrastructure, and other higher order change that helps build a culture in which sexual violence is eliminated

Sessions that review best practices in: implementing sustainable, evidence-based prevention programs; improving campus response to violence and victims; and evaluating the impact of these efforts

Sessions that describe strategies for developing or revising comprehensive campus sexual misconduct policies, including how they are impacted by the latest federal and state legislative policy changes

Innovative or Promising Approaches to Prevention and Response Disruption of Dominant Sexual Violence Narratives Expanding Campus and Community Partnerships

Sessions that address the ways in which diverse stakeholders from within and across the campus and the larger community can work collaboratively to address sexual violence and best serve the needs of campus community members

Sessions that share models of collaboration, case studies from integrated systems, successful partnerships, and efforts to engage all stakeholders in sexual violence prevention and response

Sessions that address collaboration with local, state, and national organizations to prevent and respond to campus sexual violence

Sessions that identify strategies to expand and strengthen relationships between campuses and community service providers, in an effort to augment support for reporting and responding parties and increase communication around and collaboration in prevention and response

Each proposal will select one theme that most aligns with program content.
Navigating Systems and Infrastructure Foundations and Essential References Current Research, Innovations, and Emerging Trends Using Data to Inform Change

Submission Timeline

September 19, 2019
Call for Programs Deadline

October 15, 2019
Presenters Notified

October 24, 2019
Presenters Confirm Acceptance

Writing Tips

Looking for tips on writing an effective NASPA proposal? See sample submissions and formatting tips in our Program Submission Guidelines.

Questions?

Please contact NASPA if you have any further questions about submitting a program proposal for the 2020 NASPA Strategies Conferences.

Mallory Jordan
Assistant Director of Health and Well-being Initiatives
Phone: (202) 265-7500 ext 1242
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Laurie Jevons
Assistant Director of Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Initiatives
Phone: (202) 265-7500 ext 1251
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Schedule

The schedule was designed to provide participants with interactive and engaging programming, opportunities for deeper discussion, and networking. As details are finalized, this schedule will be updated.

Full Schedule

Pre-Conference Programs & Events

The planning committees for the 2020 NASPA Strategies Conferences are working to select pre-conference sessions that will enrich and enhance your attendee experience. More information on pre-conference options will be available no later than October 24, 2019.

Pre-Conference Institute (Full Day)

Wednesday, January 15th * 09.00 AM - 05.00 PM

Pre-conference institutes are full-day programs held prior to the conference. These events are usually coordinated directly with the applicable conference committee or a related NASPA constituent group and typically last 8 hours. Pre-conference institutes require participants to pre-register for a fee.

Pre-Conference Session (Half-Day)

Wednesday, January 15th * 02.00 PM - 05.00 PM

Pre-conference sessions will be offered the day before the conference. Pre-conference sessions are designed as highly specialized opportunities to discuss a specific topic or program and typically last 3 hours. Pre-conference sessions require participants to pre-register for a fee.

Post-Conference Session (Half- Day)

Saturday, January 18th * 01.00 PM - 04.00 PM

A free post-conference session focusing on the issue guide about Free Speech and Inclusive Campus has been added for January 18, 2020. This three hour post-conference session is free to attend, and can be added to your registration.

View More Details

In recent years, higher education institutions have seen dramatic increases in oppressive speech incidents on campus. Responding to such incidents sometimes requires considering the balance between free speech and equity and inclusion. This workshop offers the opportunity for attendees to participate in democratic deliberation, using the recently created issue guide about Free Speech and Inclusive Campus. The civic skills and literacy of using democratic deliberation in the classroom, on campuses, and in organizations are shared to build a growing practice in understanding across differences and developing a shared, or common, purpose. While this workshop will focus on the topic of Free Speech and the Inclusive Campus the skills learned during this session can translate to a variety of wicked programs that campus communities face. This session is being used as a testing space for the tool that has been created by NASPA constituents throughout the previous year.

Registration

Registration as a member is based on individual membership status. If you are employed by a college or university that is an institutional member, you can join as an individual member at the $75 rate. This gives you the conference registration and a year of membership for less than the non-member registration fee. If your institution is NOT a member, then you will need to join at the associate affiliate rate of $242 and then you can pay the individual member rate for conference registration. Visit the Membership section of the NASPA website to learn about membership types.

The Strategies Conferences converge four events into one. Please select the conference which is most applicable to you, though you are welcome to attend sessions and presentations selected by any of the conference committees.

Log-in and Register

Early Registration
05/03/2019 to 10/30/2019

Regular Registration
10/31/2019 to 12/11/2019

Late Registration
12/12/2019 to 01/15/2020

Questions?

NASPA Events
Event Registration Support
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Phone: (202) 265-7500

Laurie Jevons
Assistant Director of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention Initiatives
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Phone: (202) 265-7500 ext 1251

Allison Tombros Korman
Senior Director, Culture of Respect
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Phone: 202-903-0653

Policies

View Registration Policies

Refunds will be given for cancellations, received in writing by October 30, 2019, less a $50.00 processing fee. In addition, a processing fee of $50.00 per registration will be charged for credit cards declined.

Registration Cancellation Policy:
The cancellation deadline to receive a refund is October 30, 2019, less a $50.00 processing fee. No refunds will be given after the deadline for any reason. All requests for cancellation and refunds must be in writing and sent to [email protected] This program may be cancelled or postponed due to unforeseen circumstances. In this case, fees will be refunded; however, NASPA will not be responsible for additional costs, charges, or expenses, including cancellation/change charges assessed by airlines, hotels, and/or travel agencies. NASPA is not responsible for weather or travel related problems and will not reimburse registration fees for these issues.

Substitutions: Substitutions are allowed by individuals within the same institution/company. Substitutions should have the same member classification so that the payment is an even exchange transfer of payment. Additional charges may apply if the membership status is not the same. Please email your request for the substitute attendee to [email protected]

Purchase Orders: NASPA does NOT accept purchase orders as a form of payment. For registrants requiring an invoice to have a check payment processed, please use the Bill Me payment method to complete your registration. The resulting invoice can be found and downloaded under the My NASPA section of the website (must be logged-in), by selecting the View Invoices link from the dropdown menu. Alternatively, email a request to Membership to have a PDF of your invoice sent to you. Bill Me registrations are considered complete and will hold your place in an event, however the balance due must be settled prior to attending.

Click here to view NASPA's complete Payment Policies and Procedures.

Additional Questions? Please contact the NASPA office at 202-265-7500 or via e-mail to [email protected] .

Hyatt Regency New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana

All conference activities will take place at the Hyatt Regency New Orleans.

We have arranged special room rates for conference attendees at the Hyatt Regency starting at $219/night (not including 14% applicalable tax). The cut-off date to receive the conference room rate is . Rooms in the conference block may sell out prior to the cut-off date, so please make your reservation as soon as possible. Reserve a room at the Hyatt Regency Monday, December, 23, 2019 here.

TRANSPORTATION

NASPA has partnered with Airport Shuttle, Inc., the official ground transportation provider for the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, to provide discounted transportation for conference attendees.

A one-way Uber ride to/from hotel can cost around $35. The discounted shuttle cost for attendees is $40 round trip per person or $20 one-way per person.

CLICK HERE to reserve your shuttle as soon as you receive your flight information or no later than 24 hours prior to your flight. The discount only applies to reservations made through this web portal.

Please note:

Wheelchair accessible service is available

First three bags per passenger are free

Attendees can both make and change existing reservations online.

venue Accessibility

ADA access is provided at all parking levels and at the main entrance, full elevator access to all levels including parking.

Restrooms will be fully accessible, Braille signage and universal symbols will be in use;

Information displays and Meeting Information are located to provide clear sight lines for all attendees;

Lighting is engineered to provide the correct level of light required for access and the enjoyment of the meeting space.

Floors surfaces are continuous with minimalized transitions;

The design provides, within the pre-function space and gathering areas, for the convenient interaction of all attendees and the free movement of those transitioning between events

Hotel

Room Rate/Night

Hyatt Regency New Orleans
601 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, 70113
1-504-561-1234

$219 - Single/ Double
$229 - Triple

The 2020 NASPA Alcohol, Other Drug, and Violence Prevention, Mental Health, Sexual Violence Prevention and Response, and the Well-Being and Health Promotion Leadership Conferences invite participants, co-sponsors, and constituency groups to request meeting space at this year's conference in New Orleans, LA. The deadline to submit a meeting request is October 11, 2019.

Click here to submit a meeting request.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
January 16 - January 18, 2020 at New Orleans, LA | The 2020 NASPA Strategies Conferences provide student affairs practitioners with the knowledge and skills to effectively address collegiate alcohol and drug abuse prevention, mental health, sexual violence prevention and response, and well-being through a variety of comprehensive and integrative approaches.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #4 Schools take the lead in tackling sexual harassment

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #4 Schools take the lead in tackling sexual harassment

# data[].attributes.body
The article written by Harper (2018), discusses school's responsibility in creating a culture that is free from sexual harassment, and in the cases where sexual harassment occurs, the victims feel safe to speak up. The uptick in reporting of sexual violence in schools is changing federal, state, and local laws. Specifically, it discusses the importance of staff and students staying vigilant towards sexual violence.
- Training on types of sexual harassment
- How to report sexual violence acts
- Online resources available
- What constitutes consent
- Clear, updated policies regarding sexual violence

Reference
Harper, A. (2018, October 12). Schools can take lead in tackling sexual harassment. Education Dive. Retrieved from https://www.educationdive.com/news/schools-can-take-lead-in-tackling-sexual-harassment/539440/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Simon Rodberg, a former Washington, D.C., principal and current educational consultant, shares his opinion in EdSurge on how schools can take the lead in shaping student attitudes about sexual harassment issues.

Schools must create cultures where sexual harassment is discouraged and reporting incidents is promoted, he says, especially as students are just learning what the boundaries are. This requires clear policies, intentional education on the topic and open, age-appropriate discussions starting as early as 6th grade.

Students also need clear instructions about what constitutes consent. Rodberg suggests teaching affirmative consent, which demands a clear and explicit "yes" from the other party, not just an absence of a "no."

Dive Insight:

Federal, state and local sexual harassment policies are changing as more people are being confronted with the reality that behavior once viewed as a normal rite of passage was actually sexual harassment, and more people - most notably, women - are finding their voices and demanding to be treated with respect instead of becoming victims. There are obvious legal, moral and ethical ramifications to sexual harassment, and students are seeing some of these effects by witnessing or hearing about celebrities facing accusations, getting sent to jail or, in the case of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, being questioned about every aspect of their behavior while in school.

These events, though troubling, do offer platforms to discuss an issue that has long been overlooked. Sexual harassment at school is a bigger problem than most leaders realize or want to admit. In a 2014 survey of roughly 1,400 middle school students, 27% of girls and 25% of boys reported they had experienced verbal or physical sexual harassment or violence. And the issue is not just limited to students - roughly 25% of female educators and 6% of male educators have also faced sexual harassment or assault at school. But during the #MeToo era, more people are starting to speak up about it: Since the movement took off last year, workplace sexual harassment claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission spiked, and during the Kavanaugh hearing alone, the number of calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline more than doubled.

Students and teachers need to be taught about the types of sexual harassment and be aware of how to report it if it occurs. There are online resources available that can help inform students and staff about sexual harassment and consent and make them feel more comfortable about reporting such instances if they take place. Before this can happen, however, schools also need to make sure they have clear, updated polices in place to help them respond appropriately and effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schools can take lead in tackling sexual harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Simon Rodberg, a former Washington, D.C., principal and current educational consultant, shares his opinion in EdSurge on how schools can take the lead in shaping student attitudes about sexual harassment issues. Schools must create cultures where sexual harassment is discouraged and reporting incidents is promoted, he says, especially as students are just learning what the boundaries are.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #5 Betsy DeVos releases sexual assault rules she hails as balancing rights of victims, accused

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #5 Betsy DeVos releases sexual assault rules she hails as balancing rights of victims, accused

# data[].attributes.body
The article written by Meckler (2018), discusses the updated policy to handling sexual misconduct on school campuses. Under the Obama administration, policies regarding reporting and handling sexual misconduct became restrictive after many universities mishandled sexual misconduct complaints. The new proposal issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos under the Trump administration relinquishes universities liability concerning sexual violence.

Specifically, it discusses:
- The new policy issued by DeVos has caused an uproar among women's rights groups, specifically the #MeToo movement.
- Those opposed argue that the new policy will result in fewer allegations reported from victims.
- Narrowed criteria for university obligations with sexual misconduct incidents.
- The opportunity for the accused and the victim to cross-examine each other.
- Sexual misconduct incidents must have occurred under the purview of the school's program or activity, which further extends to off-campus when the event is school funded.

The new policy does not fully relinquish the university from their responsibility to maintain a safe learning environment. It does, however, lessen the liability of the school related to sexual misconduct incidents. Additionally, it provides explicit guidance related to Title IX policy.

Reference
Meckler, L. (2018, November 16). Betsy DeVos releases sexual assault rules she hails as balancing rights of victims, accused. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/betsy-devos-releases-sexual-assault-rules-she-hails-as-balancing-rights-of-victims-accused/2018/11/16/4aa136d4-e962-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
November 16, 2018
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Friday released her long-awaited rewrite of rules governing campus sexual harassment and assault allegations, narrowing the cases schools must investigate and giving the accused more rights.

The proposal came under immediate fire from women's rights groups and Democrats, who said the rules would allow assailants and schools to escape responsibility for harassment and assault and would make college campuses less safe for women.

But others said the proposal restores balance in a system that had been skewed too far in favor of the accusers.

DeVos said she had worked to strike a balance while creating a more transparent and reliable process.

"We can, and must, condemn sexual violence and punish those who perpetrate it, while ensuring a fair grievance process. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas," she said.

Under the proposal, fewer allegations would be considered sexual harassment and schools would be responsible only for investigating incidents that are part of campus programs and activities and that were properly reported. Schools could choose a higher legal standard for considering evidence.

The rules come after years of rising pressure on universities to better respond to allegations of sexual assault and other misconduct. They land at a time when the #MeToo movement brought increased public scrutiny and accountability to harassment and assault. This proposal, by contrast, pushes the pendulum in the reverse direction.

"I am dismayed with the Trump administration's cruel proposal that will have the effect of putting power in the hands of abusers & dissuading survivors from coming forward," John B. King Jr., who served as education secretary in the Obama administration, said on Twitter.

The most divisive aspect of the proposal may be allowing attorneys for the accused to cross-
examine accusers.

The proposed rule goes too far in incorporating legal concepts into a school disciplinary setting, argued Terry Hartle, a senior vice president at the American Council on Education, which represents university presidents.

"This would permit one student to hire a highly paid legal pit bull to grill another student in a campus disciplinary hearing," he said. "We are not courts. I'm not sure we should try to act like courts."

But advocates for the accused called this an essential change that could help counter inherent bias among college administrators who investigate incidents.

"Cross-examination is the most effective method to get to the truth," said Kimberly C. Lau, who leads the college discipline practice at the law firm Warshaw Burstein.

The regulations stem from a 1972 law known as Title IX that bars sex discrimination at schools that receive federal funding. Most of the attention is on higher education, but the rules also apply to elementary and secondary schools.

Unlike less formal Obama-era guidance that is being replaced, the new plan is a proposed regulation that will be subject to public comment and, once finalized, carry the force of law.

Critics said the Obama approach was confusing for universities and improperly made outside the formal rulemaking process.

Using guidelines "allowed the Obama Department of Education to essentially make up rules that had no basis in any relevant statute or Supreme Court opinion," said David Bernstein, executive director of the Liberty & Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

Overall, the proposed regulation describes what constitutes sexual harassment or assault for the purpose of Title IX enforcement, what triggers a school's legal obligation to respond to allegations and how a school must respond.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, the proposal puts forth a narrow definition of harassment. Obama-era guidelines held that harassment was "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature." The proposed regulation defines it as "unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school's education program or activity."

The regulation also limits the circumstances that would mandate a school respond to an incident. The school must have "actual knowledge" of the allegations. At colleges and universities, that means the incident must have been reported to "an official with authority to take corrective action," including the school's Title IX coordinator. For K-12 schools, the report could go to any teacher.

In addition, the incident must have occurred within a school's own programs or activities. That could include off-campus incidents if it were, for instance, in a building owned by the school, or at an event the school funded, sponsored, promoted or endorsed.

Once a school knows about an allegation, it is required to take it seriously. But the regulation specifies that it will be punished by the Education Department only if its actions are "clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances."

The regulation also specifies that even if no formal complaint is filed, the school must offer the accuser supportive measures. It says colleges and universities doing this have a "safe harbor" from a later finding that they had failed to act. Elementary and secondary schools, however, may be required to file a formal complaint even if the victim does not want one, given "the need to protect younger students."

In investigating complaints, schools are required to implement a range of due-process procedures, including a presumption of innocence, the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence, and the right to an adviser or attorney at all phases of the process.

Hearings are optional for K-12 schools, but for colleges and universities, a final decision must be made at a hearing. Cross-examination must be allowed but conducted by advisers or attorneys, not by the parties themselves. The regulation also provides "rape shield protections," such as a bar on questions about an accuser's sexual history.

Schools would be allowed to choose the standard they will use between "preponderance of the evidence" or the higher bar of "clear and convincing evidence." But a school may not use the lower standard if it relies on the higher one for allegations against employees, including faculty members.

In addition, the regulation would require that the final determination in a case be made by someone who did not conduct the investigation, nullifying arrangements often used in which a single investigator does both.

Those procedural changes are important, said attorney Andrew Miltenberg of New York, who has represented more than 100 students accused of sexual misconduct. But he predicted that most universities will maintain the lower evidentiary standard in response to campus pressures.

"I think most universities are going to stay the course for fear of becoming ground zero for activists to say, 'Look how terrible rape victims are being treated at this university,' " he said.

He said, though, that the new sexual harassment definition, requiring the behavior to be both severe and pervasive, "may be a little too restrictive."

Suzanne Taylor, the University of California's interim systemwide Title IX coordinator, said the new rules will "reverse decades of well-established, hard-won progress toward equity" but said the UC system would remain "steadfast in its commitment to combating sexual violence."

Nick Anderson contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Betsy DeVos releases sexual assault rules she hails as balancing rights of victims, accused

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
November 16, 2018 Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Friday released her long-awaited rewrite of rules governing campus sexual harassment and assault allegations, narrowing the cases schools must investigate and giving the accused more rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #6 Constitutional Law – 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. XIV.). 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #6 Constitutional Law – 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. XIV.). 

# data[].attributes.body
The 14th Amendment provides all U.S. born or naturalized citizens with equal protection of the laws. Over the years, the 14th Amendment has expanded to protect the interests of the public and policies under Title IX. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, schools must ensure equal protection of all students, without regard to race, religion, gender, identity (such as LGBTQ), etc. from harassment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV).

Reference
U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fourteenth Amendment | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Constitution Annotated provides a legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution based on a comprehensive review of Supreme Court case law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #7 Statutory Law – Policy on Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking (Tex. Educ. Code § 51.282). 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #7 Statutory Law – Policy on Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking (Tex. Educ. Code § 51.282). 

# data[].attributes.body
House Bill 1735 was recently passed, which amends Chapter 51 of the Texas Education Code. The amended section further defines terms associated with sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Furthermore, section 51.282 requires each post-secondary institution to establish a policy which defines prohibited behavior, sanctions for violations, the protocol for reporting, measure to protect individuals, and the importance for preserving evidence.

Reference
Policy on Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking, Tex. Educ. Code §

51.282.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
86(R) HB 1735 - Enrolled version - Bill Text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
relating to sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #8 Administrative Law – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (34 CFR § 106). 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #8 Administrative Law – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (34 CFR § 106). 

# data[].attributes.body
This administrative law is used to enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Under this policy, no student shall be treated differently from another. This includes aid, benefits, services, rules, sanctions, or eligibility for in-state fees or tuition based on sex. Further guidance for implementing this law is prescribed in a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) from April 4, 2011. The DCL states that all forms of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and sexual discrimination are prohibited under the guidelines of Title IX (Dear Colleague Letter, 2011).

Reference
Ali, R. (2011, April 4). Dear Colleague Letter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from             https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal

Financial Assistance, 34 CFR § 106

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
civil rights; sex discrimination; employment discrimination; laws; athletics; pregnancy;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Regulation implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #9 Judicial Law – Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US 629 (1999). 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #9 Judicial Law – Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US 629 (1999). 

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court provides specific guidance for claims regarding discrimination of Title IX. First, the discrimination must be severely, and objectively offensive and blocks access to educational opportunities. Second, the school must have administrative authority over the offender. Third, the school is only responsible if the response is unreasonable with regard to the harassment. Last, schools remain financially responsible for any compensation when the school is indifferent towards the known harassment allegations. In the case of Davis v. Monroe (1999), a fifth-grade student was severely sexually harassed by another student. The complaint stated the school board was deliberately indifferent towards the sexual harassment, and the harassment was interfering with education and creating a hostile environment. Ultimately, the case held that schools could be liable for student-to-student harassment issues under Title IX when the categories previously mentioned have been met.

Reference
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US 629 (1999).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1997

AURELIA DAVIS, AS NEXT FRIEND OF LASHONDA D., PETITIONER

v.

MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE

SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
BILL LANN LEE
Acting Assistant Attorney General
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Deputy Solicitor General
BETH S. BRINKMANN
Assistant to the Solicitor General
DENNIS J. DIMSEY
LINDA F. THOME
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217

QUESTION PRESENTED

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, provides that "[n]o 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."
The question presented is:

Whether a school board can be liable under Title IX for responding with deliberate indifference to a student's repeated complaints about severe and pervasive sexual harassment by another student in the course of the school's education programs and activities.

In the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1997

No. 97-843

AURELIA DAVIS, AS NEXT FRIEND OF LASHONDA D., PETITIONER

v.

MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE

This brief is submitted in response to the Court's order inviting the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States.
STATEMENT
1. a. Petitioner filed this action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, seeking, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of her daughter, LaShonda D., against respondent Monroe County Board of Education.1 Petitioner alleges that respondent responded with deliberate indifference to repeated complaints from herself and her daughter, then a fifth-grade student in a school administered by respondent, about severe sexual harassment of LaShonda by a male classmate, G.F., over a period of more than five months. Petitioner alleges that respondent's deliberate indifference to the complaints of sexual harassment created an intimidating, hostile, offensive, and abusive school environment for LaShonda, in violation of respondent's obligations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, as a recipient of federal financial assistance. Pet. App. 93a-101a.
Petitioner alleges that G.F. harassed LaShonda on at least eight separate occasions at school between December 17, 1992, and May 19, 1993, during school hours.2 School officials were informed about each of those incidents by LaShonda, petitioner (her mother), or both. Pet. App. 95a-97a. G.F. repeatedly attempted to touch LaShonda's breasts and vaginal area. On one occasion, G.F. rubbed his body against LaShonda in a sexually suggestive manner. Id. at 96a. On another occasion, G.F. put a door stop in his pants and behaved in a sexually suggestive manner toward LaShonda. Ibid. G.F. also directed vulgar comments to LaShonda, indicating a desire to have sexual contact with her. Id. at 95a-96a. After an incident on May 19, LaShonda told her mother that she "didn't know how much longer she could keep him off her." Id. at 97a. As a result of that incident, G.F. was charged with and pled guilty to sexual battery. Ibid.
After each incident, LaShonda reported G.F.'s behavior to one or more of her teachers; she complained to at least three different teachers at the school that G.F. was sexually harassing her in classes or activities under their supervision. Pet. App. 96a-97a. Petitioner, LaShonda's mother, also complained to at least two of her daughter's teachers, and was assured that the school principal had been notified about the sexual harassment. Ibid. At one point, LaShonda and other girls who had been sexually harassed by G.F. wanted to go as a group to speak to the principal about the harassment, but their teacher told them that, "If he wants you, he'll call you." Id. at 96a. On or about May 19, petitioner spoke directly to the principal to see what action would be taken, but the principal merely stated: "I guess I'll have to threaten him (G.F.) a little bit harder." Id. at 97a. During that conversation, the principal asked LaShonda "why she was the only one complaining." Ibid.
Petitioner alleges that school officials did not discipline G.F. at any time during the period in which he was harassing LaShonda, despite LaShonda's and petitioner's repeated complaints. Pet. App. 97a. G.F. was not suspended, kept away from LaShonda, or reprimanded in any other way. Ibid. Moreover, school officials refused even to take minimal measures to keep G.F. away from LaShonda during a substantial part of that time. For example, LaShonda's assigned classroom seat was next to G.F. and, although LaShonda asked several times to be moved to a different seat so that she could prevent contact with G.F., she was not permitted to do so for over three months. Ibid.
At the time of respondent's failure to respond to the complaints by petitioner and her daughter, respondent had no policy regarding sexual harassment. Respondent had not given its employees any training or other guidance on how to respond to complaints from students about sexual harassment. Pet. App. 98a.
As a result of respondent's inaction in response to LaShonda and her mother's repeated complaints about the continuing sexual harassment, LaShonda's ability to attend school and to perform her studies and activities was impeded. Pet. App. 97a. Her ability to concentrate on her school work was affected by her constant efforts to fend off G.F.'s sexual harassment. Ibid. Her grades also dropped. Ibid. LaShonda's mental health was affected. In April 1993, LaShonda's father discovered a suicide note she had written. Ibid.
Petitioner alleges that respondent engaged in deliberate indifference and intentional discrimination against LaShonda that warrants money damages and injunctive relief. Petitioner specifically alleges that, respondent, in its "failure to have a policy concerning sexual harassment of students and in their failure to respond to the complaints of this student, was willfully and deliberately indifferent." Pet. App. 98a. She alleges that respondent's deliberate indifference "to the unwelcome sexual advances of a student upon LaShonda created an intimidating, hostile, offensive and abus[ive] school environment," in violation of Title IX. Id. at 100a. Respondent's "failure to take action resulted in extreme emotional damage to LaShonda." Id. at 100a-101a. Petitioner asserts that, "had [the school principal] intervened as was necessary, the injury to LaShonda would have been mitigated and the situation would have been ended." Id. at 100a. In addition to damages, petitioner sought injunctive relief requiring respondent "to institute a policy providing guidance for employees in the event of sexual harassment of students by fellow students," and enjoining respondent "from discriminating against female students by failing to respond to complaints of sexual harassment." Id. at 102a.
b. The district court dismissed petitioner's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Pet. App. 82a-90a. The court recognized that Title IX is enforceable through an implied cause of action, id. at 88a (citing Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60 (1992)), but ruled that "sexually harassing behavior of a fellow fifth grader is not part of a school program or activity." Pet. App. 88a. In the court's view, petitioner had not alleged "that the Board or an employee of the Board had any role in the harassment," and therefore "any harm to LaShonda was not proximately caused by a federally-funded educational provider." Id. at 88a-89a. Therefore petitioner had no cause of action under Title IX. Id. at 89a.
2. a. A divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit initially reversed the district court's dismissal of the Title IX claim and remanded for further proceedings. Pet. App. 62a-81a. The panel noted that, fairly construed, petitioner's complaint alleged that harm to LaShonda was proximately caused by the school officials' "failure to take action to stop the offensive acts of those over whom the officials exercised control," id. at 75a, thereby discriminating against petitioner and denying her the benefits of the education program on the basis of her sex, id. at 66a. The panel concluded that "Title IX encompasses a claim for damages due to a sexually hostile educational environment created by a fellow student or students when the supervising authorities knowingly fail to act to eliminate the harassment." Id. at 73a-74a (citing Franklin, 503 U.S. at 74-75). In such circumstances, "the harassed student has 'be[en] denied the benefits of, or be[en] subjected to discrimination under' th[e] educational program in violation of Title IX." Id. at 75a.
One panel member dissented, arguing that Title IX did not apply because neither respondent nor any of its employees was alleged to have committed an act of harassment against LaShonda. Pet. App. 80a.
b. The Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel's opinion, and affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint. Pet. App. 91a-92a; id. at 1a-45a. The en banc majority construed petitioner's complaint to allege that LaShonda had been subjected to hostile environment sexual harassment, that one teacher knew of at least four instances of harassment, that at least two other teachers and the principal each knew of at least two incidents of harassment, and that respondent took no action except to threaten G.F. with disciplinary action. Id. at 6a-7a & n.6. But it concluded that Title IX does not impose upon school officials any obligation "to take measures sufficient to prevent a non-employee from discriminating" on the basis of sex against a student. Id. at 22a. The en banc court characterized petitioner's claim as "seeking direct liability of the Board for the wrongdoing of a student." Id. at 10a.
Relying primarily on legislative history, the en banc court reasoned that Congress enacted Title IX under its Spending Clause power and that Title IX gave educational institutions that receive federal funds notice that "they must prevent their employees from themselves engaging in intentional gender discrimination," Pet. App. 21a, but not that they could be liable for failing to prevent one student from sexually harassing another, id. at 19a.3
Four members of the court dissented, Pet. App. 46a-61a, arguing that the plain language of Title IX makes it clear that "liability hinges upon whether the grant recipient maintained an educational environment that excluded any person from participating, denied them benefits, or subjected them to discrimination," because of sex. Id. at 47a. The dissent noted that this construction of the statute is supported by the interpretation of the Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), an agency charged with enforcing Title IX, which states:
a school's failure to respond to the existence of a hostile environment within its own programs or activities permits an atmosphere of sexual discrimination to permeate the education program and results in discrimination prohibited by Title IX. . . . Thus, Title IX does not make a school responsible for the actions of harassing students, but rather for its own discrimination in failing to remedy it once the school has notice.
Id. at 48a (quoting Sexual Harassment Guidance, 62 Fed. Reg. 12,034, 12,039-12,040 (1997)). The dissent disagreed with the majority's reliance on the absence of a discussion of student-on-student harassment in the legislative history of Title IX because a failure to mention it in congressional debate "does not mean that it was not encompassed within Congress's broad intent of preventing students from being 'subjected to discrimination' in federally funded education programs." Id. at 50a. The dissent pointed out that the majority's reasoning would call for rejection of the cause of action under Title IX recognized by the Court in Franklin, because it also was not mentioned during congressional debate. Ibid. The dissent also reasoned that sufficient notice was provided to fund recipients to satisfy the Spending Clause prerequisite for damages under Title IX, because the plain meaning of the statute "unequivocally imposes liability on grant recipients for maintaining an educational environment in which students are subjected to discrimination." Id. at 51a. Here, where petitioner alleges that at least three teachers and the school principal had actual knowledge of the harassment and took no meaningful action to end it, the dissent argued that the district court's dismissal of the Title IX claims against the Board should have been reversed. Id. at 61a.
DISCUSSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. The court of appeals' ruling forecloses all claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, whether for damages or for injunctive relief, for a school district's failure to respond to known sexual harassment of a student by another student. Such categorical exclusion of those claims is inconsistent with this Court's decision in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 118 S. Ct. 1989 (1998), with the plain language of the statute, and with the decisions of other courts of appeals. In the alternative, it would be appropriate for the Court to grant the writ, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case for reconsideration in light of Gebser.
1. In Gebser, this Court addressed the circumstances under which an educational institution receiving federal funds may be held liable in damages in an implied right of action under Title IX when a teacher sexually harasses a student. The Court concluded that damages could be recovered in such a case only when "an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the recipient's behalf has actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient's programs" and responds with deliberate indifference. 118 S. Ct. at 1999. The Court reasoned that, because Title IX's express remedial scheme permitting termination of federal funds is predicated on notice and an opportunity for the recipient to rectify a violation, Congress also did not intend to subject recipients of federal financial assistance to damages liability when the recipient "was unaware of discrimination in its programs and is willing to institute prompt corrective measures." Ibid.
The Gebser Court's ruling about the educational institution's potential liability did not depend upon the harasser's status as an employee. In fact, the Court expressly rejected arguments that liability should be based on agency principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice that result from the employer-employee relationship. 118 S. Ct. at 1995, 1997. Rather, the Court emphasized that the educational institution's liability rests on its own "official decision * * * not to remedy the violation," not on the independent actions of its harassing employees. Id. at 1999.
It follows from this analysis that when school officials know that severe or pervasive sexual harassment of a student is occurring under their education programs or activities, their failure to exercise their authority to address the harassment fosters a hostile educational environment, and constitutes a viola- tion of Title IX, whether the student's harasser is a school employee or another student. In either case, the student is required to attend school in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. When school officials knowingly fail to remedy a sexually hostile or abusive environment in an education program or activity, they "subject" harassed students to that environment in violation of Title IX. And Gebser makes clear that when a school district responds with deliberate indifference to known incidents of sexual harassment of a student, it discriminates against that student in violation of Title IX, and the Spending Clause prerequisite for damages under Title IX is met. Id. at 1998-1999.
Differences between students and teachers may of course be relevant to determining an institution's liability in damages for its failure to respond adequately to incidents of sexual harassment. The words or actions of a child may not have the same meaning and impact as the words or actions of an adult teacher. Thus, the identity of the harasser and the social context in which the incident occurs may be relevant to determining whether the harassment is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998, 1002-1003 (1998).4 Similarly, because the means available to school systems for controlling the actions of employees differ from their means of controlling the actions of students, the harasser's status in relation to the school may be relevant in determining whether officials' response to harassment was deliberately indifferent. Differences between students and employees do not, however, justify the court of appeals' rule that, as a categorical matter, an educational institution has no obligation under Title IX to respond to complaints of sexual harassment because the harasser is another student.
Petitioner's allegations meet the Gebser standard. Petitioner alleges that her daughter was subjected to repeated incidents of sexual harassment by another student while at school, Pet. App. 95a-97a, that three teachers and the principal of the school had actual knowledge of the harassment, id. at 96a-98a, that the harassment occurred while the students were "under the supervision of * * * teachers," id. at 96a, that the principal "was responsible for supervising discipline of the students in his school," id. at 98a, and that respondent responded with deliberate indifference to her complaints, id. at 100a. Thus, "official[s] of the recipient entity with authority to take corrective action to end the discrimination" had actual knowledge of the harassment and failed to act to stop it. Gebser, 118 S. Ct. at 1999.5
The court of appeals' contrary ruling failed to recognize that petitioner was making a claim against respondent for its own deliberate failure to remedy the hostile environment created by sexual harassment. The court erroneously interpreted petitioner's claim as "seeking direct liability of the Board for the wrongdoing of a student" and distinguished that from a case such as Franklin where, according to the court of appeals, the school was held liable directly for its employee's harassing actions. See Pet. App. 9a-10a. Thus, under the court of appeals' erroneous view, the fact that the harassing student is not an employee means that such liability does not apply. Id. at 22a. But Gebser teaches that, even in cases like Franklin where the harasser is an employee-agent of the educational institution, the institution's damages liability is based not on the actions of the employee-agent, but rather on the institution's own actions in deciding whether or how to respond to complaints about sexual harassment under its education programs and activities. That is precisely the theory of liability advanced by petitioner in this case. Under Gebser, these allegations state a claim for damages under Title IX.6
2. The circuits are divided on the questions whether and how Title IX applies to a school's response to students' complaints of sexual harassment by other students. The issue has been addressed inconsistently by four courts of appeals, and it is pending in four others.
The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held that Title IX requires officials of recipient educational institutions to take steps to stop known sexual harassment of students by other students in their education programs and activities. In Doe v. University of Illinois, 138 F.3d 653, 661 (7th Cir. 1998), petition for cert. pending, No. 98-126, the plaintiff alleged that she had been subjected to a campaign of sexual harassment by a group of students at a high school administered by the University of Illinois, that she had complained to appropriate school officials, and that school officials had failed to take meaningful action to punish the harassers or to prevent further occurrences. The plaintiff brought an action alleging, inter alia, violations of Title IX, and seeking damages. The district court dismissed her Title IX claims. Id. at 655-656.7
The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that "a Title IX fund recipient may be held liable for its failure to take prompt, appropriate action in response to student-on-student sexual harassment that takes place while the students are involved in school activities or otherwise under the supervision of school employees, provided the recipient's responsible officials actually knew that the harassment was taking place." Doe, 138 F.3d at 661; see also id. at 677-678 (Evans, J., concurring). The court ruled that such a failure to take appropriate steps in response to known sexual harassment is intentional discrimination on the basis of sex of the sort Title IX prohibits. Id. at 661. All three members of the panel recognized that the educational institution is liable, not for the actions of the harassing students, but for its own failure to respond to the harassment. Id. at 662; see id. at 668-669 (Coffey, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 677 (Evans, J., concurring).8
The Ninth Circuit agrees with the Seventh Circuit on this issue. In Oona, R. S. v. McCaffrey, 143 F.3d 473 (9th Cir. 1998), petition for cert. pending, No. 98-101, the plaintiff alleged that, while a sixth-grade student, she had been subjected to sexual harassment by a student teacher and by other students, and that school officials knew of the harassment but failed to take action to stop it. Id. at 474-475. She brought an action asserting, inter alia, claims against individual school officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) for violation of her rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Ibid.9 On interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order denying the individual defendants' motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. The court held that a school official's obligation, under Title IX, to take steps to stop sexual harassment by other students (as well as by teachers) was clearly established at the time of the incidents alleged by the plaintiff. Id. at 476-478. It concluded: "We do not consider what steps school officials may reasonably be required to take to address harassment by fellow students. * * * We hold only that * * * the duty to take reasonable steps * * * is clearly established." Id. at 477. One member of the court dissented, arguing that qualified immunity was warranted because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged incidents. Id. at 478-479.
By contrast, the Fifth Circuit has held that school districts may be liable for damages under Title IX in some cases of sexual harassment by fellow students, but only when school officials treat complaints of harassment by students of one sex differently from complaints by students of the other sex. Rowinsky v. Bryan Indep. Sch. Dist., 80 F.3d 1006, 1016 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 165 (1996).10
The Eleventh Circuit stands alone in holding that school officials have no responsibility at all, under Title IX, to respond to complaints by students about sexual harassment in the school's education program or activities if the harasser is a student.
Cases presenting the question of the applicability of Title IX to allegations of student sexual harassment by other students are now pending before the Second, Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits. See Bruneau v. South Kortright Central Sch. Dist., No. 97-7495 (2d Cir. argued Dec. 12, 1997); Linson v. University of Pennsylvania, No. 96-2098 (3d Cir. submitted June 17, 1997; held pending this Court's decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., No. 96-568); Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., 132 F.3d 949 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that an educational institution may be held liable under Title IX if it knew or should have known of sexually hostile environment caused by peer harassment and failed to remedy it), reh'g en banc granted, Nos. 96-1814 & 96-2316 (Feb. 5, 1998) (argued Mar. 3, 1998); Murrel v. School Dist. No. 1, No. 97-1055 (10th Cir. argued March 18, 1998).
These decisions show that the courts of appeals are in great disarray as to when, if ever, a school district may be liable under Title IX for responding with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment of students by students or other non-employees. Ordinarily after the announcement of a new rule of law such as the one announced in Gebser, this Court remands related cases for reconsideration in light of the newly announced legal principles. For several reasons, however, we suggest that it would be more appropriate for the Court to grant review on the merits in this case. First, while Gebser points strongly in the direction of recognizing liability of a school district for failure to respond adequately to known sexual harassment of students by other students, it does not squarely address the issue, and thus does not directly respond to the Eleventh Circuit's observation that the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed Title IX liability in the context of student-on-student sexual harassment (Pet. App. 9a, 19a n.13). Second, the division among the courts of appeals on this issue involves four circuits, and is unlikely to be eliminated by a remand in this case and in others raising similar issues in petitions pending before this Court; the frequency with which the issue arises suggests that a definitive resolution by this Court is needed. Third, this Court's resolution of the issue is not likely to be aided by additional decisions from the numerous courts of appeals in which the matter is pending. Litigation in the lower courts may well illuminate subsidiary issues, such as which school officials must receive notification of the harassment before liability accrues, and what constitutes an adequate response. But on the basic question presented by this case-whether such liability can ever exist-additional litigation can shed little additional light. In this respect, the case is in a similar posture to Oncale v. Sundowner Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998), in which this Court reviewed a holding by a court of appeals that same-sex sexual harassment is categorically not actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.
For these reasons, the Court should grant certiorari to resolve the conflict, and to correct the error of the Eleventh Circuit in holding that federal fund recipients have no obligation under Title IX to address known sexual harassment of students by other students.

CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted to review the court of appeals' ruling that educational institutions have no obligation under Title IX to take steps to address known instances of sexual harassment of students by other students. Alternatively, the petition should be granted, the judgment vacated, and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of Gebser.
Respectfully submitted.

SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
BILL LANN LEE
Acting Assistant Attorney General
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Deputy Solicitor General
BETH S. BRINKMANN
Assistant to the Solicitor General
DENNIS J. DIMSEY
LINDA F. THOME
Attorneys

AUGUST 1998
1 Petitioner's Title IX claims against two individual school officials, her race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. 1981, and her various claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) were dismissed by the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), were rejected by the court of appeals, and are not before this Court. See Pet. App. 2a-3a & n.3; id. at 82a-90a.
2 Because petitioner's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
3 The author of the opinion for the en banc court included two sections that were not joined by any other member of the court: a discussion of the due process rights of alleged harassers and possible suits by disciplined harassers (Pet. App. 22a-29a (Part III.B)), and a discussion of the possible number of lawsuits involving harassment by fellow students (id. at 30a-32a (Part III.C). See id. at 33a; id. at 36a & n.1 (opinion of Carnes, J., concurring specially).
4 As the initial panel below emphasized, "a hostile environ- ment in an educational setting is not created by a simple childish behavior or by an offensive utterance, comment, or vulgarity. Rather, Title IX is violated 'when the [educational environment] is permeated with 'discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult' that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's [environment] and create an abusive environment.'" Pet. App. 76a-77a (citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986)) (citation omitted).
5 In Floyd v. Waiters, 133 F.3d 786, 789-793 (1998), petition for cert. pending, No. 97-8906, the Eleventh Circuit held that a school district could be held liable, under Title IX, for its employee's harassment of a student only where the superintendent or the school board itself has actual knowledge of the harassment. That rule is inconsistent with Gebser, which holds the institution responsible for knowledge of harassment by those school officials-like the teachers and principal here-with the authority to take corrective action to remedy the harassment on behalf of the educational institution.
6 The requirements of notice and deliberate indifference announced in Gebser expressly apply only to damages liability. Petitioner may be able to establish a violation of Title IX, and hence entitlement to injunctive relief, without such a showing.
7 The district court also rejected the University's contention that Doe's Title IX claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court of appeals affirmed that judgment, holding that "Congress enacted Title IX and extended it to the States, at least in part, as a valid exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment," and validly abrogated the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. 138 F.2d at 660.
8 In addition to the three separate opinions of the panel on the merits, Judge Easterbrook issued a statement respecting the denial of rehearing en banc, 138 F.3d at 678-679, and Chief Judge Posner (joined by Flaum & Manion, JJ.), issued a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, id. at 679-680.
Judge Easterbrook noted that the panel's holding in Doe that "failure to protect pupils from private aggression is a species of discrimination" is based on "the original meaning of equal protection of the laws." 138 F.3d at 678. He emphasized that no active member of the Seventh Circuit expressed disagreement with that ruling; rather, they disagreed only regarding the level of knowledge and response required to be shown on the part of school officials in order to warrant imposition of liability. Ibid.
9 The plaintiff also asserted a Title IX claim against the school district, but that claim was not before the court of appeals. 143 F.3d at 475. The court declined to address the question whether the individual defendants could be sued under Section 1983 for violations of Title IX. Ibid.
10 In Doe, the Seventh Circuit criticized Rowinsky for mischaracterizing the plaintiff's claim as an effort to hold the school liable for the acts of harassing students, when the plaintiff's claim actually was based on the schools' "own actions and inaction in the face of its knowledge that the harassment was occurring." 138 F.3d at 662.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ. - Invitation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1997 AURELIA DAVIS, AS NEXT FRIEND OF LASHONDA D., PETITIONER v. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SETH P.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #10 Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #10 Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.body
Like many universities across the nation, Angelo State University is committed to educating its staff, students, and faculty on sexual violence. In Operating Policy 16.03, Angelo State University specifies its policy regarding sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, and Title IX policy. Within the policy, terms are explicitly defined, compliance procedures, how to report misconduct, training and education requirements, and other various resources related to Title IX. (Angelo State Student Handbook, 2018).

Reference
Angelo State University. (2018, August 17). Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Sexual

Misconduct, and Title IX Policy and Complaint Procedure, OP 16.03. Retrieved from

https://www.angelo.edu/content/files/22689-op-1603-sexual-harassment-sexual-assault-sexual

# data[].attributes.body
Educational institutions must protect all students from various safety issues. In some cases, the educational professional can handle disputes among students; however, some problems require a specific authority to be involved. ACPA 4.5 states professionals will "report to the appropriate authority any condition that is likely to harm their clients and/or others" (“ACPA College Student,” n.d., p. 5). It is difficult for members of sexual assault to come forward and fear retribution if the incident is reported. In many cases, I feel that law and ethical codes clash with one another. However, in the case of sexual assault, the law and ethical principle align and for a good reason.

Reference
ACPA College Student Educators International. (n.d.). Statement of ethical principles &

standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
"RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) is the nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization" ("About RAINN," n.d., para. 1). RAINN operates the sexual violence hotline for local communities across the nation and the Department of Defense. They are dedicated to preventing sexual violence through various services, which include:
-  Strategies for parents to keep children safe.
-  Strategies for college students to protect themselves and their friends.
-  Strategies for people who have been a victim of sexual violence.
-  Strategies to help recognize victims of sexual violence.
-  Training on laws, consent, response, safe planning, generic safety tips, and alcohol safety.

Reference
About RAINN. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rainn.org/about-rainn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) is the nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization. RAINN created and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE, online.rainn.org y rainn.org/es) in partnership with more than 1,000 local sexual assault service providers across the country and operates the DoD Safe Helpline for the Department of Defense.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #13 Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #13 Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, is a statutory law that protects people from discrimination based on sex in educational environments that receive federal funding (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688).

Cases involving sexual assault or harassment are protected under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688).

The U.S. Department of Education requires the designation of at least one employee to carry out the responsibilities of Title IX. Title IX coordinators are designated campus officials, who handle allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and harassment. Sexual misconduct is considered sex discrimination, and all complaints are sent to the Title IX coordinator (34 C.F.R. § 106.8).

Educators are considered mandatory reports for issues related to safety, to include sexual assault and harassment. In the case of a sexual assault, educators who receive information regarding an incident committed by a student or employee of the institution are required to report the information to the Title IX coordinator (Tex. Educ. Code § 51.282).

According to the Angelo State Student Handbook, all employees at the university will take appropriate measures to ensure no person is subjected to retaliation. Persons found guilty of retaliation are subject to disciplinary action, which includes "termination of employment from the University, expulsion from the University, or being barred from University premises and events" (Angelo State Student Handbook, 2018)

New policy issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos provides specific guidance for school officials to respond to sexual misconduct under Title IX. This guidance comes during the #MeToo, which supporters say the new policy has regressed two decades of progress regarding women's rights.

References
Angelo State University. (2018,  August 17). Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Sexual

Misconduct, and Title IX Policy and Complaint Procedure, OP 16.03. Retrieved from

https://www.angelo.edu/content/files/22689-op-1603-sexual-harassment-sexual-assault-sexual

Designation of Responsible Employee and Adoption of Grievance Procedures, 34 C.F.R. § 106.8.

Discrimination Based on Sex or Blindness, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688.

Policy on Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking, Tex. Educ. Code §

51.282.

# data[].attributes.body
rce Base (AFB). This legal padlet is a resource guide for employees at military installations to help them understand civilian legal requirements related to sexual assault. I chose this topic because sexual assault and harassment is a pervasive problem in the military. Although the military has separate military law, known as courts-martial, it is important to understand compliance related to civilian legal requirements. Additionally, military professionals should know and understand reporting procedures and how to respond to allegations.
Your avatar
Add comment
Slide #2 Interview
Slide #2 Interview
I spoke with Kimberly Henry, a 