# data[].attributes.body
When researching on the NASAP website, I am across a lot of discussion regarding resource guides for responding to Department of Education's proposed Title IX rule. Many college students attend institutions that support Title IX and the proposal changes. While the Federal Register is not fully operational during the shutdown, public comments on the Title IX proposal are due by January 28. The government shutdown can impact the student and leadership participation in the implementation of the proposed rulemaking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In late November, the Department of Education published a proposed rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and opened a 60-day public comment period. While the Federal Register is not fully operational during the shutdown, public comments on the Title IX Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are still due by January 28, and regulations.gov is functional and accepting comments.

NASPA staff have developed several resources intended to help higher education leaders learn about and respond to the proposed rule. Prior to the winter break, we held several information sessions (recordings are available in the NASPA Online Learning Community) and published a 4-part blog series providing a preliminary analysis of the proposed rule. Today we released a series of Resource Guides that expand on many of the topics we highlighted in December with links to research and data that individuals and institutions can use to bolster their comments as needed.

Aspects of the proposed rule that may reduce reporting

There are a few aspects of the proposed rule that are promising, including the continued right for both parties to appeal findings and clarity that institutions can provide supportive services to students regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed. However, there are many more that risk, individually and collectively, prompting a decline in reporting of campus sexual harassment incidents. Many of the aspects of the rule that might result in a decrease in reporting are covered in more depth in other NASPA Title IX Resource Guides but a summary of the issues particularly as they may affect reporting rates is provided in the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Aspects of the proposed rule that may reduce reporting.

Changes to the religious exemption process

The proposed rule would change the process by which faith-based institutions could claim a religious exemption under Title IX. Institutions who request affirmation of a religious exemption are not required to uphold student civil rights under Title IX that violate their faith. For example, at an institution with a religious exemption, LGBTQ students who are sexually harassed by a person of their same sex may be disciplined for violating same-sex relationship policies if they report the incident. Given the high rates of sexual harassment among LGBTQ students, it is imperative that our institutions of higher education provide transparency about whether their rights will be protected should they enroll at a religiously-affiliated institution. Removal of the process for affirmation of religious exemptions leaves these students at best uninformed and at worst subject to intentional discrimination at the hands of institutions receiving millions of dollars of federal financial resources. The NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Changes to the religious exemption process provides a history of the religious exemption to Title IX and summarizes the possible effects of changing the process.

Departmental over-reach

The proposed rule oversteps the appropriate role of a federal agency in several ways. The Department relies on selective evidence in taking a stance that assumes institutions of higher education are not currently engaging in fair and equitable campus conduct processes as well as in extending Constitutional due process rights to campus conduct processes. Further, the Department attempts to intervene in campus personnel matters by setting requirements for who can be hired to fill certain campus-based roles. Finally, the Department challenges the historical nature of federalism by over-ruling state legislation governing campus-based sexual harassment procedures. These issues are discussed in more detail in the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Departmental over-reach.

Expectations for overly-legalistic processes

The proposed rule would create a more adversarial process for adjudication of campus sexual harassment conduct incidents, one that is repeatedly and intentionally conflated within the proposed rule with criminal justice processes. Campus conduct proceedings are not courts of law and the numerous expectations, both implicit and explicit, the Department places on campus administrative proceedings to behave as courts represents an over-reach. These aspects of the proposed rule that would lead to more adversarial campus conduct proceedings are explored more fully in the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Expectations for overly-legalistic processes.

Impact on institutional staffing and capacity

Aspects of the proposed rule raise concerns around institutional staffing and capacity for both large and small institutions. Changes to policies on campus indicating who is considered a responsible employee and the narrow definition of what constitutes "actual knowledge," discussed in detail in the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Scope of institutional responsibility, are only part of the concern. These changes, combined with requirements for Title IX Coordinators to arrange for all supportive services for students, the number of individuals required to participate in the proposed formal grievance process, and the costs for training and retraining of students, faculty, and administrators are all additional areas of concern. To learn more, see the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Impact on institutional staffing and capacity.

Informal resolution

One significant way the proposed rule differs from previous Title IX guidance is the allowance of informal resolution procedures to resolve sexual harassment cases. This was a welcome shift for some campus practitioners who recognize the value in less adversarial processes. According to the Association of American Universities campus climate survey report, 24% of victims surveyed listed social-related reasons for why they didn't report, including "I did not want the person to get into trouble." The inclusion of informal processes has been welcomed by some practitioners and viewed by others as the return to a time when victims could be pressured into less formal processes by well-intentioned campus administrators. A few of the more detailed concerns about informal resolution processes are outlined in the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Informal resolution.

Resolution timeline

One of the elements of the proposed rule that has received a warm welcome from some practitioners whose roles involve sexual harassment investigations is the elimination of a 60-day resolution timeline. The proposed rule does not include mention of a specific timeline for resolution of investigations, instead stating that institutions are to "designate reasonably prompt timeframes ... that may be extended for good cause" (83 FR 61472 §106.45(b)(1)(v)). What was felt by some practitioners as an overly-stringent timeframe requirement for investigation and has been replaced by the complete lack of a timeframe, causing equal concern among campus administrators. Complicating matters, the Department has added two mandatory 10-day review periods to the formal investigation process and has potentially opened the door for additional delays related to scheduling advisors and any necessary witnesses for a live hearing. For more information, see the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Resolution timeline.

Scope of institutional responsibility

One of the primary ways that the proposed rule differs from previous guidance issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is the narrower definition of harassment prohibited under Title IX. There is a significant change in the scope of institutional responsibility to investigate allegations of sexual harassment within the new rule. The change to the standard by which institutions are considered to have actual knowledge of sexual misconduct has also been narrowed under the new rule, as has the responsibility for institutions to investigate and adjudicate misconduct that occurs outside of official programs and activities of the institution. These changes represent a substantial shift in the ways that institutions will be required to address sexual harassment involving students. To review these issues in more detail, please see the NASPA Title IX Resource Guide: Scope of institutional responsibility.

Accessing the Resource Guides

The NASPA Title IX Resource Guides are the guides are available through the NASPA Online Learning Community. You do not need to be a NASPA member to access them, but you will need to create an account and register to access the Guides. Members of the higher education community are also invited to join us for a free 30-minute live briefing this afternoon (January 10, 2019) at 2:30 ET to introduce the Resource Guides after which we will open a Q&A session on the proposed rule for attendees.

We strongly encourage higher education professionals to engage with their institutional leadership and encourage them to submit comments on the proposed Title IX rule. NASPA also encourages student affairs professionals to review the proposed rule and, if your professional background includes responsibility for Title IX or campus conduct procedures, to submit an individual comment before the January 28, 2019 deadline. Please feel free to review our tips for submitting effective comments or contact NASPA Director of Policy and Advocacy Teri Lyn Hinds at [email protected] with any questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resource Guides for Responding to the Department of Education's Proposed Title IX Rule

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In late November, the Department of Education published a proposed rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and opened a 60-day public comment period.

# data[].attributes.body
When researching various topics regarding sexual assaults and how Title IX plays a role on college campuses today, I came across an article that discusses how race can play a role in campus sexual-assault cases. The article talks about how the government doesn't acknowledge that race plays into the issue of sexual assaults. The article alsotalks about the Office for Civil Rights, which regulates how colleges respond to sexual assault, collects data on race, it does not require colleges to document the race of the accuser.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is the system biased against men of color?

Peter Yang

This is the final story in a three-part series examining how the rules governing sexual-assault adjudication have changed in recent years, and why some of those changes are problematic. Read the first installment here, and the second one here.

The archetypal image of the campus rapist is a rich, white fraternity athlete. The case of Brock Turner-the freshman swimmer at Stanford University convicted last year of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman after meeting her at a party, but sentenced to only six months in jail-reinforced this. Petula Dvorak, a Washington Post columnist, wrote, "The brilliant smile of a Stanford swimmer with Olympic dreams, the happy privileged face of a white college kid named Brock Turner ... This is what a campus sexual predator looks like."

Amy Ziering, the producer of The Hunting Ground, a 2015 campus-sexual-assault documentary, has said much the same thing. In a radio interview, she asserted that her movie exposed "privileged" well-off white men and challenged "dominant white male power." But a close viewing of her film reveals a different reality. Her movie tells four main stories that are primarily focused on assault allegations.* In at least three of the cases, the accused is black.

How race plays into the issue of campus sexual assault is almost completely unacknowledged by the government. While the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which regulates how colleges respond to sexual assault, collects a lot of data on race, it does not require colleges and universities to document the race of the accused and accuser in sexual-assault complaints. An OCR investigator told me last year that people at the agency were aware of race as an issue in Title IX cases, but was concerned that it's "not more of a concern. No one's tracking it."

Janet Halley, a professor at Harvard Law School and a self-described feminist, is one of the few people who have publicly addressed the role of race in campus sexual assault. Interracial assault allegations, she notes, are a category that bears particular scrutiny. In a 2015 Harvard Law Review article, "Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement," she writes, "American racial history is laced with vendetta-like scandals in which black men are accused of sexually assaulting white women," followed eventually by the revelation "that the accused men were not wrongdoers at all." She writes that "morning-after remorse can make sex that seemed like a good idea at the time look really alarming in retrospect; and the general social disadvantage that black men continue to carry in our culture can make it easier for everyone in the adjudicative process to put the blame on them." She has observed the phenomenon at her own university: "Case after Harvard case that has come to my attention, including several in which I have played some advocacy or adjudication role, has involved black male respondents."

Another Ivy League law professor who has been involved in sexual-assault policy said to me of the issue of race, "Nobody wants to talk about it." He said students are pushing their boundaries and that many hook up with a partner of a different ethnicity for the first time. But then, "if there is any kind of perceived injury-emotional or physical-when you cross racial lines, there's likely to be more animus. It needs to be talked about and hasn't been." The professor requested anonymity, citing the difficulties of publicly discussing the subject.

Since there are no national statistics on how many young men of any given race are the subject of campus-sexual-assault complaints, we are left with anecdotes about men of color being accused and punished. There are many such anecdotes. In 2015, in The New Yorker, Jeannie Suk Gersen, a Harvard Law School professor, wrote that in general, the administrators and faculty members she'd spoken with who "routinely work on sexual-misconduct cases" said that "most of the complaints they see are against minorities." For two years I have received a daily Google Alert on college sexual assault. It captures only those cases that make it into the news, and is not a comprehensive or statistically valid measure. But it is illuminating. Usually the reports don't disclose race, but sometimes it is mentioned, and if the accused is named, it's often possible to determine his race through photo searches or other online information. Black men make up only about 6 percent of college undergraduates. They are vastly overrepresented in the cases I've tracked.

The case involving Kwadwo Bonsu and R.M., described in Part I of this series, was an interracial encounter. Bonsu later filed a race- and gender-discrimination complaint with OCR for the way his case was handled by the University of Massachusetts, although after reaching a settlement with the university, he withdrew the complaint.

As with the answers to so many questions involving individual campus encounters, it may ultimately be unknowable whether racial bias played any part in either the complaint against Bonsu or its adjudication. But as the definition of sexual assault used by colleges has become broader and blurrier, it certainly seems possible that unconscious biases might tip some women toward viewing a regretted encounter with a man of a different race as an assault. And as the standards for proving assault have been lowered, it seems likely that those same biases, coupled with the lack of resources common among minority students on campus, might systematically disadvantage men of color in adjudication, whether or not the encounter was interracial.

* * *

In several recent civil lawsuits against their schools, male students found responsible in campus tribunals for sexual misconduct have made the racial aspects of their experience explicit. These include cases involving Amherst College, in Massachusetts (which recently settled for undisclosed terms); Butler University, in Indiana; Drexel University, in Pennsylvania; Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Swarthmore College, in Pennsylvania; the University of Findlay, in Ohio; the University of Pennsylvania; and William Paterson University, in New Jersey. Each suit says a student or students were subject to specious charges and in some cases abrupt expulsions because they were minorities.

In the University of Findlay case, Justin Browning and Alphonso Baity II, two black athletes, each had a separate sexual encounter with a white female student one Saturday night in September 2014. According to their federal suit, the encounters were consensual and the female student spent the night with Browning and bragged about it afterward to her friends. But a week and a half later, on a Wednesday, she filed a written complaint of sexual assault. That Friday, the two young men were expelled. The school then issued a campus-wide alert announcing their expulsion, and their names and photos were printed in the local paper. Findlay's president, Katherine Fell, said that the university had dealt with "a serious incident of sexual assault on our campus, and we've done it with compassion, thorough research and effectiveness."

Browning and Baity's suit says that the university's probe and disciplinary proceedings were a "sham" and that its actions were "motivated by race." The suit notes that fewer than 2 percent of Findlay's students are black men and that the only other student expelled in the prior two years for sexual misconduct was a black man accused of sexually assaulting a white woman. To date, Browning and Baity have been unable to resume their education at a four-year school. The university said in a statement that it conducted its investigation and appeal process "with integrity and fairness" and "will vigorously defend the process and our decision." In a court filing, the university denied the allegations in the suit; the case is ongoing.

In November 2014, five 18-year-old black male freshmen at William Paterson University were arrested for allegedly holding a female student in a room and forcing her to perform sexual acts. In their suit, two of the students, Garrett Collick and Noah Williams, say they had consensual sex with the woman on the night in question-Collick says she initiated it with him-and that she had initiated sex with each of them on at least one previous occasion. Right after the arrests, the president of the university, Kathleen Waldron, released a statement in which she said, "I am angry and dismayed that this crime was committed on our campus and allegedly by students. My deepest concern is for the victim of this criminal act who has courageously stepped forward to take legal action and seek justice." Collick and Williams were jailed for nine days. Ultimately, a grand jury, which decides whether there is sufficient evidence for formal charges-a very low evidentiary standard-declined to indict the men, and they were freed. About 50 William Paterson students showed up in court to support their classmates.

Collick and Williams, who were receiving state funding to attend college, remained barred from campus despite their exoneration. The local newspaper reported that after the decision, Waldron issued a statement saying the university "has its own student conduct process that is independent of the state's legal proceedings." This process ended with their expulsion. Michael Epstein, Collick and Williams's attorney, told me that since losing their funding, the expelled students have been unable to continue their education; one of his clients had been working as a busboy. The former students are suing both the university and the school's police department for, among other things, reckless conduct, negligence, and failure to provide the expected standard of due process and equal protection under the law. (The university denied the claims, and noted that in the past, its student judiciary process has been affirmed in New Jersey Appellate Court as adequate and appropriate under the law. Last November, a judge refused the school's motion to dismiss the case in its entirety, allowing it to proceed on gender- but not race-discrimination grounds.)

Colgate University was recently investigated by the Office for Civil Rights for potential race discrimination, a Title VI violation, in its sexual-assault adjudication process. The university was cleared in April, on the grounds that the numbers did not allow OCR to conclude that race was a statistically significant factor in Colgate's adjudications-in any given year the number of men of any race referred for formal hearings was in the single digits. (The investigation does not appear to have examined any individual cases or otherwise reach beyond this statistical analysis.) But the report did bring those statistics to light, a rarity. In the 2013-14 academic year, 4.2 percent of Colgate's students were black. According to the university's records, in that year black male students were accused of 50 percent of the sexual violations reported to the university, and they made up 40 percent of the students formally adjudicated.

During the three academic years from 2012-13 to 2014-15, black students were accused of 25 percent of the sexual misconduct reported to the university, and made up 21 percent of the students referred for formal hearings. Fifteen percent of the students found responsible for assault in those years were black. During that same three-year period, Asian students, who constituted a little more than 3 percent of Colgate's student body in 2013, were more than 13 percent of the accused, 21 percent of those referred for hearings, and 23 percent of those found responsible. (The rest were white; no Hispanic students were accused.)

Melissa Kagle is one of three people who brought the race-discrimination complaint about Colgate to OCR. Kagle is a former assistant professor of educational studies at the school who, over the course of her last three years at the university, became a prominent critic of Colgate's handling of sexual misconduct. (She left after being denied tenure in 2016 and now works at an education nonprofit.) Her co-complainants were minority students who'd been accused of assault or harassment, and to whom Kagle had become an informal adviser. Kagle viscerally understands the horror of rape because as a young woman she experienced it herself. But she told me that over the past several years, she'd become deeply concerned that in some cases fear of assault on campus was clouding people's judgment and creating a reflex to presume guilt. In several cases that she'd come to know closely, at first by happenstance and then because minority men began to seek her out for assistance, "people believed something terrible happened when it hadn't."

Kagle believes that men of color-and especially foreign men of color, students from Africa and Asia-were uniquely defenseless when charged with sexual assault, typically lacking financial resources, a network of support, and an understanding of their rights. She told me that university administrators, in their zeal to address an issue that was a top priority of federal regulators, had gone after rumors and third-party reports of assaults, pressuring some female students to pursue complaints. I spoke with two women who made harassment complaints against a Rwandan student who was later expelled. One said she hadn't wanted to make a complaint, but was told that it would help another woman feel safer; neither believed expulsion was the right outcome.

"We have laws and rules to make sure people's rights aren't violated. When you take away those protections, then you get what's happening here," Kagle said of Colgate. She also told me that she and her co-complainants are appealing OCR's finding, noting that they believe the available numbers do demonstrate significant disparate treatment, and that in any case, the numbers alone do not tell the full story. Colgate declined to comment on the inquiry other than to say in a statement that it has "cooperated fully with the OCR investigation."

* * *

What are we to make of these stories? It bears repeating that we do not know whether systematic racial bias is at work in campus-sexual-assault complaints and adjudications, or if it is, how strongly. Nor is it clear how changes made to the system in recent years might have affected the magnitude of that bias. And it is possible that racial bias affects the ability of minority complainants to get justice, too-a possibility that should be investigated. All we have today are anecdotes.

Even so, as Gersen noted in her New Yorker article, "if we have learned from the public reckoning with the racial impact of over-criminalization, mass incarceration, and law enforcement bias, we should heed our legacy of bias against black men in rape accusations." As the Office for Civil Rights weighs changes to the system, the interplay of race with assault complaints and assault adjudication must be considered, and the racial composition of assault complaints and resolutions documented. It would be tragic-and unacceptable-if OCR, in a worthy effort to prevent sexual assault, has created a system that ends up unfairly depriving some black men of their access to higher education.

* The film's two narrators, who describe their efforts to seek safety and justice for women on campus, also describe their alleged assaults at some length, although this is not the primary focus of their stories.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Emily Yoffe is a contributing editor at The Atlantic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Question of Race in Campus Sexual-Assault Cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is the system biased against men of color? This is the final story in a three-part series examining how the rules governing sexual-assault adjudication have changed in recent years, and why some of those changes are problematic. Read the first installment here, and the second one here.

# data[].attributes.body
My professional perspective is working as a college advisor in higher education. Upon completion of a Master of Education in Student Development in Leadership from Angelo State University, I hope to be employed as a student college advisor with the department of Student Success Initiatives at Rice University.

# data[].attributes.body
I spoke with the Assistant Director of Student Success Initiatives at Rice University, Ms. Jessica Bowers about current legal and ethical issues impacting her role in the department.

# data[].attributes.body
#1: College and universities struggle to identify current issues happening on campus because of lack of student participation. Students are afraid to speak up.

# data[].attributes.body
#2: Issues regarding sexual assaults and prevention continues to be challenging for administrators.

# data[].attributes.body
#3: It is imperative to stay up-to-date with law changes, especially for immigrant students, in order to make wise decisions as a representative of the university. One way she accomplishes such task is by screening students properly and being sensitive of student information.

# data[].attributes.body
#4: Racial discrimination and sense of belonging issues for any student on campus are high priority issues being handled immediately. She is actively talking to students during lunch hours and have constant communication with the first-generation students as they are likely to feel left-out.

# data[].attributes.body
#5: Keeping confidential information of student problems without overstepping boundaries can be challenging when speaking to students. Some issues can be escalated but if the student doesn't give consent, some issues will not be addressed on campus.

# data[].attributes.body
(J. Bowers, personal communication, January 18, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Purpose | Student Success Initiatives | Rice University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Office of Student Success Initiatives (SSI) engages and supports Rice undergraduate students employing proactive advising and other high engagement strategies to facilitate students' successful transition, retention and graduation from the university.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Brown (2018), under draft regulations proposed by the Education Department under Betsy DeVos leadership, the rights of accused students would be strengthened and colleges' liability would be lessoned. After DeVos proposals, it is unclear when final rules would be issued. This articles addresses some highlights of the Obama-era guidance and how college officials complained it was burdensome and bureaucratic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colleges got a preview on Wednesday of what might be coming in the U.S. Department of Education's long-awaited regulations on campus sexual misconduct.

The New York Times obtained a version of the proposed rules, which would be the first regulations ever issued under Title IX, the federal gender-equity law. The Times reported that the rules would strengthen the rights of students who are accused of sexual assault or harassment, and would lessen liability for colleges. The document may not be a final draft of the rules.

Here are some of its highlights, according to the Times:

Colleges would be held accountable only for responding to formal misconduct complaints filed through official institutional channels, or allegations of which officials have "actual knowledge." A formal complaint would be one "made to an official who has the authority to institute corrective measures," not someone like a resident adviser.

Sexual harassment would be defined 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." That's narrower than the Obama administration's definition.

Colleges would be responsible for handling allegations of sexual misconduct that occurred on their campuses and in institutional programs, but not in settings like off-campus student apartments.

When deciding whether a person had committed sexual misconduct, colleges would be able to choose which legal standard to use - "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that it's more likely than not that the misconduct occurred, or "clear and convincing evidence," a higher standard.

The department's Office for Civil Rights would use a higher legal standard to determine whether a college violated Title IX.

"The department recognizes that despite well-intentioned efforts by school districts, colleges and universities, advocacy organizations, and the department itself, sexual harassment and assault continue to present serious problems across the nation's campuses," federal officials wrote in the draft rules, according to the Times, which did not say how or from where it had obtained the document.

"The lack of clear regulatory standards has contributed to processes that have not been fair to all parties involved, that have lacked appropriate procedural protections, and that have undermined confidence in the reliability of the outcomes of investigations of sexual-harassment allegations," the draft says.

'Administrative Fiat'

College officials have been in limbo for the past year, since the secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, rescinded the Obama administration's Title IX guidance, which for six years had framed colleges' approach to handling sexual assault and harassment. The Obama-era civil-rights office had also stepped up enforcement of Title IX and opened hundreds of investigations into colleges for potentially violating the law.

A year ago, DeVos said she was concerned that students accused of sexual misconduct weren't receiving due process and, in some cases, were facing serious punishments from colleges for crimes they didn't commit. Many college officials have complained that the Obama-era guidance - the most significant of which was a 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter - was burdensome and bureaucratic.

At the same time she withdrew the Obama documents, DeVos put in place interim guidance that was designed to be a placeholder until the department issued proposed regulations and completed a notice-and-comment period. DeVos had criticized the previous administration's department for, as she put it, handing down mandates by "administrative fiat."

Advocacy groups for victims of sexual misconduct decried the changes and said they would harm sexual-assault survivors, and also expressed concern that a less-aggressive federal commitment to Title IX would let colleges off the hook. Organizations that support the rights of accused students applauded DeVos for taking such a firm stand for due process.

Many observers expected DeVos's interim guidance to signal what was to come in the proposed regulations, and the document the Times obtained appears to reflect that. The rules would continue to allow colleges to use an informal resolution process, instead of an investigation, to resolve some cases of sexual assault.

One new policy, according to the Times, would allow sexual-misconduct victims and accused students to request evidence from each other and to cross-examine each other during campus hearings. The Obama administration had discouraged cross-examination because officials believed it could retraumatize victims.

'I Don't Think It's Earth-Shaking'

A full picture of what's in the proposed regulations won't materialize until a final document is published, Title IX experts cautioned on Wednesday.

In the short term, they added, it's likely that nothing will change on campuses. A few institutions might be looking for an excuse to scale back the amount of money and resources they devote to complying with Title IX, they said. But even when DeVos rescinded the Obama-era guidance last year, most colleges retained their Title IX policies and programs.

When the department's final sexual-misconduct rules take effect, they will have the force of law. But it's not clear how long it will take to get to that point since it has already taken the department nearly a year to craft this version of the regulations, noted Brett A. Sokolow, president of the Ncherm Group, which advises colleges on risk management.

During the Obama era of Title IX enforcement, Sokolow said, many believed that the pendulum had swung too far in favor of sexual-assault victims. "These rules are trying to reassert a new balance," he said.

But colleges had already been shifting their practices toward being "trauma-informed, victim-centered, and preserving and respecting of due process," he said. As for the document the Times obtained, he said, "I don't think it's earth-shaking."

Peter F. Lake, who leads the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University, was struck by the document's narrow definition of sexual harassment, which appears to suggest that colleges would have no obligation to intervene if a case of harassment doesn't seem "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive." If the final rules use that same language, he said, that potentially "removes the preventative effect of Title IX."

In recent years, colleges "were told to have avenues to consider harassment that doesn't rise to the level of a hostile environment," Lake said. "If they don't have enough information that could trigger a formal complaint," he continued, "are we going to turn people away who are suggesting that a doctor or some other team official has been repeatedly harassing people?"

Experts also called attention to the draft's language indicating that colleges would be held accountable only for responding to formal sexual-misconduct complaints. The proposed change could upend the mandatory-reporting policies that many campuses have adopted, which direct nearly every employee to report allegations of sexual misconduct they hear about. That report then triggers a response from the Title IX office.

Some have criticized those policies for taking away the ability for professors and resident advisers to have confidential conversations with students.

Most people on campuses nowadays expect Title IX officials to respond to allegations whether or not an official complaint has been filed, though, Lake said. "I don't think most Title IX offices will put up signs saying, 'We're closed for business unless you make a formal report,'" he said.

For Jody Shipper, a consultant who helps small colleges comply with Title IX, the big question is philosophical: Are the proposed regulations designed to be permissive, or are they prescriptive? If the latter, she said, the rules could conflict with a wave of state laws on campus sexual assault that have recently been enacted.

Once the regulations take effect, Lake predicted that a lawsuit would be filed almost immediately. The question, he said, is whether the Education Department has the authority to exercise this level of regulatory power.

It's one thing for federal officials to say that colleges must respect due-process rights in sexual-misconduct cases, he said. It's another to say that colleges should define sexual harassment in a certain way.

In short, Lake asked, "Does Title IX support regulations that create specific mandates for college courts?"
Sarah Brown writes about a range of higher-education topics, including sexual assault, race on campus, and Greek life. Follow her on Twitter @Brown_e_Points, or email her at sarah.brown@chronicle.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DeVos's Rules on Sexual Misconduct, Long Awaited on Campuses, Reflect Her Interim Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colleges got a preview on Wednesday of what might be coming in the U.S. Department of Education's long-awaited regulations on campus sexual misconduct. The New York Times obtained a version of the proposed rules, which would be the first regulations ever issued under Title IX, the federal gender-equity law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal and Ethical Issue of Interest to Me - Title IX and Sexual Assault

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal and Ethical Issue of Interest to Me - Title IX and Sexual Assault

# data[].attributes.body
After my exploration of legal and ethical issues in the field of college advisors, I am interested in exploring how colleges are supporting the issues regarding sexual assaults and the requirements of Title IX. These topics are interesting to me because I am the first point of contact for students in my current position as an academic administrator. I know some students struggle with sense of belonging on college campuses and issues faced by the LGBTQ community. Some of these issues have impacted students' overall academic success by dropping out of school because they felt like they didn't have the support.

# data[].attributes.body
I was intrigued and interested in the Title IX section of this book because it gave me a better understanding of the regulations. I understood that Title IX has various exceptions to its prohibition on sex discrimination. It learned that Title IX does not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organizations and institutions that are purposely training individuals for the military services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Congresswomen proposes legislation to toughen laws against sexual assault... 

# data[].attributes.subject
Congresswomen proposes legislation to toughen laws against sexual assault... 

# data[].attributes.body
In my search through the Angelo State University Library, I found a UWIRE Text that summarizes Rep. Jackie Speier's support to aggressively go against sexual assault on college campuses by increasing funding for federal investigators, annual campus surveys, and more comprehensive data on cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title IX states that, "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" (Volume 34, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 106).

A school has a responsibility to respond promptly and effectively.  If a school knows or reasonably should know about sexual harassment or sexual violence that creates a hostile environment, the school must take immediate action to eliminate the sexual harassment or sexual violence, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects. Even if a student or his or her parent does not want to file a complaint or does not request that the school take action on the student’s behalf, if a school knows possible sexual harassment or sexual violence, it must promptly investigate to determine what occurred and then take appropriate steps to resolve the situation.

After all, a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints immediately.

As a college advisor for students, I need to educate myself with the university policies and procedures along with the schools' ethics and compliances. Understanding the ethical values and procedures of the school, I will be able to assist and prevent any incidents of sexual assaults happening on campus. As a leader and mentor to students, I would focus on the overall well-being of students and sense of belonging on campus. Educators and administrators need to understand how to screen students properly and become aware of current issues impacting their overall educational goals. I would also need to understand the implications and specific information that is being presented to faculty, students, and staff regarding sexual assault issues.

# 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.