In compliance with federal law Title IX, post-secondary education institutions are required to approach and resolve sexual misconduct complaints that arise on campus. The mitigation of these allegations includes a supposed in-depth investigation, and a hearing conducted by students, staff, and faculty. At the end of this adjudication process, a finding of responsibility or irresponsibility will be determined, resulting in either the imposition of sanctions or a complete dismissal of charges.

Although this current system may seem straightforward and impartial on the surface, it is far from equitable and effective. Under this win-loss model, it has been evident that nobody wins and everybody loses. Complainants' experiences are invalidated and undermined, accused students are deprived of their fundamental protections and subjected to mistreatment, and higher education institutions are trapped between the two while facing the potential loss of federal funding.

Even though nobody wins, there is a party who loses quite a bit more than other factions involved: the accused. Oftentimes when student respondents are cast into this flawed system, their fate is inevitable failure. Their rights are robbed and their side of the story isn't heard, which ultimately means that they will more than likely not - regardless of whether they or innocent or guilty - face the incredibly harsh sanctions that Title IX violation allegations exposes them to.

This is a reality that far too many student respondents can attest to. However, they might not understand why things are the way they are and what needs to change to improve integrity in Title IX adjudication processes. For the purposes of this article, I will provide you with some reasons why Title IX hearings can be unfair specifically for the accused.

A conflict of interest

Just like any other organization, higher education institutions are compelled to do things that are in their best interest. Unfortunately, sometimes the motive to fulfill self-serving interests outweighs the obligation to protect the rights of its own students. With each option that is presented to schools, there is pressure. If they disregard accusations from complainants (like they did in the past), they face an ominous consequence - the loss of federal funding. This is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to a school. So, in a swing of the pendulum, this pressure contributes to partially discriminatory investigation and the absence of protection for the accused.

Evidentiary standards - the preponderance of evidence

The majority of colleges and universities in the nation apply the “preponderance of evidence” standard in Title IX hearings. This essentially means that a student could be penalized if administrators are just 50.01 percent certain that they guilty. Due process advocates have long argued that the preponderance of evidence standard is inappropriate for sexual misconduct cases. They claim that such complex and circumstantial cases have higher evidentiary standards.

Title IX Advisor Helping Client Nationwide

The only way to make sure your voice is heard and your rights are upheld is to retain a student defense attorney. National Title IX attorney Joseph D. Lento has the skill, experience, and expertise to help you preserve your entitled rights under Title IX and your school's policy. For a case evaluation or more information about his representation, contact him online or give him a call at 888-535-3686 today.