Different Evidentiary Standards and Why Title IX Cases Demand Clear Evidence

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Jan 17, 2020 | 0 Comments

In a recent blog post, we asked whether revised evidentiary standards in Title IX cases would actually do anything. An underlying question is why there are different standards to choose from in college disciplinary cases. Only a brief reflection on that issue reveals why Title IX cases should be using the higher “clear and convincing” standard, rather than one that only requires a “preponderance of the evidence.”

The Two Evidentiary Standards for Title IX Cases

The dilemma revolves around how strongly a sexual misconduct case needs to be proven in order for a college to issue sanctions under Title IX law:

  • Preponderance of the evidence means that sanctions can be issued if the panel decided that it was “more likely than not” that the misconduct occurred – they only have to be 51% sure
  • Clear and convincing evidence, on the other hand, means that penalties can only be issued if the hearing panel is 70% sure

Old Title IX Law Versus Proposed Revisions of Title IX Law

Under current Title IX law, since Obama's Department of Education released its so-called “Dear Colleague” letter, schools must use the preponderance of the evidence standard for sexual misconduct cases. The proposed revisions to Title IX regulations, on the other hand, give schools a choice. They could either:

  • Require clear and convincing evidence in sexual misconduct cases, or
  • Use the preponderance of the evidence standard for both sexual misconduct and non-sexual misconduct cases.

Severity of Sanctions Should Drive Evidentiary Standards

In the legal world, the evidentiary standard that is used in a hearing or other legal proceeding largely depends on the severity of the penalties. The harsher the penalty, the higher the evidentiary standard.

This is why we require cases to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt – something that requires 98% certainty of guilt – in criminal cases. Defendants can go to jail and be labeled a criminal, so we want to be sure they were really guilty.

Sexual Misconduct is More Severe Than Non-Sexual Misconduct

The penalties that are on the table for students, faculty, and staff who have been accused of sexual misconduct are significantly more severe than those that are possible in non-sexual cases, like academic misconduct or disciplinary violations. Those accused of sexual misconduct are:

  • More likely to be expelled
  • Less likely to gain re-admittance in another school
  • Going to face severe social stigmatization that is far worse than for non-sexual misconduct
  • Probably going to be labeled a “rapist” or other alleged degenerate
  • Potentially going to face criminal investigations in the aftermath of a Title IX verdict

The heightened penalties for sexual misconduct should mean that these cases require a stronger case and more certainty of guilt than non-sexual cases.

For the reasons we mentioned in our last blog post, though, we're unlikely to see that happen.

Title IX Defense and National Advisor: Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento is a Title IX defense lawyer and a national Title IX advisor. Call his law office at (888) 535-3686 or contact him online if you need help fighting an allegation of sexual misconduct.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Attorney Lento and his team represent students and others in disciplinary cases and various other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Attorney Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he and his team have sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address any school-related issue or concern anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.