Blog

Would Title IX Rules that Change Evidentiary Standards Actually Do Anything?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Jan 13, 2020 | 0 Comments

Among the many changes to Title IX law that are expected in the upcoming regulatory amendments is one that would alter the evidentiary standard for sexual misconduct cases. When the new rules were proposed last year, they gave schools the option of using a “preponderance of the evidence” standard or a “clear and convincing” standard.

Those proposals will likely be kept in the final versions of the regulations. However, they are likely to have virtually no impact.

Evidentiary Standards in Title IX Law

Evidentiary standards are how persuasive a plaintiff or victim has to be with their case. For example, in a typical civil lawsuit, plaintiffs only have to show that they are right by a preponderance of the evidence, letting them win their case if they are 51% right. Meanwhile, criminal cases have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is something closer to 98% certainty.

Back in 2011, then-President Obama issued new Title IX guidance for schools that required them to use the preponderance of the evidence standard for sexual misconduct cases. While some schools already used this standard, many used a “clear and convincing” standard, which requires something like 70% certainty that an alleged victim's claims are right.

Upcoming Title IX Regulations Likely to Alter These Standards

President Trump's Department of Education has singled out these Title IX rules from 2011 for change. When the Department proposed amendments in 2018, one of the proposals was to let schools choose between the evidentiary standards, again.

Under the proposed rules, though, if the school chose to keep the preponderance of the evidence standard from Obama's 2011 guidance, then they also had to use that standard for non-sexual misconduct, as well. On the other hand, schools would be free to use the higher “clear and convincing” standard for sexual misconduct and the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard for non-sexual cases.

Those proposed rules are expected to become finalized regulations, despite the controversy they inspired during the notice and comment period.

Schools Likely to Keep Status Quo, Anyway

By giving schools the discretion to use different evidentiary standards, though, this particular facet of the new Title IX regulations might end up having no effect on the law.

As Jeannie Suk Gersen said in an article in The New Yorker, a likely outcome of the ability to choose evidentiary standards would be for schools to adopt the preponderance of the evidence standard for both sexual and non-sexual cases – the same outcome that the 2011 guidelines required for sexual misconduct. As Suk Gersen says, this would “avoid the public-relations cost of leveling up or uniquely disfavoring Title IX complainants.”

That act of “leveling up” the evidentiary standard for Title IX allegations, alone, will likely deter schools from adopting the higher standard. With college politics as they are, and with school administrators pandering to victim advocate organizations, it seems incredibly unlikely that schools would voluntarily take on that public relations nightmare.

Title IX Defense Lawyer Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento defends students, faculty, and staff who have been accused of sexual misconduct on campus. He's also a national Title IX advisor. Call his law office at (888) 535-3686 or contact him online.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience passionately fighting for the futures of his clients. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at universities and colleges across the United States while concurrently fighting in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, and New Jersey. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand universities and colleges across the United States. 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, and is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide.

Comments

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

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

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 our offices 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, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton 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.

Menu