Missouri's Proposed Bill to Add Due Process into Title IX Proceedings Ends in Chaos

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | May 02, 2019 | 0 Comments

A bill in Missouri that would have altered the Title IX procedures for colleges in the state has faltered and dissolved in chaos. While the aims of the bill were reasonable, the details and motivation were rife with controversy.

Missouri Legislature Considers Title IX Bill

The proposed law, House Bill 573, was initiated by a state lobbyist, Richard McIntosh, and introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives in January. It would have overhauled the Title IX process for colleges in Missouri by reining in accusations and providing due process protections for the accused students.

Key among the provisions of the bill was the right of the accused to have a lawyer at the hearing, and for that lawyer to cross-examine an accuser about their sexual history and their drinking habits. The bill would also allow students who had been suspended or expelled – even those who had already been found in violation of Title IX before the bill passed – to appeal their punishment straight to Missouri's Administrative Hearing Commission.

However, House Bill 573 went further than that, too. One provision would have allowed students who were incorrectly found to have committed sexual misconduct to sue their school, campus staff members, and even their accusers in court and recover money damages from them.

In all, House Bill 573 would have made Missouri the most favorable place for a student accused of sexual misconduct under Title IX.

State politicians in Missouri were surprised by how vigorously lobbyists were pushing for the bill. There were 29 lobbyists working for its passage, paid for by a dark money group called Kingdom Principles.

Investigation Reveals Hidden Motives for the Bill

An article by the Kansas City Star, though, brought to light the real reason for the bill: Mr. McIntosh's son had recently been expelled from Washington University in St. Louis for violating Title IX.

Suddenly, some of House Bill 573's stranger provisions took on a new meaning: The bill expressly gave accused students rights, in reciprocity, to appeal their punishment to Missouri's Administrative Hearing Commission. This would allow Mr. McIntosh's son to lodge an appeal, even though his case had already closed.

And the choice of using Missouri's Administrative Hearing Commission became clear, as well. Its presiding and managing commissioner was none other than Audrey Hanson McIntosh, the wife of the lobbyist and mother of the expelled student.

And Kingdom Principles, the nonprofit fund of dark money behind the bill: It was founded by Mr. McIntosh.

In the aftermath of these revelations, support for House Bill 573 collapsed. The House Speaker refused to add it to the calendar, a necessary step for the bill to come to a vote in that chamber, effectively endings its progress through the legislature.

Title IX Attorney Joseph D. Lento

There were numerous problems with this particular attempt to correct the wrongs of Title IX, and some of them bear talking about in future blog posts. However, the need to inject some due process into the hearing procedure still remains one of the most pressing concerns in the law.

If you have been accused of violating Title IX with an act of sexual misconduct, Joseph D. Lento, a national Title IX advisor, can help you defend yourself. Contact him online or call his law office at (888) 535-3686.

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.