Blog

Republican Legislators Voice Opposition to Title IX Sexual Misconduct Mandates

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Feb 26, 2016 | 0 Comments

Republican legislators have recently become more vocal in questioning the Department of Education's Office of Civil Right's handling of Title IX sexual misconduct and sexual assault cases at colleges and universities not just in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but nationwide. Republicans have questioned whether the Office of Civil Right has mishandled Title IX campus disciplinary cases and whether the Office of Civil Rights has overstepped its bounds regarding how it enforces campus sexual misconduct and sexual assault cases.

Dr. John King Jr., the acting secretary for the Department of Education, was officially nominated this past week to head the department. Dr. King appeared before House of Representative and Senate committees this past week to discuss Department of Education initiatives. During these meetings, it became clear that a number of Republicans are critical of how the Office of Civil Rights is handling Title IX campus sexual misconduct and sexual assault disciplinary cases. On Wednesday for example, Dr. King was grilled by Republican Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina. Representative Foxx was "very concerned" that the Office of Civil Rights is bypassing Congress by "legislating" through its use of "Dear Colleague" letters. 

("Dear Colleague" letters are issued by the Department of Education to every college and university that accepts federal funding. The letters advise schools as to the current laws and regulations they must comply with in order to remain in compliance to continue to receive federal funds. One such "Dear Colleague" letter, issued in 2011, mandated offenses involving sexual violence be subject to Title IX, and that the standard of evidence that colleges and universities must use when making findings regarding allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual assault could no longer be proof by "clear and convincing evidence." Proof by a "preponderance of the evidence," a much lower evidentiary standard, was mandated by this "Dear Colleague" letter, making it easier for there to be a Title IX finding against an accused student.) 

Representative Foxx added that she was "deeply concerned" about the Department of Education's "legitimacy and effectiveness" and the "potential negative impact on students and institutions." Another of Foxx's concerns is whether the Office of Civil Rights, when investigating allegations that schools have mishandled Title IX sexual misconduct and sexual assault, is more concerned with adding more schools under investigation rather than seeking "justice" in individual cases. 

Republican criticism of how the Department of Education enforces Title IX cases involving allegations of campus sexual violence was also questioned by legislators during Dr King's appearance before committees this week, but this was not the first time such criticism was noted. In 2013, Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, questioned the agreement made between the Department of Education and the University of Montana. Senator McCain's criticism was that the Department of Education, entirely on its own accord, redefined the definition of sexual harassment at colleges and universities. More recently, Senator John Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, asked the Department of Education to explain where it drew its authority to issue its "Dear Colleague" letters. The Office of Civil Rights, in response, contended that its "Dear Colleague" letters do not have the force of law as affirmed by the United States Supreme Court last year.  Nonetheless, it is unusual for colleges and universities to not comply with these letters so as to not risk receiving federal funds.

The Office of Civil Rights has also not provided for a "notice and comment" period at times before informing colleges and universities how to remain in compliance with Department of Education regulations; this is known as "consequential guidance." Critics contend that colleges and universities themselves should have more input on how Title IX campus disciplinary cases are handled; arguing that schools are on the front lines in handling Title IX sexual misconduct and sexual assault disciplinary cases on campus, whereas the Office of Civil Rights dictates from afar without always getting the necessary input from those on the front lines. This is troubling to many, especially in light of the direction that Title IX compliance and enforcement has taken, especially since the Office of Civil Right's 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter which made it much more likely that a student charged with Title IX sexual misconduct and/or sexual assault would be found responsible.

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