In response to new regulations from the U.S. Department of Education narrowing the scope of Title IX, Washington University has implemented new Title IX grievance processes and added a new procedure to cover instances of sexual misconduct that fall outside of the revised federal policy.

Graphic by Christine Watridge

The new federal rule requires schools to hold live hearings with direct cross-examination by a representative of each party’s choosing, which experts warn could be traumatizing for survivors of assault. Each party will be required to have an advisor.

“Our goal is to have a pool of several advisors available, and some of them will be attorneys, so those folks will be available if a student does not have their own advisor,” Director and Title IX Coordinator Jessica Kennedy said.

The Student Gender Equity Grievance Process will be used to investigate misconduct that now falls outside of Title IX. Unlike the Title IX process, the Gender Equity procedure will not involve direct cross-examination, nor will students be appointed an advisor.

The University’s Discrimination and Harassment Policy has been updated to incorporate the narrowed scope of Title IX, which it describes as “a specific subset of the conduct addressed…in this Policy.”

Under the updated federal regulations, Title IX only covers behavior that occurs on University property or during official University programs and activities. The Gender Equity process will play an important role in protecting the unusually high number of students forced to move into non-University housing due to the pandemic.

“We really believe that whatever process an incident falls under, whether it’s the Title IX process or the Gender Equity process, that the investigation will be conducted in the same thorough and fair manner that it always has been,” Kennedy said.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos formally issued the new Title IX regulations in early May, prompting widespread criticism for protecting alleged abusers and prioritizing university liability.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia challenged the rules in a lawsuit arguing that “fewer sexual harassment complaints will be filed, and schools will be less well equipped to protect their students’ safety and rid their programs and activities of the pernicious effects of sex discrimination.”

However, the suit was dismissed and the new regulations officially went into effect on August 14.

“Although we may not agree with each element of the final regulations, we are required to implement these changes in order to be in compliance with the law,” Provost Beverly Wendland and Interim Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Rob Wild wrote in an August 14 email to students.

“It was a pretty complex piece of legislation that was very much rooted in sexual assault myths, so some changes were unavoidable, and then there was obviously some leeway for Wash. U.,” Title Mine Vice President of Administration junior Sarah Slutsker said. “We kept the standard of evidence where it was, and didn’t create a disparate evidentiary burden for Title IX cases compared to other student conduct cases. That was a good thing.”

Leading up to the implementation of the federal rule, several survivors’ rights organizations spoke out against the proposed changes, including Title Mine.

“While it’s clear that the new regulations will create catastrophic policy barriers to reporting, we want to name their more insidious impact,” Title Mine wrote in an open letter to University administrators. “The anti-survivor rhetoric embedded in the new rule has the capacity to do real harm to beliefs about sexual violence, which have only begun to shift incrementally in a more just direction.”

The letter went on to express concern over a perceived lack of transparency in the University’s decision-making process and detailed several recommendations for the new policies.

One such recommendation called on administrators to release a detailed plan for how they would center the needs of Black survivors and survivors of color, such as by reallocating WUPD funding to mental health and sexual violence prevention services.

The letter similarly highlighted the need for a plan centering LGBTQIA* survivors, particularly in light of the 2019 Campus Climate Survey showing that sexual violence is vastly underreported by trans and gender-nonconforming students in the University community.

“We have not received any update about the status of those plans,” Title Mine President senior Maia Bender-Long said. “It doesn’t seem like it’s a priority right now, which is concerning, especially given how inaccessible these processes can sometimes be.”

Slutsker said that while the University’s response to the Title Mine letter had been limited over the summer, she hoped that administrators would continue to elicit and respond to student feedback.

One of the widely criticized federal changes was the removal of the 60-day guideline for completing investigations. However, Kennedy confirmed that the University’s Title IX investigations have historically failed to meet this timeline.

Shortening investigations would require removing important parts of the process, Kennedy said, adding that she anticipated both Title IX and Gender Equity investigations would take close to 120 days.

Title Mine argued that allowing investigations to last 120 days—essentially a full semester—was not adequately efficient for student well-being, noting that the burden of lengthy processes contributes to 34% of survivors dropping out of college.

“I understand why the Title IX office has failed to meet these recommended guidelines, but that doesn’t excuse the impact that has had on survivors and also how that’s deterred survivors from even reporting, because lengthy investigations are emotionally taxing for survivors,” Bender-Long said. “So it’s crucial that the Title IX office should continue to focus on reducing their timeline and publish steps that they are planning to take to reduce it.”

Bender-Long also called on the Title IX office to reactivate the Title IX Advisory Committee, which is meant to be a body of students, faculty and staff that provides feedback about Title IX policies.

“We want to see the advisory committee active as soon as possible, because the advisory committee is a third party where students can have input and representation,” Bender-Long said. “And unfortunately, it’s been inactive, even during this time with the new regulations being put in place.”

Kennedy said that she anticipated being able to share more information about the advisory committee within the coming week.

“We’ve struggled a little bit over the summer to all get on the same page about how we’re going to operate the committee this semester, but my conversations with Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Rob Wild and the chair of the committee Nicole Hudson are clear that the committee will continue and will be active this semester,” she said. “It’s just a matter of sorting out which members will remain part of the committee and which new members we will be taking on.”

Another part of the Title IX and Gender Equity processes involving student input is the University Sexual Harassment Investigation Board (formerly called the University Sexual Assault Investigation Board).

The board relies on recommendations from various administrators, faculty members and student groups.

“This year, under the new Title IX regulations, there is some increased scrutiny related to perceived bias of members…so all of us will be answering a questionnaire related to whatever concerns we may have about our own bias, but also questions about whether it might appear to someone else that we were biased in such a way that we would not be able to be a fair decision-maker,” Kennedy said.

While the University’s policies do not currently include an amnesty clause for students who are harassed or assaulted while breaking COVID-19 guidelines, Kennedy said that students should still feel comfortable reporting such occurrences.

“My office is not in the business of investigating COVID-19 violations, and so that is not something that we would be concerning ourselves with if someone came in to let us know that they had been assaulted, even if it happened in a place where they weren’t following those protocols,” she said.

Given the complicated nature of the new changes, both Slutsker and Bender-Long emphasized the importance of educating members of the University community about the processes and options available to them.

“My biggest concern is how this information is going to be conveyed to students and community members, and how we as a community can work to make this process less daunting and support people who choose to go through it,” Bender-Long said. “We need to reduce the barriers to access and give people the literacy to understand what changes have occurred.”

“It’s not just the new regulations—there have been a lot of concerns about Title IX at Wash. U. for a very long time,” Slutsker added. “It’s important to not lose sight of that as we hold leaders accountable.”