In the past three years, two WashU professors have been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by students, leading to discourse online and student protests. To date, the University has not commented on its investigations or even confirmed that an investigation is happening. 

Citing student safety, student protestors and student groups have demanded more transparency about the investigation process, including a Student Union Senate resolution to investigate one of the accused professors. This poses a complicated problem for the Gender Equity and TItle IX Compliance Office, which is bound by federal nondisclosure regulations. 

Jessica Kennedy, Director of the Gender Equity and Title IX Compliance Office, said that federal laws prevent the office, and the University at large, from speaking about specific investigations publicly — or even confirming if someone is being investigated. Most significantly, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) limits what information a school can disclose about students. 

Kennedy said that, if the Title IX Office receives a complaint about a professor, they will investigate the claim in a process almost identical to the process for investigating a student. In both cases, the only people made aware of the investigation are those involved and the members of the investigation panel, which typically consists of three people. 

“We don’t announce when investigations are happening,” Kennedy said. “That information is kept private, but we don’t restrict the parties involved from talking about an investigation because we understand that complainants and respondents alike will seek support for what they’re going through.”

For example, in 2006, Professor Joshua Smith resigned from his teaching position in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at WashU after allegations of sexual misconduct toward students. The University did not comment on the case, but the students who made the allegations discussed the investigation freely. 

If the outcome of the investigation warrants a change in a professor’s teaching status, the Title IX office will communicate with the dean of the school but won’t announce the outcome publicly. 

Kennedy added that, in addition to the federal regulations that bind them, her office believes the retaliatory reaction that might ensue after an investigation is made public is often harmful to the victim and perpetrator. 

Junior Sonal Churiwal, who has been involved in protests against the University amidst the continued teaching status of Olin Business School Professor Philip Dybvig, says that Title IX must be more transparent for student safety.

“There are federal regulations that determine how Title IX works and WashU can’t really say anything about the status of an ongoing investigation,” Churiwal said. “At the same time, if WashU is committed to fully taking instances of sexual assault seriously, it’s hard to believe they don’t have the institutional resources to navigate a legal pathway to transparency.”

Although all universities are bound by the same federal regulations, there are some differences in the operational details of how universities treat confidentiality in Title IX cases. 

Some institutions, such as Williams College, require more confidentiality. At these universities, all people involved in the investigation process are “bound to confidentiality,” and asked to not speak publicly about the issue. 

Other universities have practiced less confidentiality, and have spoken about specific investigations under extenuating circumstances, usually those that are deemed threatening to students. However, disclosure is largely motivated by the severity of the case rather than the university’s policy. 

Kennedy said that there could, theoretically, be a situation at WashU in which Title IX would speak more publicly about an investigation, but that it is extremely rare and she has not seen such a case arise at WashU.

“I never want to say never,” Kennedy said, about the possibility of Title IX making a public statement about investigations regarding professors. “Because something will happen and I’ll go, ‘Oh, there’s the exception.’ But I’m not aware of any circumstances right now that would cause us to change.”

Generally, to be deemed significant enough to constitute an exception, a case would have to involve perceived threats to students or other community members.

According to the Department of Education (DOE), there are three cases for which a university could bypass federal regulations to speak directly about an investigation against a professor: if FERPA allows for the identity to be disclosed, if the identity of the complainant or respondent is required by law to be revealed, and/or if disclosure is necessary to carry out the purpose of Title IX.

There are cases that might involve both Title IX investigations and investigations in courts beyond the university. These cases often become more public because of the scale and severity of the case. 

For example, Justin X. Caroll — a former WashU Dean of Students and Interim Athletic Director — was investigated in federal court for viewing child pornography. This case became more public because, while there was also an internal University investigation, it was outside of the bounds of Title IX, and University officials cooperated with this investigation and commented on the investigation publicly. 

Allegations against Dybvig emerged over two years ago, but WashU has not made any public statement regarding his teaching status or any investigation. He continues to teach graduate courses in the Olin Business School. 

Multiple students brought allegations against Jonathan Barnes, who taught Organic Chemistry in the College of Arts & Sciences last semester. WashU temporarily relieved Professor Barnes from teaching, but has not made any public statement about the allegations. Barnes’ lawyer told Student Life that the decision was aligned with University policy and was not indicative of finding any specific outcome.

“Since so many students have been harmed by Dybvig and Barnes, and their cases have been reported on, the University has a responsibility to communicate on these matters, even if vaguely so,” Churiwal said. “Students have a right to know what the University is doing, if anything, to protect them, and whether they are safe or not with their professors.”

In Barnes’ case, he was removed from his teaching status immediately following allegations, but WashU did not make any public comment about that decision. Barnes is not listed as teaching any courses on WebSTAC, though his attorney told Student Life he is “currently employed” at WashU.

There has been no statement or action regarding Dybvig, other than WashU responding to student protests about his teaching status. 

Churiwal said that the lack of transparency from the University creates a culture of apathy towards sexual misconduct at WashU. 

“At UMich and Harvard, after sexual violence allegations came out, and there was widespread discourse and protests, both professors ended up retiring,” Churiwal said. “No professor wants to have their name tarnished by being found responsible for sexual violence, so if they truly believe the school takes it seriously, its not uncommon for professors to just exit early.”

Seemingly, neither the allegations brought forth against Professors Dybvig nor Barnes constituted exceptions to the regulations enforcing nondisclosure. 

“Other universities could be transparent [about investigations] in other ways,” Kennedy said. “I would be shocked if there was any institution out there that was being so transparent that they put names, or enough specificity about the allegations that you would know who they’re talking about. We’re all under these federal regulations.”