New Title IX regulations may reduce reports of sexual assault

As Chapman and other universities kick off the semester by abiding to the new Title IX regulations released by the U.S. Department of Education, a mixed national response has emerged as some changes prove controversial. Photo illustration by SAM ANDRUS Photo Editor.

An email was sent to Chapman University’s entire student body May 7, addressing the university’s compliance with new Title IX regulations released on May 6 by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) adjusted the manner in which colleges and universities must handle sexual misconduct cases under Title IX, as of the beginning of the fall semester. Title IX serves as a federal statute protecting students in educational institutions from discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

Now backed by the force of law, rather than a more general governmental guidance document, the changes to the federal statute most notably serve to achieve due process by imitating a traditional court-room setting for Title IX hearings and delegating legal duties to the staff and students involved. Colleen Wood, Chapman University’s director of Student Conduct and often its presiding hearing officer, assured the university will still attempt to make the hearing process and cross-examination as comfortable as possible by utilizing Zoom to minimize face-to-face contact. However, Wood conceded the process still won’t be painless, as both parties are now required to bring in an adviser of their choice to perform the cross-examination on the other party. 

“I fully, firmly believe we have to have a fair, impartial process, but I don’t think that this requirement is necessary to have that,” said Associate Vice President for Student Affairs DeAnn Yocum-Gaffney. “It will have a chilling effect on people wanting to make a complaint, and I don’t think it advances the cause of fairness in the way that people think that it might.”

Advisers can ask any questions they deem relevant during the cross-examination as long as the presiding hearing officer does not object – the only topic exempt from discussion is sexual history. Wood reiterated Yocum-Gaffney’s concerns, noting she also expects a significant decrease in the amount of students who choose to pursue the full extent of the hearing process.

“We can’t put restrictions on who someone can bring, so someone could bring an attorney, but someone could bring their friend or someone could bring their parent,” Wood said. “One of the things we’re working on creating (though) is some basic rules of decorum.”

The process of selection for the hearing panel overseeing these cases is “intensive,” according to Wood, with prerequisites generally being a prior background in student affairs. Wood further revealed that the university had recently purchased a program through the State University of New York Student Conduct Institute, which will provide each officer with eight-hour training sessions.

Despite the officers’ expertise, Yocum-Gaffney fully expects that complaints “will be to come” with the government-restricted definition of sexual harassment in the new regulations. The term is defined as “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive,” whereas before the document used the word “or” instead of “and.” As a result, inappropriate actions must be categorized by all three identifications in order to be validated under Title IX guidelines. 

In conjunction with Chapman’s already-imposed Clery Act guidelines, the regulations further prevent the university from taking action under Title IX for harassment or assault that occurs off property owned or controlled by the university. This includes study abroad students, who must be studying within the United States in order to receive Title IX backing under the institution, or even students living outside of Chapman’s residential housing.

Yocum-Gaffney clarified the university could still attempt to provide assistance by analyzing what governing policy the crime occurred under and pursuing legal redress through other means. Additionally, if the student wishes not to take their case into a court-room setting, the university offers mediation services to bring some sense of closure to both parties.

“I’ve had situations where a respondent may agree to training and education and may acknowledge that there was harm done to the other party,” Gaffney said. “You work out individual things that may bring a resolution to the situation without having to go through the hearing, so it can look a lot of different ways.” 

Wood further recommended other options of support for students who opt not to take any legal action.

“I want students to know that if they need support if something has happened, they can still come to us and have access to those supportive measures – academic support, no contact orders, counseling, changing classes, alternative housing, having access to public safety,” she said. “They can have access to all of those things without filing a formal complaint and without sharing with us the name of the respondent, even if the respondent is a Chapman student.”