On

Sept. 7, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced a review of Obama era expansions to Title IX protections regarding sexual misconduct on college campuses. Secretary DeVos claimed the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) “weaponized” Title IX by forcing college administrations to create quasi-judicial sexual misconduct procedures that she argues violate the due process of accused students. The announcement was generally met with praise from conservative voices and condemnation from liberal counterparts. Survivors, advocacy groups, and former Obama staffers — along with President Obama and Vice President Biden — took to social media and op-ed columns to express their anxieties over how the DeVos announcement threatens hard-fought gains toward ending the scourge of campus sexual assault.


Currently, one in five women is sexually assaulted in college; the numbers are even higher for LGBTQ and gender nonconforming students.

In 2011, the Obama Administration sought to reform sexual misconduct procedures in higher education, beginning with a Dear Colleague letter from the OCR to educational institutions receiving federal aid. The letter provided guidance for how schools could meet their Title IX requirements in the context of sexual misconduct in order to ensure that “No person…on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The Administration continued its work through White House reports, Joe Biden’s ‘It’s On Us’ campaign, and additional Dear Colleague letters.

Before these reforms, no uniform system for handling sexual misconduct existed; many universities mishandled cases and further traumatized survivors. Assaults went unreported, allegations went uninvestigated, and rapists simply walked free. Obama-era reforms did not solve these problems, but they did grow out of this troublesome reality. Universities are now required to investigate all claims of sexual misconduct, even if such claims originate from a third party. The OCR also strongly suggests schools dedicate a Title IX coordinator whose sole responsibility is overseeing sexual misconduct procedures. Perhaps most controversially, the OCR instructed colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard in disciplinary hearings, whereby guilt in cases of sexual misconduct is determined if over half of the available evidence is incriminating.

These measures are not flawless, but they are progress. If a woman recounts a sexual assault to any mandated reporter — a professor, coach, residential advisor, or Title IX coordinator, for example — that claim now

must

be investigated, while in the past it may have been ignored. A gender nonconforming student can report an assault and know a dedicated professional will handle the case. In a disciplinary hearing, administration members can determine guilt and perhaps prevent future assaults in cases where, by the nature of the crime, evidence is convincing but not complete. The OCR can open an investigation into any college or university that it suspects might consistently violate Title IX rights. In sum, schools can no longer sweep sexual assault under the proverbial rug, nor can they get away with dramatically underreporting sexual misconduct statistics.

As progress always does, these reforms sometimes came at a cost. Universities now need to hire Title IX coordinators and fear OCR investigations — but until school administrators can promote campus cultures that do not include one in five women being sexually assaulted during her four years at their school, it is a burden they should have to bear. Critics argue that these reforms created a parallel justice system for sexual assault cases that lacks the constitutional protections afforded in a criminal court. The campus justice system indeed employs a lower burden of proof, but it also lacks the ability to subpoena evidence or sentence assailants to prison. Furthermore, this “parallel justice system” exists already to deal with such on-campus violations as underage drinking, drug possession, and destruction of property. When conservative writers attempt to redefine progress as the hijacking of due process and the oppression of innocent and unassuming male students, they forget how systematically the criminal justice system fails sexual assault survivors. In guaranteeing equal access to education for all students, universities should seek to overcome those failures so that rapists are not free to assault other students.

This is not to say the current system is perfect. As it has throughout history, the federal government must balance competing rights. Sexual assault survivors have a right to education that is infringed upon when they are forced to encounter their assailant in class. At the same time, until proven guilty, the accused student has a right to attend class. Should, then, Title IX coordinators enforce no contact orders — whereby the accused may have to alter their class schedule or extracurricular activities to avoid their accuser — until campus judicial proceedings conclude? Of course, there also stands the dilemma that a good deal of sex had on college campuses, including at Hamilton, is illegal on account of alcohol consumption and New York’s affirmative consent laws (requiring clear consent at every stage of sexual contact.) Should such interactions be considered problematic if consent was not properly given, but neither party asserts wrongdoing?

These are only a few of the many challenging questions raised by sexual misconduct within a Title IX framework. And yet the use of Title IX to enforce stricter standards for handling sexual misconduct cases has undoubtedly elevated the voices and protected the rights of survivors. It is clear that any discussion of these questions requires honesty, empathy, and thoughtfulness — all qualities the Trump Administration decidedly lacks. In this light, the liberal response to DeVos’ announcement has been hardly apocalyptic: while much work remains to ensure all students’ rights are protected, the Trump Administration may well reverse recent progress. They will also likely prioritize unrepresentative voices during this debate. While there are surely a few cases of innocent men whose lives have been upset by unjust sexual misconduct proceedings, only 2–10 percent of sexual assault accusations are false according to a 2014 White House report. Furthermore (and this is the statistic DeVos’ supposedly good intentions cannot quite overcome,)

one in five women


are sexually assaulted during college

. Protecting survivors and preventing future assaults, not asserting political ideology, must remain the priority of any federal government policy.

What can Hamilton students do to address this huge and complicated problem in the face of the Trump Administration’s forthcoming Title IX rollbacks? First, get educated. Read op-eds, check out Hamilton’s sexual misconduct policy (available on the Hamilton website,) or attend a peer advocate training hosted by Hamilton Sexual Assault and Violence Education and Support (SAVES.)

Second, join the on-campus conversation. Our idyllic Hill is hardly immune to sexual assault; in 2016, one in twelve Hamilton students reported to a national campus climate survey that they had been sexually assaulted. That is over 150 students. So attend events such as last week’s community discussion hosted by the Womxn’s Center and the Sexual Misconduct and Assault Reform Task-force (SMART), which lasted over an hour and allowed students to express their anger and confusion over current policies. According to SMART Programming Co-Chair Hannah Fink, this spring the group will host a series of “discussion-based workshops to encourage peer to peer conversations in order to engage the campus in awareness and prevention of sexual assault.” Despite recent setbacks, Fink remains focused. “When we can create a culture at Hamilton that does not shy away from open and honest exchange, I think we can see a real difference on this campus,” she says.

Third, join the national conversation. While she did not give a timetable, DeVos’ statement included a promise to hold a notice-and-comment period, whereby the public can register opinions on the policy in question. Submit a comment supporting Title IX, call your Congressperson and Senators, take to social media, and, of course, vote.

This issue is not simple or easy, and it is not going anywhere. As students, community members, and human beings, we are responsible for ensuring our peers receive an education free from the trauma of sexual assault. And when we inevitably fail, it is our job to make sure the justice system in place protects survivors and serves our community well.