Proposed Title IX Regulations Raise Concerns Among Higher Education Experts
Crimson | Anjeli R. Macaranas and Mayesha R. Soshi
The Crimson covers the proposed new Title IX regulations, acknowledging “mixed reviews from higher education experts.” Most notably, Title IX attorney Miltenberg claims Harvard’s current procedures are “intentionally opaque” with trials that include “hearsay, gossip, and innuendo” and warns that the new regulations will only “further erode the ability of an accused to fairly and equitably defend themselves from allegations that are often life altering.” HLS professor emeritus Elizabeth Bartholet “raised similar concerns that the proposal would diminish the rights of the accused.”
The article cites Title IX attorney Miltenberg who says schools will have “insufficient resources” to handle a significant increase in cases with the broader definition of “sex-based harassment.” The concern is that “the overall effect will be to marginalize due process protections for the sake of streamlined resolutions in order to meet the increased demand for resources.”
As for Harvard, “The University released its own proposed changes to the school’s discrimination and sexual harassment policies in April, altering its definition of consent to ‘active, mutual agreement.’ Harvard affiliates will be able to provide feedback on these amendments until the end of September.”
According to the Crimson article, Miltenberg, who has been involved with cases at Harvard, “characterized the current Title IX procedures at the University as ‘intentionally opaque’ and ‘exceedingly slow.’ Harvard allows ‘hearsay, gossip, and innuendo’ during trials, according to Miltenberg, which disadvantages the accused.”
As for the new regulations, the Crimson reports Miltenberg warning that such regulations will “further erode the ability of an accused to fairly and equitably defend themselves from allegations that are often life altering.”
According to the article, HLS’s Elizabeth Bartholet “raised similar concerns that the proposal would diminish the rights of the accused” in an email in which she wrote, “I am concerned with the reduction of fair process for those accused, including the elimination of a live hearing requirement, and I am concerned with the proposed standard of proof (generally encouraging a preponderance standard rather than a clear and convincing evidence standard).”
Related:
Federal Judge Blocks Education Department’s Title IX Guidance (Politico, 7/16/21)
Expect the Title IX Inquisition (Tablet, 6/28/22)
Sex Police (Common Sense, 6/27/22)
FIRE Petition: Title IX Regs Put Student Rights at Risk (FIRE, 6/23/22)
5 Ways Biden's New Title IX Rules Will Eviscerate Due Process on Campus (Reason, 6/23/22)
Harvard Proposed a New Definition of Consent. Some Advocates Say its Wording is Flawed. (Crimson, 4/21/22)
