Skip to main content
Close
A-Z
Quick Links

Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy

This policy was posted for public comment from April 19, 2021 – May 7, 2021.

Comments

IV.A.1 and 2 are awkwardly worded. 1 uses "prohibits" and "are prohibited" in the same statement. In 2, the parenthetical statement doesn't have a closure on it, and It's unclear what "n" means inside the parenthesis. IV.B.4 mentions confidential employees who are not required to report, as listed in IV.D.4 - but I think it's supposed to be IV.D.3.

Typos:
Intro paragraph: "Anti-Discrimintation Policy"
IV.A.2: "No all discrimination," and "All other instances sexual misconduct (including n, or inappropriate"

Duplicated wording: "The college prohibits all SLCC employees, students, volunteers, and contractors are prohibited from engaging in sexual harassment."

I've got a lot of comments here, some small, some substantial. I think this needs a second 15-day review after this one because it needs a bit of revision.
Sexual Harassment:
1. A. 1. Delete "are prohibited"
2. A. 2: "No" should be "not", and something missing after "including"
3. B.2. There is no responsible part for identifying patterns. This need to be assigned to someone. If it is assigned later, this sentence should be removed, since it is not about confidentiality.
4. B3: "victims" has not been defined. Suggest this should be "parties."
5. B4: why are supervisors specified here? This is confusing. Either this applies to all employees or to supervisors only. And, if it is supervisors only, the "should" should be "must." If it is everyone, then that makes it more complicated. Are all employees required to contact Title IX coordinator? This might need two different procedures.
6. C1: "with" should follow "assisted" or there should be an "or" after "complaint,"
7. C2: Should discrimination be removed since this is just about Title IX harassment?
8. C3: change "which will" to "to"
9. D: "If you have witnessed…" reads funny. I think this should be "Reporting Sexual Harassment"
10. D1: Should discrimination be removed? I see in the document the references to discrimination laws, but the top clearly states that this is only applying to sexual harassment. This is sending a confusing message.
11. D1a: Where is the reporting form? The addresses are there for the snail mail methods, so the reporting form location (not necessarily URL, but in what department's web page is it found?)
12. I'd recommend not having David.jensen@slcc.edu on this because if David leaves, this will immediately be out of date. Can IT set up an email address like TitleIX@slcc.edu that only David will have access to?
13. D2: Supervisors should be a new section "E": Supervisor Responsibilities.
14. Now that I'm reading the Supervisors section, I think that B4 should be deleted. It's redundant and it's not necessarily about confidentiality.
15. D2aii: switch the order of the independent and dependent clauses (and also on D2av).
16. D3: should be a new section: "F": Confidential employees
17. D3b: Should this go up under the "If you have witnessed…" (which I think should be Reporting)? And, then this should be "Confidential employees provide confidential support and counsel regarding sexual harassment or retaliation."
18. E1: Change to "Upon receiving a report, the Title IX coordinator will determine if the allegations would meet the definition of…."
19. Indent E1b through E1c one level.
20. In E1c: new paragraph for second sentence, indented one level
21. E1d feels out of place. And, it's not clear if this will happen only if the Title IX coordinator determines that the allegation violates policy. The relationship between that determination and this provision is unclear. Also, it suggests that if the coordinator thinks the allegations violate policy these provisions will be made without confirming through an investigation that the allegations have merit. I understand that this is intended to support reporters even if they don't file a complaint, but I don't think this is the place for this statement.
22. E1f should be indented one level
23. Throughout this section, we have "complainant," "person", and "victim." I think the person who makes contact should be a "reporter" until a formal complaint is filed, then "complainant."
24. F: This is confusing because we've already had discussion of talking about the complaint, reporting it, etc. Is it possible to file a formal complaint without working with the Title IX coordinator? I think that F1 should be deleted. It is too vague and redundant at the same time.
25. F3: Shouldn't this involve our Public Safety team?
26. F4i: This should be under "safety". It seems that F3 and F4 are two levels of immediate action: safety and action. The first seems to be about safety and the second appears to be about intervening in untenable circumstances, but not about safety. If this is not the case, and they are the same thing, then they should be combined into one.
27. F3 and F4: Should be a new heading called "Immediate Action" This is not about filing the complaint, it's about the first possible response.
28. G: Take out "College" from this heading.
29. G1 seems to contradict E1. Imagine the situation in which the Title IX coordinator says "yeah, this looks like it violates Title IX" and encourages a formal complaint. But, then, when consulting with the other folks they decide it is not worth investigating. There's some re-traumatizing right there that cannot be happening. If the reporter is encouraged to file, and they do, then it needs to be investigated, no question.
30. G2aiii: Should this be Executive Cabinet Member instead of VP? We have so many VPs now.
31. G2bii: "copy of the Title IX sexual harassment policy"
32. G2bIv: "incident(s)"
33. G2d: The interview appeared out of nowhere. This should read: Respondent may respond to the specific allegations within five business days."
34. G2e: Stays the same.
35. G2f: The interview is completely left out of this. Or, it is super confusing about what the interview is. Does it take place in the hearing? Are witnesses called? Documents reviewed?
36. G3: Then it jumps into Time Limits. I think it should explain the Investigation first, which will explain the interviews. Then, it should go to the Investigation Report. Then, it should go to Time Limits.
37. G3e should be at the top of this Time Limit section. Then, have all of the other parts in order below it.
38. G4: Investigation section: the last statement should be first. And, are you sure the investigation should NOT make a determination of responsibility? What is the point of the investigation then?
39. It is very unclear how the investigation plays a role in the Mediation or Hearing processes. What happens to the report after it is completed?
40. H2aii and iii: "Informal process" should be "mediation process"
41. H3 is confusing. I'm not sure what it means.
42. H4a: Where does the mediator come from? Internal? External?
43. H4ai: Yes, so where is the investigation now? If the investigation is only a part of the hearing process, then this mediation section needs to come before all of that (assuming that mediation is preferred by the college).
44. Hf: Not sure what this is. It's out of order.
45. I2v: this is unclear. Not sure what it means.
46. Numbering is all off in this section. No big deal, but just FYI.
47. I2xii: what does "contain a written report" mean? Should it be "provide"?
48. I2xvii: This belongs earlier, before Expert Witness
49. I5iii: This is too vague. What does it mean?
50. I6ii: Oh, here is the investigation. Yes, the organization of this is too confusing. I think move the mediation process above the investigation.
51. I7iv3: What does it mean to not base the credibility of a participant on their status?
52. I7iv4: What does "wait until the conclusion of the hearing" mean?
53. I9: Written Decision section is not necessary. It is stated din I9bi. But, just call it "a written decision" not "the"
54. 19bii: take out "in coordination" Just have "and". That requires that they work together. In coordination is too loose.
55. I9biiia-: Is this a new written decision? There are two written decisions here, so it's unclear what is happening.
56. Under "The written decision:
a. Iv: change "that potentially establish" to "of" (since they have been validated)
b. L: "he bases" is a type of something
57. There is nothing in here about what happens if the hearing officer or panel determines that the respondent is not responsible for the allegations. That all needs to be addressed.

I think it is important to include in these documents the presumption of belief in the reporter's expressed truth and also the presumption of innocence for the respondent. We need to be able to do both of these simultaneously. The Title IX doc only expresses presumption of innocence, but if we are going to make meaningful change, we also have to presume belief in the complainant's truth. That runs counter to the binary discourses of legal worlds, but it has to be the case if we are going to ascribe agency and respect and care for the complainant.

The Garrity Warning mentioned here isn't found on SLCC's website. Will the verbiage be included in this policy? Should that be given to the respondent/employee at the beginning of the process?

The term "gender-based behavior" doesn't work. What does it even mean? For one thing, it attributes any incident to the victim's gender or sexuality. The gender or sexuality of the perpetrator is apparently non-problematic. This isn't ok. See #9: "Sexual or gender-based misconduct is any unwanted sexual conduct or other verbal or physical conduct or communication related to a person's [??] sexuality or gender."

The definition of sexual harassment is inadequate. Sexual harassment only "counts" if there's a quid pro quo OR if "it is so severe and pervasive and objectively offensive that it interferes with someone's access to a college program or activity." This is miles from the zero tolerance the President talks about in her recent email. It leaves way too much room for interpretation by the Title IX officer, who is currently a well-intentioned white man – although any one person in this role, no matter their color, gender, age or sexual orientation, will function in accordance with their own worldview, drawn from their own intersecting identities and experiences, and how they've interpreted or internalized them. Basically, I'm saying that one person will never do justice to this role. In the same vein, the term "objectively" is profoundly problematic.

#4 states the "Employees (including first and second-level supervisors) who receive a report regarding a potential instance of sexual harassment should inform and consult with the Title IX coordinator within two business days." "Should" needs to be replaced with "are required to." However leaving these kinds of complaints in the hands of a potentially biased supervisor and only one other person, the Title IX coordinator, does not guarantee any degree of objectivity or effective follow-up action ("consult"?). I'm sure our current Title IX officer, a white man, is well-trained in policy and legal issues, but hardly represents an adequate resource for someone experiencing the unique trauma of sexual harassment. Ditto for many supervisors.

#5 states, "The Title IX coordinator will maintain and store the records of all harassment complaints for a minimum of seven years. The complaint file is confidential." This ensures that complaints are siloed and unavailable for purposes of evaluating an employee's ability to contribute to a fair, non-abusive work environment. It isolates each and every victim of the same person and puts them in the position of negotiating a deliberately intimidating and alienating complaint process with no context to ground their experience, to confirm the reality of their betrayal by another College employee. It's almost a form a gaslighting. There is NO mention of the College's obligation to dismiss repeat sexual harassers at any point, and there's a clean slate after 7 years. As long as complaints are spaced out enough (likely, given the misery and bias of the process), it's as if earlier problems never even happened.

The section on "supervisors" confirms that the adjudication process is narrow and problematic if the intended goal is to reach an unbiased, effective resolution: "In consultation with the next level supervisor, the Title IX coordinator, and the director of Employee Relations, determine the appropriate corrective actions for violations of this policy." There is no reason to believe the people in these roles are particularly objective. Too much resides on the supervisor's presentation of the issue. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the Title IX coordinator or the director of Employee Relations are particularly aware of or sensitive to these kinds of issues. "[A]ppropriate corrective actions" need to be determined by a committee consisting of FT and adjunct faculty, and probably students as well. There *must* be representatives from Faculty Senate and Faculty Association.

The section on "supervisors" also alludes to an "investigation" process. Investigations at SLCC require the victim to bare their soul in excruciating detail, and then determine that no offensive action took place. They are geared to prop up the status quo while alienating and isolating the victim from other members of the College community including their supervisor. Investigations need to be conducted by members of a dedicated committee that includes FT and adjunct faculty, students, and representatives from Faculty Senate and Faculty Association.

Thank you for your work in addressing this important and complex issue.

Definition:
The policy does a good job defining quid pro quo sexual harassment but could do a better job of defining a situation of hostile environment.

2 Requirement for mediation
(a) (i) Mediation should be an option prior to filing a complaint.
(b) (iii) Mediation should be an option even when allegations are contested.

Rationale – the alleged offender is often unaware their attention is unwelcome and unwanted. If a person believes they have experienced sexual harassment, they should first talk to the person (if it is safe to do so). However, a 3rd party neutral (mediator) often provides a safe place for this to occur.

UNLESS there are allegations of sexual violence, this should be the first option.

4 The Mediation Process
b.(ii) this is out of the scope of what mediator should do. This is an HR function.

(iii) I'm not a fan of this. A mediator should be facilitative rather than evaluative.

(v) Again, this is out of the scope of the mediator. This also depends on the terms of the agreement between the parties. At the very least, there should be an agreement that states they participated in mediation and that an agreement was or was not met. However, if the agreement states a person will follow up to ensure the parties are abiding by the negotiated resolution, that person should not be the mediator. The mediator's role is to help the parties craft an agreement about future behaviors as well as options they can take should either side not abide by their agreement. In other words, this should be part of the mediation agreement. Whether or not someone acts to "follow up" on the parties is an item that should be mutually agreed by the parties in the mediation; they should determine who that person is.

d. This statement makes it difficult for individuals to choose mediation (shame, embarrassment), and compromises confidentiality. The parties could mutually agree on who is privy to their agreement. At the very least, the agreement should be in a confidential HR file. If both parties are in agreement, does it need "approval?"

I. Hearings to Determine Responsibility for Sexual Harassment
(iii) A mediator should NOT serve on a grievance committee since any information they have is confidential.

Although referred to in 4 (g), it should be noted in this section that the parties cannot call the mediator as a witness.

Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy Comments/Edit ideas:

Intro paragraph--

The following policyFederal law defines and establishes procedures for institutions of higher education to address certain kinds of sexual harassment.

NOTE: this is the sexual harassment policy but I see the word "discrimination" listed throughout the policy. Are we including sex discrimination in this policy too? If so, then the language should be consistent…any time we list "sexual harassment and retaliation" we should also list discrimination. If not, we should remove the word "discrimination," perhaps referring to our other policy on discrimination.

IV. Procedures

A. 1

The college prohibits all All SLCC employees, students, volunteers, and contractors are prohibited from engaging in sexual harassment.

A. 2

These procedures apply only to sexual harassment complaints, as defined by Title IX of Education Amendments Act. Not all discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct complaints will qualify for Title IX protections. All other instances sexual misconduct (including n, or inappropriate gender-based behavior follow the procedures in the applicable policy. –What are we saying here?—

B.1.

Unless required by law, the college will respect all participants' the confidentiality of all parties involved in the investigation.

B.2.

Any person who believes they are the victim of, or has knowledge of, sexual harassment is encouraged to report it directly to any of the following: their supervisor, second-level supervisor, the Title IX coordinator, or the associate vice president of People and Workforce Culture. This allows the college to identify patterns and address instances of a culture of harassment. (This statement is awkward here. I see that we are trying to explain why the AVP of People and workplace culture is included in this list but I think it is obvious that is why they are included. This is more of a purpose statement and should be included in that section of the policy)

C.1

The college strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against any person who has made a complaint, assisted with or participated in an investigation under this policy.

C.2

Retaliation includes any form of corrective action or adverse treatment of a person because that person either, complained about harassment or discrimination, or has participated in an investigation of harassment or discrimination.

E.1.g

The Title IX coordinator will record each report alleging sexual harassment or retaliation. (What does "record" mean? Audio? Create a file? Store information? How? What? Where? …create a file for each allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation…and store it for 7 years…. )

G.2.c.iv

a warning that prohibits making a false statement or submitting a false information; and

G.2.f

The investigators will give the respondent sufficient time after receipt of the notice before the initial interview. (What is sufficient time? Who will decide if they had sufficient time? This should probably be stated in a number of days to be clear.)

G.4.b

The investigation shall not make a determination of either responsible or not responsible. (add a reference to the section about who makes the determination!)

G.4.d

The Title IX Coordinator director (which one? Coordinator or Director? This is confusing. It seems that the Title IX Coordinator is a title just like Title IX Investigator is a title. So I suggest just using Coordinator here. Use the word Coordinator when talking about the head of the office and Title IX Office when talking about the department. I also think the words Coordinator, Investigator, or Office should be capitalized because they refer to official roles) will provide the report to the parties simultaneously.

H.1

Mediation is a process to resolve some formal complaints. The college encourages mediation to resolve sexual harassment formal complaints. However, it is voluntary and the college will not compel either complainant or respondent into mediation.

H.2.ii and iii

(ii) both parties agree in writing to an informal process mediation; and

(iii) both parties are aware that either party may elect to opt out of the informal process mediation at any time before the parties reach a resolution.

H.4.d

The agreement must be approved through appropriate college personnel (e.g., supervisors if an employee and dean of students if a student).

H.4.f

If cannot participate in any subsequent interview or hearing. (This is an incomplete sentence. What are we trying to say here?)

I.2. (The numbering of this section needs to be adjusted. Some of the headings are numbered the same as the sub-sets under them!)

I.7 (The numbering of this section needs to be adjusted. Some of the headings are numbered the same as the sub-sets under them!)

I.7.(iii)

When the hearing is before a panel, the panel members will determine by majority vote. In the event of a tie vote, the hearing officer will cast the tie-breaking vote. (Does our policy specify the size of the panel?)

9.b.(ii)

Within three business days of receiving the written decision, the respondent's supervisor and in coordination with the director of employee relations or the dean of students will determine the sanctions or corrective action they will apply.

(check the numbering of this section too. Some of the headings are numbered the same as the sub-sets under them!)

I.9.b.v.l

The bases, time limit and process for either party to appeal. (Instead of the word "bases", let's use the word "reasons" or "standards" or "rationale" or "grounds"—we use the word "grounds" in the next section about appeals. Bases is the plural of Basis but I don't think many people know that.)

IV.A.2 "No all discrimination, "missing "t", should be "Not all..."?

IV.A.2 "All other instances sexual misconduct (including n, or inappropriate gender-based behavior follow the procedures in the applicable policy." parenthesis error? and missing or extra "n, or"?

Thank you for the opportunity to review before the policy is formally adopted.

Shouldn't Title IX of Education Amendments Act be added to the reference list as it is mentioned in the document?

The following comments are from the JEDI Senate Committee:

Overall, there is a concern about awareness and education among members of the SLCC community (What are our rights? Who is obligated to report? Where can someone find a trained advocate/advisor outside of administration? ). There is clear trajectory for how to get help and there are no specific assurances that retaliation will be adequately addressed. These problems create an environment in which employees are apprehensive about reporting incidents. That said, these practices might not be applicable to the actual policy under review.

The policy should stipulate the minimum qualifications for an advisor. These advisors should not be a member of the administration as there could be a conflict of interest as to what party they are representing.

It should be clear that if either party has significant concerns about conflicts of interest among various members of the college who are involved in the process, the local EEO office (county-level?) should take over the process.

With regards to Section IV.E.ii.d on course-related adjustments and modified employment conditions, it needs to be clear that the victim should not be required to make adjustments or modified their conditions. The onus of these accommodations needs to be on the person who committed the misconduct. Furthermore, there needs to be a consultation procedure in which the victim has an advisor/advocate who helps them negotiate suitable options, commensurate with the severity of misconduct.

-JEDI Senate Committee

 

Responses

Policy Statement

A recommendation was made that the reference to "inappropriate gender-based behavior" be deleted since that term is not clear and the policy specifically addresses sexual harassment.

Response: The clause stating: "or inappropriate gender-based behavior" has been deleted.

References

A Director recommended adding the statutory reference for Title IX of the Education Amendment Acts.

Response: The Title IX statute is 20 USC §1681 et. seq., and is referenced in this section; however, the phrase "Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972" has been added.

Definitions

A commenter remarked that the scope of the sexual harassment definition is not broad enough to comply with the President's goal of zero tolerance.

Response: No revision was made. The proposed policy is compliant with the amended Title IX regulations' limited scope for sexual harassment. Under 34 CFR §106.30, sexual harassment means "conduct on the basis of sex that satisfies one or more of the following:

(1) An employee of the recipient conditioning the provision of an aid, benefit, or service of the recipient on an individual's participation in unwelcome sexual conduct.

(2) Unwelcome conduct determined by a reasonable person to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient's education program or activity; or

(3) "Sexual assault" as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(6)(A)(v), "dating violence" as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(10), "domestic violence" as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(8), or "stalking" as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(30)."

While this policy is compliant with Title IX's limited scope, the commenter makes a valid point that this definition does not address many forms of inappropriate sexual behavior which do not meet this threshold. Currently, if such behavior were to occur, it may be a violation of the sexual misconduct provision in the "Employee Conduct" policy section IV.B.22. Furthermore, proposed revisions to the "Anti-discrimination & Harassment" policy which should be adopted during the Fall 2021 semester and will address sexual misconduct in more detail.

 

A comment expressed concern that the "severe, pervasive and objectively offensive" sexual harassment standard was vague and questioned whether the Title IX Coordinator, or any person, could adequately interpret and apply this definition.

Response: No revision was made. Section III.B. states that sexual harassment is "unwanted sexual conduct that is so severe and pervasive and objectively offensive that it interferes with someone's access to a college program or activity." This text mimics 34 CFR §106.30, the amended Title IX regulations. The origin of this language is a landmark Supreme Court Title IX case. Davis Next Friend of Lashonda. D v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S.629, 650 (1999). The amended Title IX regulations make is clear that the "Department [of Education] chooses to adopt in these final regulations the Davis standard defining actionable sexual harassment." (pp. 452-453-preamble)

The comment is valid that this is a difficult standard to apply. In addition, the Davis standard also creates a high threshold to establish sexual harassment than previously existed. As part of these Title IX regulations, the Title IX coordinator, investigators, mediators, and hearing officers are required to complete robust training which includes instruction on the parameters of the Davis standard and Title IX requirements. 34 CFR §106.45(a)(1)(iii).

Procedures

Applicability-Section IV.A

In IV.A.1, four commenters recommended that the text "the college prohibits" be removed because the word prohibit was used twice in the sentence.

Response: This recommendation has been adopted.

In IV.A.2, three commenters identified two spelling and grammar errors in this section.

Response: In the second sentence, "no" has been changed to "not". In the third sentence, the text "(including n" has been deleted.

Confidentiality-Section IV.B
In IV.B.1, it was recommended that "all participants" be deleted and that the words "of all parties involved in the investigation" be added to the end of the sentence. (Fowler)

Response: The recommendation was not adopted.

In IV.B.2, it was recommended that the words "any of the following" be inserted after the words "directly to". In addition, this commenter recommended the insertion of two commas in this section.

Response: These recommendations were adopted.

In IV.B.2, two commenters emphasized that there was a need for a policy section which requires the college to assign an employee to monitor sexual harassment complaints to identify patterns. One of the two commenters suggested that IV.B.2's last sentence stating: "This allows the college to identify patterns and address instances of a culture of harassment "and suggested that this language be inserted elsewhere in the policy.

Response: The recommendation to delete the last sentence was adopted. In response to the need to track sexual harassment patterns, trends, and hotspots, this is currently done through close and frequent communication between the Title IX coordinator, Employee Relations and Dean of Students. However, People and Workplace Culture is evaluating methods to develop a more standardized process to evaluate patterns. This process may include requiring that level 1 corrective action such as "memo of expectation" are required to be sent to the PWC offices. This evaluation is ongoing.

In IV.B.3, it was recommended that "victims" be replaced with "parties." This revision was recommended because there is no definition for victim.

Response: IV.B.3, has been revised to state: "Except as provided in IV.E.1.c below, individuals have broad discretion to determine whether to file a formal complaint. All persons are encouraged to inform and consult with the Title IX coordinator if they especially if they are unsure or uncertain how to proceed. (emphasis added)

In IV.B.4, two commenters recommended stronger mandatory language for the obligation to report sexual harassment to the Title IX coordinator. Instead of stating "should inform and consult", the commenters recommended that the text should state a supervisor is "required to" or "must" inform and consult.

Response: This section has been revised to state "must inform the Title IX coordinator."

In IV.B.4, A commenter expressed confusion with this provision's language which states "Employee (including first and second level supervisors) who receive a report regarding a potential instance of sexual harassment should inform and consult with the Title IX coordinator. . ." The commenter inquired why the provision specified "first and second level supervisors".

Response: Based on this comment, this section has been significantly revised. Conceptually, the college will have the following approach for reporting sexual harassment.

  • Victims of sexual harassment are encouraged, but not required to report sexual harassment; and
  • All employees (supervisory and nonsupervisory) who observe or receive a report of sexual harassment must inform the Title IX office within 2 business days.
  • Health and Counseling Center employees, who are considered "confidential employees" are not required to report sexual harassment unless personal safety is an issue.

Following these principles, this section has been revised to state: "All employees, other than victims of sexual harassment, who witness or receive a report of a potential instance of sexual harassment must inform the Title IX coordinator within two business days. Only confidential employees (see IV.D.3 below) are exempt from this requirement."


A commenter expressed skepticism in having a potentially biased supervisor and male Title IX coordinator to be objective and capable of providing adequate support to a complainant experiencing the unique trauma of sexual harassment.

Response: The college's Title IX coordinator, a licensed attorney, has more than 10- years' experience investigating and managing investigators who conduct employment and housing discrimination investigations for a large state civil rights agency. Since assuming his position, he has assembled a team of investigators who are racially, ethnically and gender diverse. If a victim experiences sexual harassment trauma, the Title IX coordinator, has developed a plan, in conjunction with the diverse investigative team, to assign investigators, who are not involved in the matter, to coordinate supportive services. While many of these investigators are relatively new to conducting investigations, the Title IX regulations mandate extensive training which is currently being implemented.


In IV.B.5, a commenter stated the fact that sexual harassment complaint files are confidential and kept for 7 years promotes silos and potentially allows a perpetrator to have a clean slate after 7 years.

Response: Employee sexual harassment investigation records constitute private records under the Government Records Access and Management Act ("GRAMA") Utah Code §63G- 2-302 (2) (a). Likewise, student sexual harassment investigation records constitute "personally identifiable information" under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"). 34 CFR §99.3. Generally, these records can not be released without a court order, subpoena or the party' consent.

The 7-year record retention requirement is compliant with 34 CFR §106.45 (10) (i) which requires SLCC to "maintain for a period of seven years records of each sexual harassment investigation. . . "

Retaliation-Section IV.C
Concern was raised that while this policy addresses the process for handling retaliation complaints, the policy does not create specific assurances that retaliation will be specifically addressed. Consequently, SLCC has an environment where employees are apprehensive about reporting incidents. This policy may not deter retaliatory behavior. (Barrickman-JEDI Senate Committee)

Response: No revision was made. IV.C.1 "strictly prohibits any form of retaliation. . . "Meanwhile, IV.C 3 states "the college will treat instances of retaliatory behavior as separate offenses from sexual harassment to be thoroughly investigated and addressed." Finally, Employee Conduct policy section IV.B. 2 states "where violations have been found, supervisory personal must take corrective action." If PWC staff, who will be informed of retaliation determinations by the Title IX coordinator, become aware of a supervisor not imposing corrective, that supervisor may also be subject to corrective action.


In IV.C.1, a recommendation was made to this section by adding "or" after complaint and "with" after

Response: This recommendation was adopted.

 

Two commenters suggested removing "discrimination" from this section since this is a sexual harassment policy and not a discrimination policy. A more general comment was received that all references to discrimination should be deleted in this policy.

Response: This recommendation was adopted. In addition, since this policy addresses sexual harassment and retaliation, all references to "discrimination" throughout the policy have been removed.


In IV.C.3, a recommended grammar revision was to replace "which will" with "to."

Response: This revision was adopted.

If you have witnessed or experienced sexual harassment-Section IV.D
It was recommended that this section be renamed "Reporting Sexual Harassment."

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


In IV.D.1.a, a commenter suggested that a URL link for the online reporting form be included in IV.D.1.

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


In IV.D.1.d, it was suggested that an email address entitled "Title IX @slcc.edu" replace the jensen@slcc.edu address. This was recommended because if the current Title IX coordinator left the college, the policy would not need to be amended.

Response: This recommendation was partially adopted. The Title IX regulations require that the Title IX coordinator's name and contact information be in the Title IX policy. The "title IX@slcc.edu" email address has been added, however, the david.jensen@slcc.edu email address also remains in the policy.

 

Supervisors-Section IV.E
In the policy posted for 15-day review, the "Supervisors" section was IV.D.2. A commenter suggested that IV.D.2 entitled "Supervisors" be made a new section IV.E.

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


A commenter inquired who is obligated to report instances of sexual harassment.

Response: No revision was made. All employees, except victims and confidential employees, who witness or receive a report of sexual harassment are required to report it .to the Title IX coordinator within two business days. Section IV.B.4.


In IV.E.1, concern was expressed that the Title IX Coordinator, Director of Employee Relations, and supervisors were neither objective nor sensitive regarding sexual harassment matters. Furthermore, the evaluation process of appropriate corrective action is highly dependent on the supervisor's presentation of the issues to Employee Relations so that department may be misinformed about actual circumstances. The commentor suggested that appropriate corrective action should be determined by a committee comprised full-time and adjunct faculty.

Response: This recommended revision for a faculty corrective action committee was not adopted. Since corrective action proceedings are considered confidential matters under the both federal and state law, it would be an inappropriate invasion of an employee's privacy rights to have a faculty member's corrective action determined by a faculty committee. Under the college's "Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure" policy and "Employee Grievance" policy, faculty and staff can evaluate, as a hearing panel member, management decisions to terminate employment. However, in these cases, the hearing committee provides a recommendation to the President who make the final determination.

As for the Employee Relations and the Title IX Coordinator's qualifications to evaluate sexual harassment matters, these employees have human resources and/or legal educational backgrounds as well as substantial experience handing sexual harassment, difficult employees, and non-responsive supervisors.


In IV.D.1.c., a comment was critical of the investigative process because "investigations at SLCC require the victim to bare their soul in excruciating detail, and then determines that no offensive action took place." It was also suggested that investigations need to be conducted by a committee comprised of faculty and students.

Response: The recommendation to a faculty and student committee investigate sexual harassment complaint was not adopted for similar privacy reasons set forth in section E.3 of this memorandum.

34 C.F.R. §160.45 (5) requires the college to conduct the investigation of a formal complaint. Likewise, this regulation places the burden of proof on the college to establish that the alleged sexual harassment occurred. Furthermore, the regulations prohibit the college from "restricting the ability of either party to discuss the allegations under investigation."

Sexual harassment investigations, due to their sensitive nature, are among the most difficult types of discrimination complaints to investigate. Investigator technique and effectiveness is highly dependent on a diverse group of investigators, extensive training and increased investigative experience. Besides the required Title IX training that all investigator must complete, the college needs to provide interactive role training on how to conduct a sexual harassment investigation.


In IV.E.1.b, a recommendation suggested this section be revised to state: Supervisors must "inform the Title IX coordinator within two business days after witnessing or receiving a complaint of sexual harassment or retaliation." In addition, it was commented that this two-day notice provision was redundant with section IV.B.4.

Response: The recommendation to revise this section was adopted. In addition, while this provision is somewhat redundant with IV.B.4, the decision was made to keep this language because: a) there is some difficulty in having supervisors report discrimination complaints to the EEO & Title IX office within 2 business days; and b) this provision deals specifically with supervisors while IV.B.4 addresses all employees in general.


In IV.E.1.e., it was recommended that it be revised to state: "Supervisors must, after imposing the corrective action, notify the appropriate vice president."

Response: This recommendation was adopted.

 

Confidential Employees – Section IV.F
In the policy posted for 15-day review, the "Confidential Employees" section was IV.D.3. A commenter suggested that this section be made section IV.F.

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


In IV.F.2, a suggested revision was to state: "Confidential employees provide confidential support and counseling regarding sexual harassment or retaliation."

Response: This revision was adopted.


In IV.F.3.b, it was recommended that this section be moved to be beginning of IV.D.

Response: This recommendation was not adopted. This section seems more understandable and appropriate at IV.F.3.b.


Determination of the Appropriate Resolution Process

In IV.G.1, it was recommended that it be revised to state: "Upon receiving a report, the Title IX coordinator will determine if the allegations would meet the definition of sexual harassment or retaliation under Title IX."

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


In IV.F.1.d addressing "supportive measures", a comment was made that stated it was not clear when eligibility for supportive measures are triggered. The commenter inquired whether the prima facie review, investigation or policy violation finding triggered the supportive measures. In addition, the commenter suggested that this provision should be located elsewhere in the policy.

Response: As a practical matter, supportive measures are available to the complainant and respondent at the very beginning of the process. Under 34 CFR §106.44, the college, when it has actual knowledge of sexual harassment, must respond promptly in a manner that is not "deliberately indifferent." Among the college's required actions is to treat complainant and respondents equitably by offering supportive measures. 34 CFR §106.30 indicates that both the complainant and respondent are eligible for supportive measures "before or after the filing of a formal complaint or where no formal complaint has been filed."


In IV.F.1.d, a second commenter asserted that the policy should specify that the complainant should not be required to adjust course schedules or employment conditions. Rather, this burden should be placed on the Respondent.)

Response: No revision has been made. It is advisable to keep this section's language flexible, so it can be adapted to the circumstances surrounding a particular complaint. As a practical matter, supportive measures would be applied in a manner to minimize disruption during the Title IX process. As for the comment to implement supportive measures in a manner which benefits the complainant and burdens the respondent, this approach would violate the Title IX regulations. 34 CFR §106.44 (a) which requires that the college "must treat the complainants and respondents equitably by offering supportive measures."


In IV.F.1.g, a commenter inquired what does "record" mean in the context of "the Title IX coordinator will record each report alleging sexual harassment or retaliation." The inquiry wanted to know how and what records would be created and stored.

Response: All reports of sexual harassment or retaliation are recorded even if the initial review determines that a prima facie case of sexual harassment has been not been alleged. Typically, at this stage of the investigation, an electronic and paper copy of the report would be generated regarding the complaint as well as the Title IX investigators determination whether a prima facie case has been established warranting an investigation. In addition, the EEO & Title IX office is in the process of transitioning to Maxent software to track discrimination complaints. This software is currently used by the Dean of Students' office,


A commenter stated that throughout the policy, the terms "person," "complainant," and "victim" are used interchangeably. The commenter advised that this may not be advisable.

Response: This recommendation was not adopted. The terms "victim", complainant and "person" are used 4, 17 and 24 times, respectively, in this policy. The personnel definitions document defines complainant. Meanwhile the terms "victim" or "person" are terms which the drafters believe the college community will generally understand. The use of the "victim" is limited to sections IV.B and IV.G.1.d addressing reporting obligations and supportive services. The use of this term in these sections is appropriate. Meanwhile, use of the term "complainant" is limited to portions of the policy addressing procedures after the formal complaint has been filed. Section IV.H to IV.K.(pp. 7-14) The use of complainant is these sections is appropriate. Finally, the term "person" is uses in case where general legal requirements are set forth such as what constitutes retaliation. Sections IV.C.

 

Filing a Title IX Sexual Harassment Formal Complaint-Section IV.H 
In IV.H.1, a recommendation was made to delete the requirement that the filing of formal complaint triggers the college's obligation to investigate. The comment stated IV.H.1 was confusing, vague and seems redundant with section IV.G which addressed "Reporting Sexual Harassment."

Response: This recommendation was not adopted. 34 CFR 106.45(b)(3)(i) obligates the college to investigate once a formal complaint has been received. Section IV.H.2 sets forth the required information in the formal complaint, so the respondent is provided legally sufficient notice. The mere reporting of sexual harassment to the Title IX coordinator does not constitute the filing of a formal complaint. Rather, a formal complaint must be filed to obligate the college to begin the investigation process. 34 CFR §106.44(b)(1).


In IV.H.3 and IV.H.4, it was recommended that these subsections should be a separate subsection entitled "Immediate Action." In addition, these sections should reference the involvement of the Public Safety Office in decisions where an employee or student is in danger.

Response: These recommendations were not adopted. At the college, it is common practice in circumstances where an employee or student is in danger, that Employee Relations or the Dean of Students will seek the Public Safety Office's assistance.

In addition, 34 CFR §106.44 (c) authorizes the college "to remove a respondent from [its] education program or activity on an emergency basis . . . [if the college] determines that [there] is an immediate threat to the physical health or safety of any student or other individual arising from the allegations of sexual harassment." While the idea of creating a new subsection for "immediate action" or "emergency removal" has some merit, its current placement in this policy is appropriate.

 

College Title IX Sexual Harassment Investigation Procedures-Section IV.I
It was recommended in the header that the word "college" be deleted so the heading reads "Title IX Sexual Harassment Investigation Procedures."

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


In IV.I.1, two significant comments were made about the absence of an investigation section in this policy. The commenter stated that this omission was confusing and queried whether the interview should take place during the hearing and whether witnesses or documents are reviewed during the interview or hearing. The commenter suggested that policy should explain the investigation process, investigative report, and time limits for investigation in that sequenced order.

Response: This section has been revised to include a link to the Investigation Procedure Guide. This three-page document sets forth the Investigation procedure for sexual harassment, discrimination and workplace bullying complaints. This procedure guide constitutes a department rule, approved by the Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness, after Cabinet review.


In section IV.I. 2, there was a comment that this section seems to contradict section IV.G.1.

IV.G.1 states: The Title IX Coordinator will consider the report and determine if the allegation, if proven meet the definition of sexual harassment or retaliation under Title IX."

I.2 states:"The Title IX coordinator, with the director of employee relations, dean of students and assistant attorney general, will determine if an institutional investigation is needed on the formal complaint."

Response: In response to this comment, a small, but important revision has been made to IV.I.2 which will now state: "The Title IX coordinator, will consult with the director of employee relations, dean of students and assistant attorney general to determine if an institutional investigation is required based on the formal complaint."(emphasis added)

Under the amended regulations, the Title IX Coordinator makes the decision whether a sexual harassment allegation, if proven, constitutes sexual harassment. In many cases, the report, as alleged, may not meet the legal requirements for sexual harassment; however, the underlying behavior may constitute some other college policy violation. Consequently, the Title IX coordinator facilitates a discussion with the director of employee relations, dean of students and assistant attorney general. In this collaborative discussion, non-sexual harassment allegations involving employees are referred to the director of employee relations. Meanwhile, non-sexual harassment allegations involving students will be referred to the Dean of Students.


In IV.I.3.a.(3), a revision was suggested stating: "The Title IX coordinator will provide notice of the investigation to the appropriate vice president executive cabinet member."

Response: This suggested revision was not adopted and deemed unnecessary.


In IV.I.3.b. (4) and IV.I. 3.c (4), minor wording or grammar errors were identified and the word "a" should be deleted and "incident" should be changed to "incidents".

Response: These revisions were adopted.


In IV.I.3.c.(4), a recommendation was made that the policy contain a link to the Garrity warning regarding making a false statement or submitting false information to an investigator.

Response: The recommendation was adopted.


In IV.I.3.d, it was recommended that this provision be revised to state: "Respondent may respond to specific allegations made by complainant prior to the initial interview. Such response should occur within five business days."

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


In IV.I.3.f, a comment suggested this section should be revised so there is a specific number of days that the respondent to prepare, after receipt of the notice of investigation, for the initial interview. Currently, this provision has a "sufficient time"

Response: In response to this comment, this section was revised to state: "The investigators will give the respondent five calendar days after receipt of the notice before the initial interview.


In IV.I.4, it recommended that a subsection located near the end of this provision which states: "The college will conduct a prompt, thorough and fair investigation . . . " should be moved to the beginning of this provision at IV.I.4.a.

Response: This recommendation was adopted. In addition, section IV.I.4 was renamed "Prompt, Thorough, and Fair Investigations."

 

Regarding IV.I.5, a commenter was confused about what happens once the investigative report is completed. The commenter also inquired whether the investigation report will be considered in the mediation or hearing process.

Response: Once the investigation report is completed, it will be provided to both the complainant and respondent. The original of the report will be maintained by the Title IX coordinator. The investigative report will not decide the issue of responsibility. Rather, this determination must be made at the live hearing. The report can be used to provide background information to the hearing officer or committee; however, live witness testimony, subject to cross-examination, must occur at the hearing.


In IV.I.5.b, a commenter queried who makes the responsibility determination if the investigation report does not include a responsibility determination.

Response: In IV.K.8, the hearing officer or hearing panel will make the determination on whether the respondent is 'responsible" or "not responsible." This provision is consistent with the amended Title IX regulations.


In IV.I.5.d it was recommended that the word "director" be removed so that the sentence stated: "The Title IX Coordinator director will provide the report to the parties simultaneously."

Response: This recommendation was adopted.

 

Optional Mediation Process- IV. J
In IV.J.1, a recommendation was made to remove the first sentence that states: "Mediation is a process to resolve some formal complaints."

Response: This recommendation was adopted. In addition, in IV.J.1's last sentence, the word "however" was added to the sentence's beginning.


In IV.J.3.a (i), it was suggested that this section be revised to allow mediation before a formal complaint has been filed or when the allegations are contested.

Response: This recommendation was not adopted. 34 CFR 106.45 (b) (9) state the college "may not offer the informal resolution process [mediation], unless a formal complaint has been filed." Furthermore, the Department of Education has stated; "where the facts alleged in the complaint are not contested. ... §106.45(b)(9) allow the [college] to facilitate an informal resolution." (p. 1124-preamble)


In IV.J.3.a. (ii) and (iii), a recommendation was made to replace "informal process" with "mediation."
In IV.J.2. a comment stated that it was confusing. This section states "the college will not condition any continued or potential employment or access on anyone waiving their right to a formal hearing."

Response: Based on this comment, this section was revised to state:

"In order to obtain a party's consent to waive their rights to a formal hearing, the college must not:

  1. Condition continued or future employment on waiver of this hearing right; or
  2. Condition participation in a college activity on waiver of this hearing right."

This proposed language is compliant with 34 CFR §160.45(b)(9).


In IV.J.5.a, an inquiry was made whether appointed mediators will be SLCC employees or external to the college.

Response: In most cases, the college will use SLCC employees, who have been trained, in accordance with Title IX requirements, to act as mediators.


Regarding IV.J addressing the mediation process, a comment was made that this section should be relocated in the policy before the investigation sections IV.H and I because IV.J.5.b (i) allows the mediator to "conduct an inquiry to determine the facts" in a manner similar to an investigation.

Response: The recommendation was not adopted. 34 CFR §160.45 (b)(9) allows the college to use mediation "at any time prior to reaching a determination regarding responsibility [at the hearing.]" The commenter appears to incorrectly assume that the investigation process is part of the formal hearing. The investigation process precedes the formal hearing and must be completed before the hearing commences. Mediation, on the other hand, is available at any time after the informal complaint is filed and a hearing determination is reached.


In IV.J.5.b (i), a commenter recommended that IV.J.5.b. (i) be deleted because this responsibility is outside the scope of traditional mediator duties. This section requires the mediator to coordinate with the Title IX coordinator supportive measures.

Response: Based on this recommendation, this section has been revised to: "The mediator may make the parties aware that the Title IX coordinator can facilitate providing supportive measures to provide counseling, course-related adjustments, modified employment conditions, increased security, or other supportive measures."


In IV.J.5.b.(iii), a commenter suggested that this section deleted because a mediator's role is facilitative and not evaluative. This section states: "the mediator may propose recommendations to either party."

Response: This recommendation has been adopted and this provision has been removed. Section IV.J.5.b(iv) which authorizes the mediator to "facilitate the parties' negotiation to a mutually agreeable resolution" is a more accurate description of a mediator's role.


In IV.J.5.b (iv), a comment was made that this section's establishment of a mediator's duty to "conduct a follow-up review to ensure that the parties are abiding to the negotiated resolution" should only be done if the it is part of the negotiated agreement by the parties.

Response: In response to this comment, this section has been revised as follows: The mediator may "conduct a follow-up review, if agreed to by the parties, to ensure the parties are abiding by the negotiated resolutions." (emphasis added)


In IV.J.5.d, a suggestion was made to delete this section because it discourages parties from mediating and compromises confidentiality. This section states: "The agreement must be approved through appropriate college personnel. (e.g., supervisors, if an employee and dean of students if a student.)"

Response: This recommendation was not adopted. While this is a valid comment, it was determined that a supervisor or Dean of Students should approve the agreement reached by the parties. The policy review committee had a vigorous debate and no consensus over this provision and comment. (emphasis added)


In IV.J.5.f, three commenters stated that this section was confusing and should be redrafted. This section states: "If either party opts out of the mediation process, the mediator cannot participate in any subsequent interview or hearing."

Response: This recommendation was adopted. This section has been revised to state as follows:

"f.A mediator cannot provide a subsequent investigation interview or testify in a Title IX hearing or serve in any other Title IX capacity on any formal complaint they mediated."


In IV. J. 5. f, a comment recommended that this section be revised to specify that a mediator may not serve on a grievance panel.

Response: This recommendation was adopted. See response to I.11 (immediately above).


Hearings to Determine Responsibility for Sexual Harassment-Section IV.K
In IV.K.2, a remark stated that this section was confusing. This section states: "The Title IX coordinator will evaluate any claim or concern and assign a new hearing officer, if necessary."

Response: The recommendation to revise this section was adopted. Section IV.K.2 has been revised to state: "The Title IX coordinator will assign a hearing officer and, if necessary, hearing committee members."


In IV.K.3, a recommendation was made that if either party has significant concerns about conflicts of interests among various members of the college who are involved in the process, the local EEO office (county-level) should take over the process.

Response: This recommendation was not adopted; however, the following new provision has been added as section IV.K.3.

"The Associate Vice President for People and Workplace Culture, in consultation with the Title IX coordinator and legal counsel, will make decisions on complaints that investigators, mediators, hearing officers, committee members or appeal officers have requisite training, are biased or have a conflict of interest in violation of college policy or applicable Title IX regulations. If the complaint is founded, the person will be removed from the Title IX duty."


In IV.K.4.b, a recommendation was made that advisors, should have minimum qualifications.

Response: No revision was made. The Title IX regulations do not establish minimum requirements. Furthermore, each party is entitled to select an advisor of their own choice. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for the college to impose minimum requirements on an advisor which a party has selected. If a party does not have their own advisor, the Title IX coordinator will appoint an advisor for them. All SLCC advisors will receive Title IX training. Nevertheless, it is possible that one party could have an attorney act as their advisor and the other party have a non-legally trained friend act as their advisor.


In IV.K.4.d addressing expert witnesses, a recommendation was made that the word "contain" be replaced with "provide."

Response: This recommendation was adopted.


In IV.K.4.c (2)- a recommendation was made to relocate text in IV. K.4.e to this section which is located before the expert witness section.

Response: This recommendation has been adopted. This relocated section now states: "At the hearing, each party may be accompanied by their advisor and personal representative. If necessary, a translator or interpreter may accompany the party."


In IV.K.7 entitled "Presumption, Standard of Proof and Due Process" a request was made: to add a section which states: "that the complainant, who is alleging sexual harassment, is presumed to be truthful." This request was made to make the policy, which presumes that the respondent is not responsible, more even handed.

Response: This revision was not adopted. The Title IX regulations require that the respondent is presumed "not responsible" and that it must be established by a "preponderance of the evidence" or by "clear and convincing evidence" that the respondent is "responsible" for sexual harassment of the complainant. The college has elected the preponderance of evidence standard which is a lesser standard of proof than the clear and convincing standard. Generally, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard means that it is more likely than not that the respondent committed the alleged sexual harassment. This suggestion to include a presumption of the complainant's truthfulness would counter the presumption, required by the Title IX regulations, that the respondent is not responsible. Therefore, it is not acceptable.


In IV.K.7, a comment was made that this provision which states: "hearings will treat complainant and respondents equally" is vague.

Response: No revision has been made. 34 CFR §106.45.(b) requires that he college to adopt a "grievance process for handling formal complaints of sexual harassment . . . which must apply equally to both parties .This provision means that both the complainant and respondent will have the same rights, obligations and time requirements at the hearing. This provision is required because of Department of Education purported concerns that institutions were providing advantageous procedural rights to complainants and disadvantageous provisions to respondents.


In IV.K.9.c, a suggestion was made to add the word "majority" in this section addressing panel members vote on whether the respondent is responsible.

Response: This recommendation was adopted. The section now states: "When the hearing is before a panel, the panel members will make decisions by majority vote."


In IV.K.9.d (3), a commenter inquired what this section means. This section states: "the hearing officer or hearing panel must not base the credibility of the participant based on the participant's status as a complainant."

Response: No revision was requested. This provision means that the decision maker cannot make a credibility determination based solely on the complainant or respondent's status. (emphasis added). In other words, a panel member cannot make their determination of responsibility against the respondent because the respondent is the alleged perpetrator. Rather, credibility determinations need to be made based on evaluating the totality of the evidence presented at the hearing. This language is required by the amended Title IX regulations.


In IV.K.9.d (4), a commenter inquired what this section means. This section states: "the hearing officer or hearing panel must wait until the conclusion of the hearing" before making the responsibility determination.

Response: No revision was requested. This provision means that the decision make must not make its responsibility determination until all evidence has been presented at the hearing.


In IV.K.11.a, the following words were added at the end of the original sentence: "which must identify the allegation of sexual harassment as defined in the policy."

Response: This revision was adopted.


In IV.K.12 b, a recommendation was made to revise this section to state: "Within three business days of receipt of the written decision, the respondent's supervisor and in coordination with the director of employee relations or dean of students will determine the sanctions or corrective action they will apply to be imposed.

Response: This recommendation was not adopted. The policy committee determined the importance to emphasize that supervisor must work with employee relations when imposing corrective action. The concern was removing this coordination language would undermine efforts to have supervisors consult with employee relations.


Regarding IV.K.12.d, it was asked when the supervisor or dean of students imposes corrective action or a sanction, whether there will be decision separate from the Title IX responsibility determination. This section states: "the hearing officer will include the sanction or corrective action in the written decision."

Response: No revision was requested. There will be no additional written decision. Rather, the responsibility determination and the corrective action/sanction will be in the same written decision. However, while the hearing officer or committee will make the Title IX responsibility determination, the supervisor or dean of students will make the corrective action/sanction decision.


In IV.K.12e (1), a grammar revision was recommended to this section. The revision was to replace the words "that potentially establish" be replaced with "of".

Response: This revision was adopted. This section now states; "The written decision must identify the allegations of sexual harassment as defined in this policy."


In IV.K.12.e (6), a recommendation was made to replace "bases" with "grounds".

Response: This revision was adopted. This section now states: "The written decision must include . . .. the grounds, time limit and process for either party to appeal."


A comment recommended adding a section addressing what happens when the respondent if determined to be "not responsible" for sexual harassment. (Rousculp-57)

Response: No revision was made. If one of the parties continues to need supportive measure, after a not responsible determination, that party will be provided supportive measures.