Betsy DeVos is at it again with Title IX

Betsy DeVos is at it again. Three months after the New York Times leaked a draft of her proposed rules on sexual harassment and violence, the Department of Education officially published the proposed rules on November 29, 2018. Remarkably, DeVos’s proposed rules are even more dangerous than her already-terrible September 2017 guidance, which gave special rights to alleged harassers and rapists, rolled back protections for survivors, and created contradictory and confusing rules for schools.

You might be wondering, Is it even possible to further eviscerate Title IX? (Relatedly, is it ever necessary to own 10 yachts?) The answer to both questions is, unfortunately, yes.

DeVos’s proposed rules would actually encourage schools to ignore survivors when they ask for help—effectively, to aid and abet the Larry Nassars and Jerry Sanduskys of the world. If the proposed rules go into effect, they would encourage—and even require—schools to be complicit in sexual harassment and violence. Here’s how:

Only the worst cases of sexual harassment would count as “sexual harassment.”

For almost 40 years, federal law has defined sexual harassment as any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. This means that when students (or employees) experience sexual harassment, they don’t have to suffer in silence or wait for it to become “bad enough” to report. Sexual harassment should never be allowed to continue unchecked.

But under DeVos’s new dystopian definition, sexual harassment wouldn’t count as “sexual harassment” unless: (i) an employee is requesting sexual favors in return for good grades or other educational benefits; (ii) the harassment qualifies as sexual assault; or (iii) the harassment is so severe and pervasive that it “denies” a student of their equal access to education—e.g., if the student has been forced to drop out of a class or out of school altogether. In fact, if a Title IX complaint doesn’t meet these narrow standards, schools would be forced (yes, forced) to dismiss the complaint. That means many students would be forced to endure repeated and escalating levels of abuse without being able to ask their schools for help. By the time their school would be legally required to intervene, it might be too late—the student might already be ineligible for an important AP course, disqualified from a dream college, or derailed from graduating altogether.

2. Few school employees would be responsible for addressing sexual harassment.

If you tell your guidance counselor, track coach, or college RA that you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted, you’d expect them to do something about it. But under DeVos’s proposed rules, the vast majority of school employees would no longer have to do anything—because they don’t have the “authority to institute corrective measures.”

Now, DeVos hasn’t clearly defined what “authority to institute corrective measures” means. So in order to ensure that they talk to the “right” person, K-12 students would have to go to their Title IX coordinator (if they even know who that is) or to a teacher (but only if their harasser is another student—not an employee!). And college students would only be able to turn to their Title IX coordinator if they want to be sure they would get help. Imagine being 8 years old and not being able to tell an adult you trust—like a playground supervisor or guidance counselor—about your assault. Imagine being 18 years old and being forced to talk about your rape with a complete stranger, instead of a TA you trust or your RA who lives down the hall.

DeVos’s proposed rules would absolve even the worst Title IX offenders of legal liability. Colleges like Michigan State and Penn State would have had no responsibility to stop Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky—just because their victims reported their experiences to school employees who didn’t have “authority to institute corrective measures.”

3. Only a fraction of online and off-campus sexual harassment would be covered by Title IX.

In the year of our Lorde (and I mean Audre Lorde) 2018, no one actually believes that students live discrete, compartmentalized lives at school and outside of school. Students learn and interact with one another all the time—in the classroom, online, and off campus. But DeVos’s proposed rules would require (yes, require) schools to ignore all Title IX complaints of off-campus harassment or violence that happen outside of a school-sponsored program, even if the student is forced to see their harasser or rapist on campus every day.

That means if a middle school student is being sexually harassed by her classmates on Instagram or Snapchat, her school would be required to ignore her—even if she has to sit next to her harassers at school. If a college student is raped in off-campus student housing or at an off-campus fraternity not recognized by her school, her college wouldn’t need to investigate—even if she sees her rapist every day in their class, dining hall, or residential hallway. Not to mention, community colleges would be almost completely off the hook, since none of their students live on campus.


DeVos’s proposed rules are a complete abdication of the Department’s responsibility to keep students safe. But don’t just take it from me—take it from students at schools where her proposed rules are already in place. Take it from Francesca, a high school survivor and NWLC client, who was told that seeing her attempted rapist at school every day wasn’t bad enough or “hostile” enough to count as ‘sexual harassment.” Take it from DarbiAnne Goodwin, a high school survivor and NWLC client, who was raped off campus and then pushed into an inferior “alternative school” because her school refused to investigate off-campus sexual harassment. Take it from Sage Carson, a college survivor and current manager of Know Your IX, who dropped her Title IX complaint because her school used some of the same traumatizing investigation procedures that DeVos is proposing to make national.

Here’s how you can stop Betsy DeVos. And it just takes 10 minutes. I know you have 10 minutes. 

DeVos’s proposed rules are horrible, but thankfully, they’re just a proposal. We still have the opportunity to stop Betsy DeVos through a rulemaking process called “notice and comment,” where anyone—and I mean anyone—can write directly to DeVos to tell her what you think about Title IX.

The notice and comment process is a 60-day period that starts on November 29, 2018 and ends on January 28, 2019. Here’s what you can do to fight back:

  1. Take 1 minute to sign this petition asking DeVos to extend the 60-day comment period so that students and educators have enough time to write comments outside of final exams and winter break.
  2. Take 4 minutes to learn how to write a comment to DeVos.
  3. Take 5 minutes (or as much time as you need) to write your comment! It can be as short or as detailed as you like. Just make sure it includes something unique from you.

That’s it! Thank you for joining the fight! And if you’re in the mood, feel free to tweet at her:

For once in your life, do your ***** job, Betsy DeVos.

Originally published by the National Women’s Law Center

I want a justice who wants justice.

Re: Brett Kavanaugh’s Wall Street Journal op ed claiming he would be an “impartial” and “pro-law” justice.

It’s absolute bullshit to be “pro-law.” The law is not neutral. The law is not impartial. It is written by people with power to preserve and increase that power. The law is oppressive by default. It will never be ethical to be neutral.

In conclusion, I want a justice who will activist the fuck out of her seat.

I want a justice who will excavate every footnote, wordsmith every dictum, adopt every dissent, and rule broadly instead of narrowly every time in order to give her plaintiff or defendant the complete justice to which they are entitled.

I want a Carolene Products footnote 4 kind of justice.

I want a privacy penumbra-inventing, “substantive due process”-wordsmithing, reverse equal protection-incorporating, prophylactic-propounding, Section 5-enforcing, stare decisis-rejecting, Ta-Nehisi Coates-quoting, Michelle Alexander-citing, umbrella in a rainstorm-analogizing, “nine women on the Court”-endorsing kind of justice.

I want a justice who wants justice.

A Title IX toolkit to stop sexual harassment

image: smiling girls; title: "Let Her Learn: A toolkit to stop school pushout for girls who have experienced sexual harassment"

Sexual harassment should never be the end of anyone’s education. It is a national crisis that one in five girls ages 14-18 have been kissed or touched without their consent, and that only 2% of them report the harassment to their parents, schools, or the police due to fear of victim-blaming and retaliation. And it is unacceptable that when girls do have the courage to come forward, schools often ignore or even punish them instead of investigating their reports of sexual harassment.

That’s why we created Let Her Learn: A Toolkit to Stop School Pushout for Girls Who Have Experienced Sexual Harassment.

This toolkit provides an easy-to-use checklist of yes/no questions, examples, sample dialogue, and acronyms—all written at a 7th grade reading level—to help you advocate for your Title IX rights. For example, Title IX requires your school to investigate all incidents of sexual harassment it knows about to find out whether the harassment has made it harder for students to learn or stay in school—regardless of where it happened, who the harasser is, and what actions the police have taken. Find out how and to whom to report sexual harassment, what accommodations your school should offer, what is required in a fair and trauma-informed investigation, and what retaliation looks like. The toolkit also includes content specific to girls of color, LGBTQ students, pregnant and parenting students, students with disabilities, and students who are English language learners.

Can you use this toolkit if you’re not a girl? Absolutely. Sexual harassment affects girls most often, but it can happen to anyone.

Can you use this toolkit if you’re a college or graduate student? Again, absolutely. Title IX applies to all K-12, college, and graduate students (and college and graduate students have additional rights under the Clery Act).

No matter what Betsy DeVos says, Title IX is still the law of the land, and you still have the right to learn in a safe environment.

Check out the toolkit here.

Kenneth Marcus: alt-civil rights in the age of the alt-right

Originally published by the National Women’s Law Center 

Our Secretary of Education doesn’t believe in public schools. Our president doesn’t believe in facts. Is it any surprise that our nominee for Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights doesn’t believe in civil rights?

Just yesterday, Kenneth Marcus told the Senate that he can’t name a single civil rights violation committed by the Trump administration. This is the man who wants to lead the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This is the man who would enforce federal anti-discrimination statutes to ensure that all students have equal access to education.

As Senator Elizabeth Warren put it, “We don’t need someone in this position to do as little as possible to protect as few students as possible.”

Here are six of Marcus’s worst anti-civil rights positions:

1. Marcus supports Betsy DeVos’s attack on sexual assault survivors.

Marcus told the Senate that he agrees with Secretary DeVos’s decision to rescind Title IX guidance on sexual assault. Apparently, he thinks it was a good idea to replace 72 pages of detailed guidance with a scant 10 pages of confusing guidance that gives special rights to accused rapists.

Marcus also claimed that the Office for Civil Rights shouldn’t have required schools to use the preponderance of the evidence standard in Title IX investigations—even though OCR required schools to use the preponderance standard the last time he was in charge. Marcus might be willing to throw sexual assault survivors under the bus in order to get this new job, but we always keep receipts.

2. Marcus doesn’t think Title VI protects undocumented students.

Back in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that schools can’t deny undocumented children access to public education. The Office for Civil Rights followed up with guidance in 2014, reminding schools that Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of a student’s citizenship status.

But at his Senate hearing, Marcus said he didn’t think he would be responsible for protecting undocumented students, claiming (wrongly) that he “lacked jurisdiction.” As the Trump administration continues its attacks on undocumented children, Mexicans, and Muslims, Marcus’s apathy toward undocumented students is incompatible with the purpose of the Office for Civil Rights.

3. Marcus doesn’t think Title IX protects LGBTQ students.

Between the Departments of Education and Justice’s rescission of their transgender guidance, and the White House’s transgender military ban, LGBTQ rights are squarely under attack. But Marcus doesn’t seem to think this is a problem.

In 2004, as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Marcus was outraged by a professor who rebuked a white male student for expressing “conservative Christian views” about homosexuality. He promised to “aggressively prosecute” schools that engaged in what he considered “religious harassment” of conservative Christian students but somehow (very mysteriously) forgot to denounce anti-LGBTQ harassment. Years later, during a USCCR discussion on bullying, including anti-LGBTQ bullying, he again (very mysteriously) forgot to denounce anti-LGBTQ harassment as a form of harassment prohibited by Title IX.

It’s bad enough that Marcus is unlikely to protect LGBTQ students. It’s even worse that he might “aggressively prosecute” schools that discipline anti-LGBTQ harassers, on the basis that these harassers are victims of so-called “religious harassment.” At a minimum, he’s displayed no interest in enforcing the civil rights of students who are harassed or assaulted based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression.

4. Marcus thinks affirmative action is reverse discrimination.

Affirmative action is a race-conscious (or gender-conscious, etc.) policy that seeks to correct the effects of historical and present-day discrimination. While Marcus supports a “color-blind society,” he doesn’t seem to recognize that colorblindness is in itself a form of racism.

You might be wondering—if you can’t see race, then how do you identify and fight racism? Well, the answer is that you don’t. As Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Marcus published a 2004 report encouraging schools to use “race-neutral policies” instead of race-based affirmative action. Later, as Staff Director for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, he followed up with a 2007 report recommending that law schools no longer be required to “demonstrate a commitment to diversity.”

Why does Marcus oppose affirmative action? It might be because he thinks that “cultural dysfunction” and “family structure”—rather than historical and present-day discrimination—are the primary causes of racial disparity between black and white individuals. It might be because he believes in the myth of reverse-racism (as does his predecessor Candice Jackson), and that race-conscious policies designed to promote workplace equality actually “reflect racial prejudice” against white people.

In any case, Marcus’s views on affirmative action make him unqualified to lead the Office for Civil Rights. Anyone who doesn’t understand how racism works and who holds such regressive racial stereotypes is unfit to lead an agency charged with enforcing protections against racial discrimination.

5. Marcus thinks sexist stereotypes are a legitimate basis for offering single-sex education.

There is overwhelming empirical evidence that single-sex education does not improve educational outcomes and that it reinforces harmful gender stereotypes.  But Marcus does not appear to believe in science or in protecting the Title IX rights of girls and women (don’t worry, he’ll fit right in with the Trump administration).

In 2004, as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Marcus was responsible for single-sex education regulations that invited schools to create separate-and-unequal programs based on pseudoscientific preferences and beliefs—programs that could violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Since the regulations were issued, single-sex education has increased sharply in public schools across the country, causing a resurgence of appallingly regressive gender stereotypes in the classroom. It became so alarming that the Department of Education issued guidance in 2014, clarifying that schools cannot rely on “overbroad generalizations” about the ability or preferences of either sex in offering single-sex programs.

“Our kids were basically being taught ideas about gender that come from the Dark Ages,” a parent from Mobile, Alabama reported. In one Pittsburgh kindergarten, boys learned vocabulary by playing basketball and running relay races, while girls learned vocabulary through fairytale stories, wands, and tiaras. In a Wisconsin school district, boys were asked “what would you do,” while girls were asked “how would you feel?”

As the popularity of single-sex education continues to grow, it’s clear that Marcus must not be given a second opportunity as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to roll back gender equity further.

6. Marcus doesn’t believe in disparate-impact (unintentional) discrimination.

Before we dive in, let’s do a quick Discrimination 101: People can experience discrimination in one of two forms—disparate treatment or disparate impact—for being a member of a protected class like race, sex, etc. You’re probably familiar with disparate treatment discrimination, which occurs if a policy is explicitly discriminatory (e.g., “whites only” drinking fountains), or if a facially neutral policy is administered in a discriminatory way (e.g., racial disparities in the criminal justice system and in school discipline). In contrast, disparate impact discrimination occurs if a policy is written and administered in a neutral way but still has a disproportionate and unjustified effect on members of a protected class (e.g., the Los Angeles Police Department’s unjustified height requirement). Disparate impact liability is critical to civil rights enforcement because it focuses on proving structural injustice and implementing remedies rather than proving intent or assigning blame.

But Marcus doesn’t agree that disparate impact discrimination is enough on its face to constitute a civil rights violation. Moreover, he believes that disparate impact discrimination is just another way of revealing “hidden discriminatory intent,” rather than a standalone form of structural oppression. Marcus’s reasoning suggests that he fundamentally misunderstands how even neutral policies can “freeze” an oppressive status quo, even if no hidden discriminatory intent exists.

What makes Marcus’s views on disparate impact especially dangerous? Because it’s common knowledge by now that students of color suffer from both disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination under their schools’ zero-tolerance discipline policies, which lead to more students of color being excluded from school and which exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline. And yet the Department of Education will probably rescind its 2014 guidance against racially discriminatory discipline practices. This leaves students of color more vulnerable than ever to citations, suspensions, and expulsions that deny their right to equal access to education.

It’s bad enough that Marcus is unlikely to protect students—especially students of color—from disparate impact discrimination. It’s even worse that he might punish schools for taking proactive measures to avoid such discrimination.


To recap, Marcus’s positions condone or support discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, immigration status, sexual orientation, and gender identity. There’s no way he should be given a second chance to wreak havoc as Assistant Secretary for against Civil Rights.


You still have rights under Title IX

Originally published by the National Women’s Law Center

Last Friday, Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education rescinded Title IX guidance from 2014 and 2011 on what schools are required to do to protect students from sexual harassment and violence. In their place, the Department issued interim guidance that eviscerated many key protections.

Below, I’ll explain the following:

  • You still have rights under Title IX: which student rights remain protected and which duties schools are still required to carry out despite the new interim guidance
  • Here’s what has changed: how the 2017 interim guidance hurts survivors
  • Here’s what is unclear: how DeVos has made Title IX even more confusing for schools
  • Here’s what you can do to support Title IX: how you can take action today

You still have rights under Title IX

1. Title IX still covers private schools and K-12 schools.

Title IX applies to all schools that receive federal funding—including private colleges and universities that participate in the Federal Student Aid program and most K-12 public schools. If a school knows—or “should reasonably have known”—about the harassment or violence, then it is responsible for addressing the problem. And as per the 2001 guidance—which has not been rescinded, schools have this responsibility even if no formal complaint has been filed and even if there is a concurrent law enforcement investigation.

2. Title IX still protects all students, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Schools must address all incidents of sexual harassment, including same-sex harassment, gender-based harassment, and harassment of male students. While Title IX doesn’t directly ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the 2001 guidance—which has not been rescinded—is very clear that Title IX protects all LGBTQ students: “sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students” and “gender-based harassment, including that predicated on sex stereotyping” are covered by Title IX if it is “sufficiently serious to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program.”

3. Title IX still covers off-campus incidents and isolated incidents of harassment.

If harassment creates a “hostile environment” on-campus, then the school is responsible for taking action. This includes harassment that initially occurred on the internet or off campus (e.g., during a field trip, at an away game, at a house party). This also includes harassment by someone who is not a student or employee at the school (e.g., a visiting athlete, a guest speaker). And remember, the harassment does not have to be repeated—a single or isolated incident, like a sexual assault, may be enough to trigger Title IX.

So what is a “hostile environment”? Any environment that “den[ies] or limit[s] a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s programs or activities.” For example, if a student starts skipping class or drops out of an extracurricular in order to avoid their harasser or rapist, then the school environment has become hostile, and the school needs to respond.

4. Schools are still responsible for having formal Title IX procedures in place.

Schools must meet three procedural requirements: (1) distribute a nondiscrimination policy to all students, employees, and parents (if K-12); (2) designate at least one Title IX coordinator to oversee Title IX compliance; and (3) publish and adopt “grievance procedures” to address sex discrimination (which includes harassment and violence).

5. Investigations must still be “adequate, reliable, and impartial.”

All investigators and adjudicators must be trained on Title IX and sexual harassment/violence, and they cannot have any conflicts of interest. For example, the dean of students, athletics director, and general counsel may have some conflict of interest and should not be an investigator or adjudicator.

Technically, both students must have the same rights and opportunities to participate in the investigation. According to the new interim guidance, both sides must have the same right to present evidence, call witnesses, have a lawyer or advisor attend hearings, have that lawyer or advisor speak at hearings, cross-examine the other side, submit questions for a third party to ask the other side, etc. Both sides must receive written notice before any interview or hearing so that they have enough time to meaningfully prepare. And at the end of the investigation, the school must inform both sides about the outcome at the same time, in writing.

But I said technically. Because the new interim guidance also says that schools have the option of making appeals available only to the perpetrator. In other words, special rights for actual and accused rapists.

6. Schools are still required to disclose the findings of an investigation to both sides at the same time.

As mentioned earlier, schools must inform both sides about the “results” at the same time, in writing, including whether or not they can file an appeal. What are the “results” in a Title IX investigation?

For all investigations, the “results” include whether or not the alleged conduct occurred, what individual remedies are available to the reporting student, and what actions will be taken by the school to eliminate the hostile environment as a whole.

The “results” also include the following:

  • If the investigation is conducted by a K-12 school or if it involves sexual harassment (but not sexual violence) at the college level, then the school must inform the reporting student about any sanctions imposed on the perpetrator that “directly relate” to the reporting student, like a no-contact order.
  • If the investigation involves sexual violence at the college level, then the Clery Act requires schools to inform the reporting student of all sanctions imposed on the perpetrator, regardless of whether or not they “directly relate” to the reporting student.

Despite a common misconception, none of these disclosures violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). Congress has clearly stated that nothing in FERPA “shall be construed to affect the applicability of” Title IX.

Here’s what has changed

1. Schools can now tilt the evidentiary standard in favor of rapists and harassers.

The 2011 guidance had required schools to use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This meant that schools were required to determine whether it was “more likely than not” (greater than 50-50 chance) that an alleged perpetrator had violated the code of conduct. But the 2017 guidance says that schools can use either the preponderance standard or the higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard. No one really knows what “clear and convincing” even means—all we know is that it’s greater than 51% but less than 100%.

Why is using the “clear and convincing” standard immensely problematic? In the U.S., nearly all administrative proceedings (like school disciplinary hearings) and judicial proceedings (civil and criminal trials) use the preponderance standard as long as the worst possible outcome does not include prison. This includes all school disciplinary hearings for violations like physical assault and theft, as well as all civil (not criminal) lawsuits for serious offenses like assault and wrongful death. The law recognizes that the preponderance standard is the fairest evidentiary standard to use in these non-criminal hearings, because it gives both sides an equal opportunity to prove that their version of events is “more likely than not.” And Title IX investigations fall into this same category of non-criminal hearings.

People like DeVos like to pretend that Title IX is a criminal law that requires “clear and convincing” or even “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” But Title IX is NOT a criminal law meant to put rapists in prison. It is a civil law meant to ensure that all students have equal access to education. Title IX does not give schools the power to send rapists or harassers to prison. The absolute most a school can do is expel a student from campus—and that almost never happens.

Look—Title IX isn’t a criminal law by any stretch of the imagination. And the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is the only standard that schools should use in sexual misconduct investigations, because it is the only standard that creates a balanced scale that is equally fair to both sides. But the 2017 guidance wants to tilt that scale in favor of alleged rapists and harassers. It’s saying that not only do sexual abusers deserve more rights than physical abusers and plagiarists, but also that rapists deserve more rights than rape survivors.

2. Schools can make appeals available only to the perpetrator—but not the student who was raped or harassed.

Although the 2011 guidance did not require schools to provide an appeal process, it did require schools to make appeals equally available to both sides. That is, if one side has the right to appeal, then so does the other. But the 2017 guidance allows schools to make appeals available only to the perpetrator.

This is yet another example of DeVos giving alleged rapists special rights. And it directly violates the 2017 guidance’s mandate that “[a]ny rights or opportunities that a school makes available to one party during the investigation should be made available to the other party on equal terms.” Apparently, “equal rights” is just code for “protect rapists.”

This rule also has really damaging consequences for survivors of sexual harassment and violence. First, just knowing that only the perpetrator will be allowed to appeal is a clear signal to survivors that their school won’t be fair to them. The result is that fewer survivors may file a complaint in the first place. Moreover, if a school’s procedures are unfair, and survivors are barred from appealing, then they have no place to turn—unless they decide to embark on an expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally traumatizing lawsuit. And even if the lawsuit is successful, it could take years to get a judgment. In the meantime, the hostile environment remains unaddressed and is likely exacerbated by retaliation from the perpetrator, classmates, and/or school officials. All of this takes a heavy toll on the survivor’s right to get an education—which was supposed to be the whole point of Title IX.

3. Schools may now allow rape survivors to be directly cross-examined by their rapists.

Cross-examination is a way for each side to question the other side’s testimony and evidence. But in a sexual violence case, it can be highly traumatic for a rape survivor to be personally questioned by their rapist. That’s why the 2011 guidance strongly discouraged schools from allowing parties to personally cross-examine each other in sexual violence cases. To avoid perpetuating a hostile environment, schools were urged to ask each side to submit questions to a third party, who would then cross-examine the other side on their behalves.

But the 2017 guidance doesn’t care about re-traumatizing students. It just tells schools that they can allow cross-examination either by the students or by a third party. Survivors may be more likely to drop their case if they know that they’ll be directly cross-examined by their rapist. If they do drop their case, they’ll likely continue to face a hostile environment that interferes with their ability to learn at school. And if they don’t want to drop their case, then the only way they can remedy their current hostile environment is by subjecting themselves to further hostility. It’s a terrible lose-lose situation.

4. Schools are no longer urged to resolve complaints within 60 days.

The 2011 guidance had recommended (but did not require) that schools finish investigations within 60 calendar days. But the 2017 guidance doesn’t mention this time frame at all and specifically says that there is “no fixed time frame” for completing a Title IX investigation.

This is irresponsible af because some K-12 schools and colleges already take far too long to investigate Title IX complaints. Now, DeVos is essentially telling them, “You can take as long as you want. You could even just wait until the student drops out from the trauma. I won’t hold you accountable.”

Here’s what is unclear

1. Schools are no longer instructed not to facilitate mediation between rapists and rape survivors.

Mediation is a way for two (or more) students to sit down together and work out their problems face-to-face. But in a sexual harassment or violence case, it can be highly traumatic for a rape survivor to “work things out” with their rapist when they probably don’t even want to be in the same room as them. That’s why the 2011 guidance explicitly prohibited schools from mediating in sexual assault cases, even if the students came to the table “voluntarily.” As for sexual harassment (not assault), the 2011 guidance was very careful to remind schools not to force students into mediation, and certainly not to mediate without a trained counselor or mediator present.

But DeVos doesn’t care about re-traumatizing students. The 2017 guidance just tells schools that they can facilitate mediation or other informal processes as long as “all parties voluntarily agree.” In doing so, it directly conflicts with the Department’s 2001 guidance—which has not been rescinded. The 2001 guidance clearly states the same rules as the 2011 guidance—that schools are prohibited from mediating sexual assault cases (regardless of whether the parties consent), and that schools must obtain both parties’ voluntary consent and provide trained professionals in order to mediate sexual harassment cases.

It’s not clear whether the 2001 or 2017 guidance should be followed. The problem is that schools are already incentivized to sweep sexual violence under the rug. In fact, the federal government is currently investigating 137 K-12 school districts and 246 colleges and universities for violating Title IX. Under the 2017 guidance’s harmful omissions, schools will be even more incentivized to coerce rape survivors into entering mediation “voluntarily” instead of conducting a proper investigation.

2. Schools are no longer instructed to prohibit cross-examination of rape survivors about their sexual history.

Asking rape survivors about their sexual history used to be a popular and underhanded method of discrediting survivors, blaming them for their own rapes, and re-traumatizing them during court proceedings. That is, until rape shield laws were enacted to prohibit this line of questioning as irrelevant and prejudicial. For similar reasons, the 2011 guidance prohibited schools from questioning students about their sexual history with anyone other than the alleged perpetrator. Furthermore, the 2011 guidance reminded schools that “the mere fact of a … dating or sexual relationship between two parties does not itself imply consent” during the specific incident being investigated. In other words, the 2011 guidance recognized that consent isn’t transferrable; it must be obtained every single time.

Unfortunately, the 2017 guidance doesn’t care about victim-blaming. It deleted the entire section that restricted cross-examination of survivors about their sexual history—leaving things unclear as to whether this line of questioning is permissible or not.

3. Schools are no longer instructed to respect students’ requests for confidentiality.

Students who report harassment often want to keep their identities confidential. They may also not want to pursue formal disciplinary action against their harasser or rapist because they want to focus on school or avoid retaliation from other students. That’s why the 2011 guidance contained detailed instructions for schools on how to respect a reporting student’s request for confidentiality. If a school was able to conduct an informal investigation without disclosing the reporting student’s identity, then it was urged to do so. Schools were instructed to override a student’s request for confidentiality only if they felt that the risk of further harm was too high, and that it was necessary to pursue disciplinary action against the alleged perpetrator. Even so, schools were required to notify the reporting student first before disclosing their identity to the alleged perpetrator.

The 2017 guidance contains zero instructions on confidentiality. It just states that if a school pursues disciplinary action, then the alleged perpetrator should receive written notice of the allegations, “includ[ing] the identities of the parties involved.” By omitting instructions on confidentiality, the 2017 guidance sends a message to schools that protecting student confidentiality is not a priority. In doing so, it deters survivors from reporting and, as a result, impedes schools from effectively monitoring repeat offenders.

However, the Department’s 2001 guidance—which has not been rescinded—is clear that student confidentiality is important. But schools and students wouldn’t know this unless they meticulously inspected the 48-page document, which states: if a student asks the school not to reveal their identity to the alleged perpetrator, then “the school should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the student’s request as long as doing so does not prevent the school from responding effectively to the harassment and preventing harassment of other students.”

It’s unclear how the 2001 requirement to respect the survivor’s request for confidentiality jives with the interim guidance’s instructions to reveal the survivor’s identity if seeking disciplinary action. This is yet another example of how DeVos’ guidance makes things more confusing for schools.

4. Schools are no longer instructed to minimize the burden on the student who was harassed when implementing interim measures.

An investigation can take several weeks or even several months to complete. In the meantime, the hostile environment continues to impair the harassed student’s ability to learn. That’s why schools are encouraged to provide interim measures that protect students’ right to learn while the investigation is pending: e.g., extensions on assignments, an escort between classes/activities, modified class schedules to avoid contact between the parties, restrictions on contact between the parties, changes in work or housing locations, leaves of absence, increased campus security and monitoring.

The 2011 guidance was mindful of the fact that the student who was harassed is far more likely to need interim measures than the alleged perpetrator. It specifically reminded schools to minimize the burden on the student who was harassed, and not to remove them from classes or housing while allowing alleged perpetrators to remain.

But the 2017 guidance disingenuously pretends that both parties need the same kind of protection. By requiring schools not to “rely on fixed rules that favor one party over another” when providing interim measures, the 2017 guidance directly conflicts with the Department’s 2001 guidance, which states that “interim measures should be designed to minimize, as much as possible, the burden on the student who was harassed.”

Again, it’s unclear which guidance document wins out. If it’s the 2017 guidance, that may mean that schools can effectively punish students who report harassment by changing their classes or housing, transferring them to an alternative school, or even placing them on an involuntary leave of absence until their perpetrators graduate. Not only does this impair survivors’ right to education, but it also removes them from their support network of friends and dormmates—at a time when they most critically need that support.

Here’s what you can do to support Title IX

The new interim guidance is trash. It hurts survivors, makes schools less safe, and creates uncertainty for school administrators. But here’s the thing – schools can choose not to follow it. Here’s what you can do to help spread the word:

  • Sign our pledge: Do whatever it takes to #StopBetsy and the Trump administration from enshrining rape culture as official U.S. Department of Education policy.
  • Ask your school administrators to adhere to the 2011 and 2014 guidance. If they have questions, you can share our easy-to-read fact sheets with them (see below).
  • Ask your school’s Title IX coordinator to adhere to the 2011 and 2014 guidance. Share these fact sheets with them too.

Fact sheets (~2 pages each):

  • Mythbusting Title IX: Dispel 8 common myths about Title IX
  • Sexual Violence & Title IX: What schools must do to address sexual violence
  • FERPA & Title IX: Despite what some schools believe, disclosures required by Title IX do not conflict with the Family Educational Records Privacy Act (FERPA).
  • LGBTQ Students & Title IX: Title IX prohibits gender-based harassment—harassment based on a student’s nonconformity with stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
  • Cyberbullying & Title IX: Schools are required to address sexual harassment that occurs via text messages, instant/direct messages, emails, videos, social media pages, etc.

Understanding the immigration ban

Dear Wharton,

We are grateful that the President’s executive order on immigration was temporarily blocked by a federal district court in Seattle last Friday and that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to reinstate it. As we await a final decision by the Ninth Circuit (and likely subsequent review by the Supreme Court), we write this letter to stand in solidarity against the immigration ban and to provide more information about the ban, which has already affected hundreds of immigrants, green card holders, and refugees—including many of our friends here at Wharton who hold student visas. (See below for FAQs.)

Although the stated purpose of the ban is to protect against terrorism, the Cato Institute notes that foreign nationals from the restricted countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during 1975-2015. Indeed, the annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.6 billion. Moreover, in the aftermath of 9/11, terrorist attacks by anti-government and white supremacists have killed nearly twice as many people as those by jihadist extremists. (Note: We cite these statistics to show that the immigration ban lacks a legitimate factual basis—not to imply that an immigration ban would be permissible for a country that does have terrorist affiliations.)

This executive order is not based upon fact—it merely amplifies xenophobia and Islamophobia. In attempting to justify the immigration ban, the administration cited the killing of six Muslims mid-prayer by a white terrorist to support its fallacious narrative that the immigration ban will reduce radical jihadist terrorism. We condemn the administration’s use of an Islamophobic attack on Muslims to justify an Islamophobic ban against Muslim-majority countries. We urge each of you to continue actively seeking out the truth and resisting attempts to obscure the truth.

The executive order also does not withstand legal scrutiny. Discrimination on the basis of nationality is prohibited by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. We cannot repeat the United States’s long and shameful history of enacting immigration bans on the basis of nationality. See, e.g., the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act of 1917, the rejection of thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, and Executive Order 9066 interning Japanese Americans during World War II.

The administration’s claim that President Obama first identified these seven countries for immigration restrictions is misleading. The Obama administration required greater visa scrutiny (not a ban) of individuals who had traveled to these seven countries, and specifically rejected a nationality-based restriction. The law was enacted to address credible concerns about individuals who had become radicalized after traveling to those seven countries, like the Belgian national who masterminded the Paris attacks after traveling to Syria.

The claim that President Obama had previously issued a similar ban against Iraqi nationals is also inaccurate and misleading. In 2011, the Obama administration slowed the issuance of Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) to Iraqi applicants after two Iraqi immigrants in Kentucky were arrested on suspicion of ties to an insurgent group. Unlike the Trump order, which imposes a ban on all non-diplomatic visas from seven countries without a legitimate factual basis, the Obama order required enhanced review (not a ban) of a single type of visa from a single country in response to a specific, credible threat. Moreover, unlike the Trump order, which bans all refugees, the Obama order did not impose any ban on refugees. The administration’s attempt to equate the two executive orders is flatly wrong.

As some of our classmates recently noted, the University of Pennsylvania’s motto is “Laws without morals are useless.” We find that the President’s executive order is morally bankrupt and must be rescinded.

With love and in solidarity,
Middle East North Africa Club (MENA)
Muslim Students Network (MSN)
Wharton Africa Student Association (WASA)
Return on Equality (ROE)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Who is included in the (currently suspended) immigration ban?

Issued on January 27, 2017, the executive order suspended the entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry for 90 days for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The ban included all visa holders from these seven restricted countries—including Wharton international students holding student visas, with the exception of  individuals traveling on diplomatic, NATO, or UN visas.

The immigration ban did not include naturalized U.S. citizens from these seven restricted countries, green card holders (i.e., permanent residents), and dual citizens who present a passport from a non-restricted country.

2. Is the immigration ban illegal?

Very likely. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), prohibiting discrimination “in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152. The President relies on Section 212(f) of the INA, which provides an exception “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report acknowledges that there are no “firm legal limits” on the president’s authority, citing case law on Section 212(f) and its extensive use by the last five presidents, including 19 instances by President Obama. However, the Cato Institute notes that “no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception.”

Both liberals and conservatives agree that the immigration ban is illegal. Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) denounced the executive order as “unacceptable,” adding that “[e]nhancing long-term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.” Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) also voiced his concern that the ban would “give ISIS some more propaganda.” Former President Barack Obama criticized the ban, warning that “core values may be at stake.” Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith.

The immigration ban also violates a number of international treaties ratified by the U.S. The United Nations Refugee Convention requires the U.S. not to return refugees to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination requires the U.S. to “guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that even in a “time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation,” the U.S. cannot discriminate “solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

3. What legal action is being taken to reverse the immigration ban?

Judicial action: Last Friday, February 3, a federal judge in Seattle blocked the entire executive order nationwide. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the DOJ’s request to immediately restore the ban, and the matter remains pending before the Ninth Circuit. Earlier judicial actions include:

  • Federal judges in New York and Virginia blocking deportations of green card holders and all arrivals with valid visas or refugee status;
  • Federal judges in Boston imposing a seven-day restraining order against the executive order in its entirety (which has since expired);
  • Sixteen state attorneys general issuing a joint statement condemning the ban and promising to “fight this unconstitutional order;” and
  • Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates instructing the Department of Justice (DOJ) not to defend the executive order (the President fired Yates shortly afterwards).

Legislative action: On Monday, January 30, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced two bills to rescind the executive order and limit executive authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The bills have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

4. The ban may affect me personally. How can I protect myself?

Note: Please contact an immigration lawyer for all legal questions. See this decision chart (English, Arabic, and Farsi) prepared by the CUNY School of Law before the ban was temporarily suspended.

The “model minority” speaks out

This open letter on Anti-Asian discrimination was sent to the Wharton community in October 2016. See accompanying workshop slides.

Dear Wharton,

We were disappointed to hear that Peter Linneman, Emeritus Professor of Real Estate at Wharton, recently made discriminatory remarks about Chinese men at a public real estate conference in New York (see WSJ article). At Wharton, we understand that discrimination against any member of our community is an affront to all members of our community. Professor Linneman’s comments contravene our school’s ongoing commitment to promote diversity and inclusion—they do not reflect the views of the Wharton community.

There is a long history of discrimination and violence against Asians and Asian Americans in the United States. From 1882 to 1943, the Chinese Exclusion Act banned all Chinese immigrants from entering the U.S.—the only ethnic immigration ban in this nation’s history. The U.S. also bears responsibility for Executive Order 9066 (and Korematsu v. United States), which authorized (and later constitutionalized) the incarceration of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. Many other examples abound.

Today, anti-Asian discrimination continues to manifest itself through both microaggressions and hate crimes, including murder and mass murder. These acts are fueled by a variety of harmful cultural narratives, including the model minority myth, the perpetual foreigner myth, the hypersexualization of Asian women, and the desexualization of Asian men. Discriminatory statements that rely on these stereotypes also help to perpetuate the bamboo ceiling—the systemic exclusion of Asians and Asian Americans from top leadership positions in business, political, and social organizations.

A growing body of research confirms that business leaders must be competent on issues of diversity and inclusion (D&I) in order to be truly effective leaders.

To that end, we have been inspired to see our fellow classmates recognizing the importance of promoting diversity and inclusion through events, rallies, and open letters. For example, in the wake of recent acts of violence and discrimination against the Black, LGBTQ, and Muslim communities in America, student affinity groups brought Wharton together to learn about these different types of oppression and to express solidarity with the affected communities.

As a part of the ongoing student dialogue on diversity and inclusion, we invite you to attend a panel and open forum (see workshop slides) on Thursday, November 10 to explore the unique challenges faced by the Asian and Asian American communities in the United States. This event, which is sponsored by the Greater China Club (GCC), the Wharton Asian American Association of MBAs (WAAAM), Wharton Asia Club, and Return on Equality (ROE), is part of International Week (November 7-10), an annual initiative organized by the Wharton Graduate Association (WGA) to learn about the unique perspectives of our international classmates.

We also applaud the Wharton administration’s efforts to promote diversity and inclusion among the student body. For example, we commend administration-driven initiatives like the mandatory workshop for first-year students, the Return on Equality Fund for student-led events, and the Diversity and Inclusion Task Force for student programming. At the same time, systemic changes are necessary to enhance the culture and norms of our school—not only among students, but also among faculty and staff members.

In particular, we urge the Wharton administration to implement mandatory training on diversity and inclusion for all faculty and staff members. This training is critical to ensuring that our faculty and staff members continue to be effective educators—for our increasingly diverse student body, and against the backdrop of an increasingly diverse business environment. In taking the lead on this very important issue, Wharton would affirm its place as a leader among our business school peers.

Maintaining an inclusive community requires ongoing and active participation from all of us. We value the efforts that students, faculty, and staff have invested in promoting diversity and inclusion at Wharton, and we look forward to continued collaboration toward our vision of a more fully inclusive One Wharton.

Wharton Greater China Club (GCC)
Wharton Asian American Association of MBAs (WAAAM)
Wharton Asia Club
Return on Equality (ROE)
Wharton Graduate Association (WGA)

Yellow peril supports Black lives

As an Asian American, I am aware that my community does not engage nearly enough on issues of racial justice in America. We tend to embrace our status as the model minority and seek to dissociate ourselves from other communities of color. As immigrants and perpetual foreigners, we are constantly reaching for whiteness in the hopes that securing white privilege will signify that we have finally realized the American Dream.

And sometimes, America lets us in. We are praised for being hardworking and good at math. And we have been largely spared from the systemic violence faced by Black America for the past four centuries through slavery, segregation, redlining, mass incarceration, and police brutality.

But our access to white privilege is both temporary and conditional. The power to confer and revoke that privilege has never belonged to us. They can let us in, and they can shut us out. The U.S. once banned all Chinese immigrants from entering the country for more than 60 years and incarcerated more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during WWII (but not a single German American).

Our access to white privilege is incomplete. We are stereotyped as workers and middle managers, not CEOs (we’re just not natural leaders). Our women are hypersexualized (relax, it’s a compliment), and our men are desexualized (relax, it’s just a joke). Sometimes we even get to be sidekicks on TV shows.

Most critically, our access to white privilege is bounded by a zero-sum game that pits the Asian American community against other communities of color. Today, Asian Americans are a pawn in the campaign against affirmative action, a legal remedy that seeks to reverse the effects of institutional racism against Black and Brown America. We are told that affirmative action benefits underrepresented minorities at our expense. We are not told that affirmative action policies are designed to preserve the white majority (or plurality) at our expense — redistributing a minority of seats between Asian Americans and other people of color. This zero-sum game is critical because it keeps us occupied with hostility toward other communities of color, distracting us from challenging white supremacist institutions.

And so we use our political energies to protest the wrong things. It was shameful that thousands of Asian Americans protested the conviction of NYPD officer Peter Liang for killing Akai Gurley, an unarmed Black man. Instead of being angry at the fact that Liang was (rightfully) convicted of manslaughter, we should have been angry at the fact that almost no other police officers have been indicted — much less convicted — for killing unarmed Black people in this country.

Asian America has an important role to play in #BlackLivesMatter. But first we must decolonize our minds and reject the anti-Blackness we have internalized from our Asian and American cultures. We must learn to see ourselves as people of color (without reductively equating our experiences with those of all people of color). And we must acknowledge the many ways in which we are complicit in upholding the white supremacist structures of this country — in our selective sexual desires, our disdain for melanin, our antipathy toward affirmative action, and our fear of and contempt for low-income Black and Brown communities.

Asian Americans have so much power in our collective voice. We have the power to mobilize and advocate on issues that uniquely affect the Asian American community. And we have the power to stand in solidarity with our Black and Brown sisters and brothers to advocate on issues that matter to all people of color. We can join together to work toward our common goal of an American Dream that opens its doors for everyone.