Appendix C: Other Reference Materials 131

C: Reference

Appendix C:

Other Reference

Materials

• Letter from Richard W. Riley,

U.S. Secretary of Education, August 31, 1998,

regarding Gebser v. Lago Vista

• State Hate Crimes Statutory Provisions
132 Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime

C: Reference
Appendix C: Other Reference Materials 133

C: Reference

THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

August 31, 1998

Dear Superintendent of Schools:

An important shared goal of educators throughout our country is to ensure that students have a safe and

secure environment that is conducive to learning and that affords students equal educational

opportunities regardless of their sex. School districts have a critical responsibility for preventing and

eliminating sexual harassment discrimination. Sexual harassment of a student, if not appropriately

addressed, can have serious, detrimental consequences for the student that impedes the student’s

education, and constitutes a breach of trust between the school and the student and family.

A recent Supreme Court decision took notice of the “extraordinary harm” that a student suffers when

subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher. The Court emphasized that such conduct by a

teacher “undermines the basic purposes of the educational system.” Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent

School District (June 22, 1998). The Gebser decision limited the availability of damages to a student in a

private Title IX lawsuit against a school district. It did not, however, alter the fundamental obligations of

schools and their employees to take prompt action to address instances of sexual harassment. This letter

summarizes existing obligations and the effect of the Supreme Court decision.

Title IX Prohibits Sexual Harassment Discrimination

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which has the responsibility for enforcing Title

IX, recently provided educational institutions with a detailed discussion of their responsibilities to prevent

and, when it occurs, remedy sexual harassment of students. A copy of the guidance is available on the

Department’s web site at http://www.ed. gov/offices/OCR/sexhar00.html.

Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities operated by schools that

receive federal financial assistance. Therefore, school districts are responsible under Title IX to provide

students with a nondiscriminatory educational environment. As described in the guidance, sexual

harassment of a student may violate this obligation. When a responsible school employee, such as a

principal or teacher, learns of possible sexual harassment discrimination by others, Title IX requires the

school to immediately investigate, to take appropriate steps to end the harassment, to eliminate the effects

of the harassment, and to prevent the harassment from recurring.

The Department’s Title IX regulation also requires schools to have well-publicized policies against

discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment discrimination; to have effective and wellpublicized procedures for students and their families to raise and resolve these issues; and to take prompt

and effective action to equitably resolve sexual harassment discrimination complaints. 34 CFR Part 106.8. In

addition, each school district is required to designate at least one employee to coordinate and carry out its

Title IX responsibilities. Id. I encourage you, at the outset of the new school year, to publicize and reaffirm

these policies and procedures to returning and new members of the school community, including teachers,

counselors, administrators, parents, and students.

The Gebser Decision Addresses Private Damages Claims

The Court’s recent decision in Gebser was limited to private Title IX lawsuits for money damages. The Court

in Gebser ruled that a private plaintiff in a court action can obtain money damages against a school district

under Title IX if a school official who has the authority to take corrective action has actual notice of sexual

harassment and is deliberately indifferent to it. The Gebser decision expressly distinguished the limits on

private recovery of money damages from the Department of Education’s enforcement of Title IX. Thus, the

obligations of schools that receive federal funds to address instances of sexual harassment have not

changed as a result of the Supreme Court decision. School districts must continue to take reasonable steps

to prevent and eliminate sexual harassment discrimination. In addition, pursuant to its published guidance,

OCR will continue to enforce Title IX in this area, including by investigating complaints alleging sexual

harassment discrimination.
134 Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime

C: Reference

OCR Offers Technical Assistance

Sexual harassment discrimination can have serious, detrimental consequences for students. Thus,

school districts need to take the problem of sexual harassment very seriously. In addition to having wellpublicized policies and procedures in place, schools should be taking preventative steps to identify

problems — such as training staff to recognize and report potential harassment — and to follow up on

any information indicating potential discrimination. OCR welcomes the opportunity to provide individual

schools upon request with technical assistance and practical guidance to develop preventative programs.

The Department is committed to continuing our leadership role in ensuring equal educational

opportunities for all students. The Department will continue to work with schools, parents and other

interested parties to ensure that schools have effective policies and procedures in place to prevent sexual

harassment. I have attached a contact list for OCR’s enforcement offices for your convenience.

Thank you for your interest in this critical issue.

Yours sincerely,

Richard W. Riley

[Enclosure omitted]
Appendix C: Other Reference Materials 135

C: Reference

State Hate Crimes Statutory Provisions

(ALABAMA through MISSISSIPPI)

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS

Bias-Motivated Violenceand Intimidation • • • •••••• •• • •••••••Civil Action ••••• • •• • • ••Criminal Penalty • • • •••••• •• • •••••••Race, Religion1, Ethnicity • • • •••••• •• • •••••••

Sexual Orientation • • •••• • • •• • •

Gender • • • • • • • • • • •Other2 ••• • •• • • •• • •

Institutional Vandalism • •••••••••• •• •••••• ••Data Collection3 • • •• • •• • ••••• •Training for LawEnforcement Personnel4 • • • • •• • •

1. The following states also have statutes criminalizing interference with religious worship:

CA, DC, FL, ID, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NV, NM, NY, NC, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, WV.

2. ”Other” includes mental and physical disability or handicap

(AL, AK, AZ, CA, DC, DE, IL, IA, LA, ME, MA, MN, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NY, OK, RI, VT, WA, WI),political affiliation (DC, IA, LA, WV) and age (DC, IA, LA, VT).

3. States with data collection statutes which include sexual orientation are AZ, CA, CT, DC, FL,

IL, IA, MD, MN, NV, OR and WA; those which include gender are AZ, DC, IL, IA, MN, WA.

4. Some other states have regulations mandating such training.

© 1998 Anti-Defamation League. All rights reserved. [Changes in state law may have occurred after this chart was compiled. Consult state officials for updated information.]
136 Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime

C: Reference

MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

Bias-Motivated Violence 5 6 7

and Intimidation •••••• •••••••• •••••••••Civil Action • • • • ••••• •• ••• •Criminal Penalty •••••• •••••••• •••••••••Race, Religion1,

Ethnicity •••••• •••••••• •• •••••Sexual Orientation •••• • • • • •

Gender • • • • • • • • •Other2 •••• • • • • •••

Institutional Vandalism • • • • • • •••••• •• •• •Data Collection3 •• • •••• • ••Training for LawEnforcement Personnel4 •• •

1. The following states also have statutes criminalizing interference with religious worship:

CA, DC, FL, ID, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NV, NM, NY, NC, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, WV.

2. “Other” includes mental and physical disability or handicap

(AL, AK, AZ, CA, DC, DE, IL, IA, LA, ME, MA, MN, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NY, OK, RI, VT, WA, WI),political affiliation (DC, IA, LA, WV) and age (DC, IA, LA, VT).

3. States with data collection statutes which include sexual orientation are AZ, CA, CT, DC, FL, IL, IA, MD, MN, NV, OR and WA;

those which include gender are AZ, DC, IL, IA, MN, WA.

4. Some other states have regulations mandating such training.5. New York State law provides penalty enhancement limited to the crime of aggravated harassment.6. The Texas Statute refers to victims selected “because of the defendant’s bias or prejudice against a person or group.”7. The Utah Statute ties penalties for hate crimes to violations of the victim’s constitutional or civil rights.

© 1998 Anti-Defamation League. All rights reserved. [Changes in state law may have occurred after this chart was compiled. Consult state officials for updated information.]

State Hate Crimes Statutory Provisions(continued)

((MISSOURI through WYOMING)