Opinion ID: 6320161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DOE Communications

Text: In a communication dated April 4, 2011, DOE advised colleges and universities generally that their continued receipt of federal funding under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1861 et seq., required them to take more rigorous action against sexual misconduct on their campuses. This communication, which came widely to be known as the “Dear Colleague Letter,” told schools that to avoid themselves being charged with sexual harassment in violation of Title IX, they were obliged “to take immediate action” to address, prevent, and eliminate peer sexual misconduct about which they “know[] or reasonably should know.” App’x at 90. 6 Toward that end, the letter instructed schools, inter alia, “to adopt and publish grievance procedures,” and to provide employee training with respect to “report[ing]” and “respond[ing] properly” to sexual misconduct. Id. In so instructing, the letter emphasized that a school’s investigation of sexual misconduct “is different from any law enforcement investigation.” Id. Thus, while stating that parties should be afforded “the opportunity . . . to present witnesses and other evidence,” id. at 95, the letter made 6 The “Dear Colleague Letter” was not promulgated through the formal rulemaking process. See 5 U.S.C. § 553; see also Olatunde C.A. Johnson, Overreach and Innovation in Equality Regulation, 66 DUKE L.J. 1771, 1779-81 (2017) (noting criticism of DOE’s avoidance of formal rulemaking in issuing “Dear Colleague Letter”). Thus, the letter is properly understood simply to provide “guidance.” See App’x at 87 (“This letter does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how OCR evaluates whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.”). 9 no mention of such presentation needing to be under oath, subject to confrontation, or consistent with any particular evidentiary standards of reliability. Indeed, the letter “strongly discourage[d] schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross-examine each other during the hearing” and advised schools that they did not have to permit parties to be represented by attorneys. Id. at 98. The letter also instructed schools to use “a preponderance of the evidence standard to evaluate [sexual misconduct] complaints,” rejecting the higher “‘clear and convincing’ standard” then being “used by some schools.” Id. at 96-97. 7 7 Several provisions in the “Dear Colleague Letter” prompted controversy, such that the letter, issued during the Obama administration, was rescinded by the Trump administration in 2017 (i.e., before Khan’s 2018 disciplinary hearing). See Letter from Candice Jackson, Acting Assistant Sec’y for Civil Rights, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., to Colleagues (Sept. 22, 2017), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf. In 2020 (i.e., after Khan’s disciplinary hearing and expulsion), DOE issued final Title IX regulations for how public and private educational institutions receiving federal funds should respond to sexual harassment. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b) (stating that “recipient’s grievance process must comply with the requirements of this section”). Among other things, these regulations require colleges and universities (1) to provide for a live hearing to resolve sexual misconduct complaints, though parties may appear either in person or, at the institution’s discretion, “virtually, with technology enabling participants simultaneously to see and hear each other,” id. § 106.45(b)(6)(i); (2) at the request of either party, to locate the parties “in separate rooms” during a hearing so long as technology permits them “simultaneously [to] see and hear the party or witness answering questions,” id.; (3) to afford respondents a presumption of innocence, see id. § 106.45(b)(1)(iv); (4) to afford complainants and respondents the opportunity for direct crossexamination of witnesses by party advisors (who can be attorneys), see id. § 106.45(b)(6)(i); (5) to provide advisors for parties who do not have one, id.; and (6) to state in writing “[c]onclusions regarding the application of the [school’s] code of conduct to the facts,” id. § 106.45(b)(7)(ii)(D). The Biden administration is 10 In another 2011 communication, this one prompted by a student complaint, DOE advised Yale that it had been deficient in responding to student reports of sexual misconduct. The Complaint does not indicate whether DOE pursued the matter further after Yale adopted its Sexual Misconduct Policy.