[Business ethics]

What Is Sexual Discrimination? The Answer Evolves As written in Title IX, No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment and assault were not part of the law until the 1980s when it was then recognized as a form of sexual discrimination. It continued to evolve and was amended in 2011 to motivate universities to address sexual misconduct more. These changes required schools to do much more, such as End harassment. Eliminate a hostile work environment if it exists. Prevent harassment from happening again. Lower standards of evidence. No hearings. Single investigator model in which a single person has the authority to investigate and determine guilt or innocence. Sexual harassment includes jokes, gestures, comments, spreading rumors, and creating emails and/or Websites of a sexual nature. Penalties for a universitys failure to effectively address not just incidents but the larger culture via training and other programs.

Many of these changes were motivated by research showing that one in five women is sexually assaulted during college and that these staggering statistics were due to a flawed college culture across the country. Universities now had broad responsibilities for doing more than addressing particular cases and had to change policies, practices, and behaviors within the institution.

More Major Changes Until August 2020, all college personnel (e.g., faculty, staff, administrators, coaches, etc.) were required to immediately report any knowledge of any form of potential sexual misconduct or discrimination to the universitys Title IX office. However, things have now changed again, notably: 1. University employees are no longer required to report allegations to the Title IX office. 2. Universities can choose the burden of proof they use. 3. Off-campus and other facilities not affiliated with the college are not included. Incidents at fraternities, for instance, do need to be investigated because they are sponsored by the school. 4. Live hearings are now required and must allow for cross-examination, not by the students but by advisors

The Devil Is in the Details Sexual harassment is now defined as any unwelcome conduct that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victims access to educational opportunity. Although this definition is more confined than the previous one, it does explicitly include domestic violence, stalking, and dating violence.

The burden of proof aspect is potentially consequential. Previously, colleges needed to meet a preponderance of evidence or more likely than not standard of proof to rule someone guilty. Legal experts sometimes describe this as 50% plus a feather (a relatively low bar to clear), meaning the evidence needs to just ever so slightly favor the plaintiff to support a guilty charge. The new standard requires clear and convincing evidence, which is a tougher standard and a higher bar to clear. Live hearings are also a dramatic change. Under the previous single-investigator model, most cases were simply conducted on paper and with interviews, if the investigator chose, who then wrote a final report with a decision and punishments if warranted. Now, every matter must go through a process involving three people in the Title IX office, each with different responsibilities in the process. Motives for the Most Recent Changes The stated motive for the changes was to simultaneously support victims and ensure fair and due process for the accused. Not surprisingly, however, there are conflicting views regarding the ultimate effect of the changes. Some are concerned that reporting will be more burdensome and thus discourage victims from coming forward. For instance, now that there will be formal hearings with advisors, students may feel they need to have attorneys, which the college will need to pay for. There also are fears that hearings will retraumatize the victims. On the other side, supporters of the changes feel they are long overdue, as they perceive existing regulations often railroaded the accused students into unfair and damaging predicaments. They also cite universities that have already implemented cross-examination in their processes and did not experience a reduction in complaints filed. Still, other potential implications have been noted. For example, now if a student in an off-campus apartment is touched in an unwanted sexual way, just once, then this would not qualify as an offense. Or, if a professor made sexual comments to student(s), then this would qualify only if they were at a specific student, repeated, or prevented students from going to class. As some experts point out, the new requirements are only minimum standards to clear the Title IX compliance hurdle. Nothing prevents any particular university from requiring employees (e.g., faculty, students, coaches, and administrators) to report all allegations. Moreover, although the changes explicitly exclude non-university-sponsored off-campus facilities, including study-abroad programs, universities are still free to include such policies in student codes of conduct.

What effect do you expect these changes to have for the victims? Why?