Editor’s Note: This is a column and does not reflect the views or opinions of the Daily Barometer or Beaver’s Digest.
The Trump administration’s 2020 revision into Title IX agreements made it so that sexual assault and misconduct that occur off-campus are not labeled as such and universities are not obligated to conduct an investigation. Therefore survivors would have no choice but to go to the authorities, should they choose to do so.
After the revision, however, Oregon State University came up with their own policies that would still allow students to come forward and report any sexual misconduct that occurred both on and off campus.
The former administration’s revision into Title IX redefined sexual assault as actions that are physically “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive.”
Many individuals explain that almost nothing is “objectively offensive” referring to the concept that offense is largely subjective and shaped by individual or societal perceptions, rather than it being a universal truth. What might be offensive to one person or culture may not be to another, and no singular act holds inherent offensiveness outside of these contexts.
Title IX, as federal law, states how “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.”
A critical part of the Title IX instructions that are still in effect were inherited from the Obama administration in 2011 stating that universities must investigate any sexual misconduct reported regardless of where and how it occurred.
Previously the Obama administration issued the “Dear Colleague Letter,” which outlined universities’ responsibilities to address, prevent and mitigate the effects of sexual misconduct in response to rising activism and incidents on college campuses. This led to the idea of a fifty/fifty claim.
The fifty/fifty claim at OSU in sexual misconduct investigations refers to the standard of evidence used, known as “preponderance of the evidence.” This means that to determine responsibility, investigators assess whether it is more likely than not (a 50.01% certainty) that the misconduct occurred. This standard is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold used in criminal cases, aligning with federal guidelines to ensure equitable treatment in campus misconduct cases.
The document was much clearer and provided better access for students involved in a sexual assault investigation. Accessibility and clarity are crucial not only for students navigating sexual assault cases but also for those who are advocating for them throughout the investigation process.
As a survivor of sexual assault off campus at Oregon State University, I found solace in the protections offered by the university’s regulations. Unlike the restrictive and harsh guidelines set forth by the Trump administration, I did not have to meet impossible standards to have my experience recognized.
Even though the assault did not happen on campus, reporting it on campus gave me an alternative path to justice, one that did not involve the police, which I personally felt would not bring the closure or sense of justice I needed at that point in time.
The journey toward resolution was long and stretched over six months. It required me to relive the incident again and again—revisiting my own statements, reviewing those of the person I filed against, enduring three separate interviews with various EOA coordinators, and answering so many questions.
I am deeply thankful for the system in place here at OSU, and for being able to receive full justice for what I endured, as the perpetrator was found guilty on all counts.
The process itself was exhaustive, but I cannot imagine how much more difficult the process would have been under Trump’s horribly constrictive guidelines. Some universities do not have the same subcategory of non-Title IX that OSU has.
The thought of facing additional scrutiny or having fewer protections, which is a right for all individuals in this situation, is incredibly scary. It only re-emphasizes the importance of understanding the barriers Trump will continue to bring forward to stop survivors from coming forward and seeking the justice they deserve.
Under the Trump administration, along with the restrictions created through the redefinition of sexual harassment, universities are restricted from acting if an incident of sexual assault took place off campus. This includes instances in which an assault has taken place in off-campus housing, but between two or more students at the university.
Universities are only required to report and investigate occurrences that fall under the strict and narrow categories of sexual assault on campus or in a university-sanctioned location (including fraternities and sororities).
Willie Morgan is the Director of Equal Opportunity Investigations with the Office of Equal Opportunity and Access (EOA) at Oregon State.
“The primary effect was that we split our resolution process into two separate processes – one for Title IX matters (with live hearings) and one for non-Title IX sexual misconduct (with no live hearing),” Morgan said.
The Title IX fact sheet provided by the Trump Administration states, “the President’s new rules will also ensure that schools can no longer inflict long standing harm against students before providing basic, fair procedures.”
The necessary process itself means that survivors, if moving forward with a form of investigation through a university, must be present in a live hearing process. The structures in place not only retraumatize survivors but have allowed for further violence to occur.
“Bureaucracy created in our Nation’s institutions of higher education have often stacked the deck against the accused, failing to offer protections such as a presumption of innocence or adequate ability to rebut allegations,” states the fact sheet released by the Trump administration in May 2020.
Under the Biden administration, Morgan explains that new regulations went into effect nationally on Aug. 1, that would no longer separate Title IX and non-Title IX cases. However, several courts appointed officials under Donald Trump filed injunctions around the nation, which has delayed the enforcement of these new regulations in many universities, including OSU.
Until the injunctions are reviewed and processed, the 2020 regulations remain in effect, and processes fall under narrow definitions of Title IX by Trump. The definition of these processes through EOA can be found at Sexual Misconduct and Discrimination. :
Morgan said, “Because the 2020 regulations had such a narrow definition of Title IX, most of our cases go through our non-Title IX Sexual Misconduct process.”
Navigating the process of reporting sexual assault is a complex and often retraumatizing experience for many survivors. Under Trump, funding for the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)—the body responsible for enforcing civil rights laws and protecting students and employees from discrimination—has been reduced.
This resulted in universities conducting fewer investigations, which leaves survivors with limited options. In many cases, this leaves the only option of justice through law enforcement, a route many hesitate to partake in.
Looking ahead to the 2024 election, where the Trump administration is once again vying for another term, the stakes of survivors could not be higher. If Donald Trump is re-elected in November, his administration is likely to continue marginalizing the voices of survivors and erect even more barriers to prevent them from seeking the justice they deserve.
Donald Trump, who has been found guilty of sexual assault, and has a history of belittling and mistreating people of all genders. If re-elected, there is significant concern his administration will continue to target Title IX protocols, and work to continue dismantling its protections.
In a society that values freedom of speech and the pursuit of justice, it is the responsibility of all Americans to ensure survivors’ voices are not silenced and systems built to protect them are upheld. Protecting the right to speak out is essential to finding justice and holding perpetrators around the country accountable.
