Factual vs. Legal Dispute

• Yes, a factual dispute occurs when the parties disagree on what actually happened. In the context of someone breaking the law, it might mean one party claims an event or action occurred (e.g., a law was broken), and the other party denies it or offers a different version of events.

  For example:

  In a criminal case, a factual dispute could be whether the defendant committed the crime as charged. In a civil case, it could involve disagreements over whether one party breached a contract or caused harm. Juries are often used in these situations to determine which version of the facts they believe based on the evidence presented.

• A legal dispute occurs when the disagreement is over the interpretation or application of the law, rather than the facts. In this case, both parties may agree on the basic facts but disagree on how the law applies to those facts or what legal principles should govern the outcome.

  For example:

  In a civil case, the parties might agree on what happened (the facts), but disagree on whether those facts constitute a breach of contract under the law. In a constitutional case, the issue might be whether a law or government action violates constitutional rights, even if the facts are not in dispute. In these situations, the judge typically resolves the dispute by interpreting the law and applying it to the facts.

Statutory Update vs. Regulatory Update

• Yes, that makes sense. When Title IX is amended, it functions as an “update” by modifying or adding provisions to improve how the law is enforced or interpreted. These amendments can introduce new regulatory measures, clarify existing rules, or expand protections to ensure Title IX is applied more effectively. For instance, changes may address how educational institutions handle issues like discrimination, sexual harassment, or gender equality, thereby refining the enforcement framework.

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funding, hasn’t undergone the same series of amendments as Title IX for a few reasons:

  1. Focus of Enforcement: Title IX deals with gender equality and sexual misconduct in educational institutions, issues that have gained substantial attention in recent decades. High-profile cases and societal movements (e.g., #MeToo) have driven demand for clearer and more frequent updates to regulations. Title VI, while critically important, hasn’t faced the same concentrated public pressure for revisions in its specific enforcement mechanisms.

  2. Regulatory Approach: Title VI has historically been enforced through federal agency guidance and executive orders rather than frequent statutory amendments or regulatory changes. Federal agencies (like the Department of Education) often interpret and enforce Title VI based on existing guidelines, which gives flexibility in applying it to different contexts without changing the law itself.

  3. Less Legislative Activity: The legal and political landscape for racial and national origin discrimination hasn’t resulted in as many statutory or regulatory updates to Title VI. Unlike Title IX, which has seen calls for change due to specific educational contexts (e.g., sexual harassment, athletics), Title VI has been broadly interpreted through judicial rulings and hasn’t faced the same pressure for regulatory overhaul.

  4. Judicial Influence: Many key Title VI issues, such as affirmative action, have been shaped by court decisions rather than legislative amendments or new regulatory measures. The courts have been the primary venue for significant developments in Title VI enforcement.

  In short, Title VI’s enforcement and interpretation have evolved more through case law and agency guidance, while Title IX has seen more direct amendments and regulatory updates. This may also reflect the different societal and political pressures around gender versus race/national origin discrimination in recent years.

• A statutory update refers to a formal change or amendment made to a law (statute) by a legislative body, such as Congress in the U.S. These updates modify, clarify, or expand the original law’s provisions to address new issues, correct oversights, or improve its effectiveness. Statutory updates can take various forms, including adding new sections, changing existing language, or repealing outdated provisions.

  For example, if Congress amends Title IX to strengthen enforcement mechanisms for handling sexual harassment cases, that would be a statutory update. Similarly, if a new law is passed that adds protections to Title VI, that would also be considered a statutory update.

• Regulatory updates are decided and implemented by federal agencies, not by Congress. These agencies have the authority to interpret and enforce laws passed by Congress, and they create regulations to provide detailed guidelines on how those laws should be applied in practice.

  For example:

  • The Department of Education might issue regulatory updates to clarify how Title IX or Title VI should be enforced in schools.

  • These updates are made through a process known as rulemaking, where the agency drafts, proposes, and finalizes new regulations or changes to existing ones.

  • The process usually includes a public comment period, allowing stakeholders to provide input before the rules are finalized. While statutory updates involve changing the law itself, regulatory updates involve refining how existing laws are implemented and enforced through specific rules and procedures.

• A “Final Rule” refers to a regulation or policy update issued by a federal agency after going through the rulemaking process. It represents the official, final version of the regulatory update that will be enforced.

  Here’s the typical process:

  1. Proposed Rule: The agency first publishes a draft (proposed rule) for public review and comment.

  2. Public Comment Period: Stakeholders, including individuals, organizations, and institutions, can submit feedback on the proposed rule.

  3. Final Rule: After considering the comments, the agency may revise the proposal before issuing the Final Rule, which becomes legally binding. In the context of Title IX, for example, the “Final Rule” would contain detailed regulations that schools and institutions must follow to comply with the law.

• Yes, one significant reason why federal agencies like the Department of Education aren’t more proactive in making regulatory updates without public pressure is that these changes often face pushback from institutions and other stakeholders. Here are some key factors that contribute to this:

  1. Institutional Resistance: Schools and universities may resist new regulations because they often come with additional administrative burdens, costs, or compliance requirements. For instance, appointing a Title VI coordinator at every institution would require staffing, training, and resources that some schools might find challenging or costly. Institutions often lobby against changes that they see as intrusive or expensive.

  2. Political and Legal Considerations: Regulatory updates can be politically sensitive, particularly if they involve contentious issues like civil rights enforcement. Agencies may avoid taking proactive steps without broad public or political support to avoid political blowback or litigation from institutions or other interest groups that oppose the changes.

  3. Limited Resources and Prioritization: Federal agencies have limited resources and often prioritize issues based on public demand, political direction, or the urgency of specific issues. Title VI enforcement may not be seen as a top priority without significant public outcry or high-profile cases drawing attention to it. Title IX, for example, received regulatory updates largely due to increased public attention to issues like sexual harassment and assault.

  4. Need for Stakeholder Input: Agencies typically rely on input from educational institutions, advocacy groups, and the public to gauge how regulatory changes will be received and whether they are necessary. Without significant pressure or demonstrated need, agencies may take a cautious approach to avoid proposing rules that could be seen as overreaching or poorly received.

     In short, while regulatory updates are possible, agencies often act more cautiously, balancing the need for new rules against the risk of pushback, legal challenges, and resource limitations. Public outcry or advocacy often helps push these issues to the forefront, prompting regulatory changes.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a collection of rules and regulations created by federal agencies to enforce and interpret laws passed by Congress, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  1. CFR vs. Laws (like the Civil Rights Act):

     • Laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President (e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972). These are the broad legal frameworks that establish rights and prohibitions (like banning discrimination).

     • The CFR contains the detailed rules and regulations written by federal agencies (like the Department of Education) to implement and enforce these laws. These regulations explain how the law is applied in practice. For instance, the Civil Rights Act gives general anti-discrimination protections, and the CFR explains how institutions must comply with those protections.

  2. What’s in the CFR?

     • The CFR is where federal agencies provide specific procedures or guidelines for how to follow the law. For example, 34 CFR Part 100 outlines how institutions that receive federal funding must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

     • The CFR is not the law itself but the set of rules that are created under the authority of the law. Agencies are empowered to write these regulations to ensure that the law is enforced effectively.

  3. How It Works Together:

     • Congress passes a law like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (statutory law).

     • Federal agencies (like the Department of Education) then create regulations, which are published in the CFR, to clarify how institutions must comply with the law. These regulations help interpret the law’s requirements in practice.

     • If you look at 34 CFR § 100.6, for example, it’s part of the regulatory framework that explains how institutions must provide compliance information under Title VI.

• Once a Final Rule is issued by a federal agency, it is incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

  1. Law Passed by Congress: Congress passes a law, such as Title IX or Title VI.

  2. Agency Rulemaking:

     • Federal agencies (like the Department of Education) are tasked with creating detailed rules to implement and enforce the law.

     • The agency drafts proposed rules, opens them to public comment, and may revise them based on feedback.

  3. Final Rule:

     • After the rulemaking process, the agency issues a Final Rule, which includes the specific guidelines, procedures, or requirements related to the law.

     • The Final Rule is published in the Federal Register, which is the official journal of the federal government where all rules, proposed rules, and notices are published.

  4. Incorporation into the CFR:

     • Once the Final Rule is published and becomes effective, it is incorporated into the CFR. The CFR serves as the official codification of all the rules created by federal agencies.

     • For example, when the Department of Education issues a Final Rule clarifying how Title IX is to be enforced, that rule is added to 34 CFR Part 106, which contains the Title IX regulations.

  • In summary: once a Final Rule is issued and becomes effective, it is incorporated into the CFR, which is the comprehensive collection of federal regulations. The CFR serves as the authoritative source for understanding how federal laws are implemented and enforced in practice.

• CFR Part 106- Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex

• CFR Part 100- Nondiscrimination on the Basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Clery Act

• The Clery Act was established to promote transparency about campus safety and to ensure that students, parents, and employees have access to accurate information about crime on campus. The goal is to provide essential data that helps people make informed decisions about their safety in educational environments

1. Reporting is Based on the Occurrence of Crimes:

   • The Clery Act mandates that institutions report certain types of crimes that occur on campus, in campus-controlled properties, and in certain public areas near campus, regardless of whether law enforcement makes an arrest.

   • What matters is that a Clery-reportable crime (e.g., assault, hate crime, theft, stalking, etc.) occurred. If the incident fits the definition of one of these crimes, it must be reported in the school’s Clery statistics.

2. No Arrest Needed for Reporting:

   • An arrest is not required for an incident to be included in the Clery report. If a crime is reported to campus security authorities (such as campus police, Title IX coordinators, or residence hall staff) or if the incident is documented by local law enforcement, it still needs to be included in the annual report, even if no arrest is made.

   • For example, if an assault occurs on campus and is reported to campus authorities or the police, it will typically be counted in the Clery Act statistics, regardless of whether any suspect is arrested or charged.

3. Reporting of Non-Criminal Incidents:

   • The Clery Act also requires institutions to report incidents of hate crimes or other serious violations that may not necessarily result in an arrest but still constitute significant threats or discrimination.

4. Reporting Sources:

   • Reports can come from various sources, including:

     • Campus police or security

     • Local law enforcement

     • Campus security authorities (including certain administrators, faculty, or staff who have a duty to report)

   • Even if the victim doesn’t press charges or the police don’t make an arrest, the incident still needs to be included in the Clery report if it falls under the required crime categories.

• The Clery Act was established to promote transparency about campus safety and to ensure that students, parents, and employees have access to accurate information about crime on campus. The goal is to provide essential data that helps people make informed decisions about their safety in educational environments.

• Key Purposes of the Clery Act and Its Accountability:

  1. Transparency About Crime:

     • Schools are required to report and disclose statistics about certain categories of crime that occur on or near campus. This helps to keep the campus community informed about safety risks and trends in criminal activity.

     • The reports include crimes like sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, hate crimes, and other significant offenses, making the institution’s crime data accessible to the public.

  2. Empowering Students and Families:

     • By having access to this information, students, parents, and employees can better assess the safety of the campus environment and decide on appropriate precautions. It also helps prospective students and their families make informed choices when selecting a college or university.

  3. Accountability for Institutions:

     • Schools are held accountable for maintaining accurate records of campus crime and for ensuring compliance with the law. This is part of their responsibility to provide a safe environment.

     • Institutions that fail to comply with the Clery Act can face significant penalties, including:

       • Fines from the U.S. Department of Education (up to $68,000 per violation).

       • Potential loss of federal funding, including financial aid.

       • Damage to the school’s reputation if non-compliance becomes public knowledge.

  4. Timely Warnings and Emergency Notifications:

     • The Clery Act requires institutions to issue timely warnings to the campus community about ongoing threats to safety (e.g., a crime that poses an ongoing risk to students and employees).

     • Schools are also required to have procedures for emergency notifications in the event of an immediate threat, ensuring that the community can take action to protect itself.

  5. Encouraging Reporting:

     • The Clery Act also encourages students, faculty, and staff to report crimes through campus security authorities (such as campus police or Title IX offices), promoting a culture of reporting and safety.

• Accountability Factor:

  • While the Clery Act does not directly enforce criminal penalties against individuals who commit crimes, it holds institutions accountable for:

    • Documenting and disclosing crime data accurately.

    • Providing support systems (e.g., victim support, resources for safety).

    • Creating transparent safety policies that help to protect students and staff.

• If schools do not follow the Clery Act’s requirements, the Department of Education has the authority to:

  • Conduct audits and investigations into an institution’s compliance.

  • Impose fines and require corrective actions to address non-compliance.

  • Publicly list institutions that are non-compliant, which can hurt their reputation.

• In short, the Clery report helps ensure that schools are accountable for accurately reporting campus crimes and maintaining transparency, but its focus is primarily on institutional accountability rather than directly enforcing action against individual offenders. The threat of fines, reputational damage, and loss of funding motivates institutions to comply with the Act’s requirements.

Would updates to Title VI just be an exercise in overregulation?

• Updating Title VI to be more like Title IX in terms of specific procedural requirements and structured enforcement mechanisms could significantly improve transparency, accountability, and uniformity in how Title VI is implemented across institutions. Here’s why—

1. Lack of Specificity Creates Gaps in Accountability

   • The broad and vague regulations under Title VI can lead to inconsistent enforcement. Institutions have more discretion in how they handle compliance, which means that some may not provide adequate protections or clear processes for addressing discrimination.

   • By comparison, Title IX has specific requirements like designating coordinators, publishing notices, and creating grievance procedures, which ensure that institutions are more proactive in addressing gender-based discrimination. Adopting a similar framework for Title VI would likely improve how racial and national origin discrimination is handled.

2. Improved Reporting and Visibility:

   • One of the strengths of the Title IX system is that it mandates publicly visible procedures, such as easily accessible notices, complaint mechanisms, and required training. These procedures ensure that students and staff are aware of their rights and know how to report discrimination.

   • For Title VI, many students and employees may not be fully aware of their rights or how to report discrimination unless they are directly informed. Strengthening Title VI regulations with clearer notification requirements (like Title IX’s) could make reporting more accessible and help address discrimination more effectively.

3. Streamlining Enforcement:

   • Title VI enforcement tends to be reactive—institutions only face scrutiny when someone files a complaint with federal agencies, such as the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). In contrast, the Title IX framework requires proactive measures (like annual training, coordinator roles, and institutional reporting (via SaVE)), which can prevent issues before they escalate.

   • Updating Title VI to include proactive measures like requiring institutions to regularly evaluate and report on their compliance could streamline enforcement and prevent violations from going unnoticed.

4. Potential for Over-Regulation?:

   • While some might argue that making Title VI more like Title IX would lead to over-regulation, I believe that the seriousness of racial and ethnic discrimination warrants more specific protections and oversight. Ensuring that institutions are held to consistent standards on how they implement anti-discrimination measures is crucial for promoting fairness.

   • The key would be to find a balance—creating structured processes that improve accountability, but not so burdensome that they hinder institutional flexibility. For example, rather than prescribing exactly how every school must handle all aspects of compliance, the rules could mandate certain minimum standards (like public notifications, coordinators, or complaint processes) while still allowing room for schools to adapt based on their size or needs.

5. Alignment with Modern Realities:

   • Racial and national origin discrimination continues to be a significant issue, particularly in diverse educational settings. As societal awareness around race and civil rights grows, it seems appropriate to update the Title VI framework to reflect modern realities, just as Title IX has evolved in response to changes in societal views on gender equality and sexual harassment.

   • A more structured system under Title VI could help institutions address intersectional discrimination (e.g., when someone experiences both race and gender-based discrimination) more effectively.

• Conclusion—

  • While Title VI has played an important role in combating discrimination, it could benefit from updates that make it more like Title IX—with clearer guidelines for institutions, more visible processes for reporting, and a more proactive approach to enforcement. Far from being over-regulation, I think these changes would strengthen the effectiveness of Title VI and ensure that institutions are held to higher, more consistent standards in their approach to addressing racial and ethnic discrimination.

  • The backlog of OCR reports and the rise in antisemitism and related violence on campuses highlight the need for more structured regulations and proactive measures to address and prevent these incidents. A unified standard, similar to the more defined frameworks of Title IX, could ensure consistency across institutions, streamline responses, and help prevent such events from escalating.

  • It seems like now more than ever, there’s a need for clearer, stronger guidance to deal with discrimination effectively, especially in a diverse and politically charged environment like college campuses.

Why is Title VI so vague?

1. Broad Framework:

   • Title VI was designed as a broad civil rights law that applies to a wide range of programs and activities receiving federal funding, not just educational institutions. This means the regulations are intended to cover various sectors and aren’t tailored specifically to schools, as Title IX regulations are.

2. Focus on Enforcement Through Federal Agencies:

   • Title VI enforcement is more reliant on federal agencies to ensure compliance, and institutions are expected to cooperate with federal officials who oversee compliance. There is less specificity in terms of how institutions must structure their policies, leaving room for interpretation.

   • This flexibility means the regulations focus on the outcome (non-discrimination) rather than prescribing how institutions must achieve that outcome.

3. Historical Context:

   • Title VI, passed in 1964, was part of broader civil rights legislation at a time when the legal landscape was focused on dismantling systemic racial segregation. The regulations were written in a way that gave federal agencies discretion to enforce the law but didn’t require institutions to follow highly specific processes.

   • Title IX, passed in 1972, evolved with a different focus, particularly on educational institutions and gender equality, which led to much more granular regulations over time, particularly in recent decades as gender-based discrimination and sexual misconduct gained more attention.

OCR Policy and Guidance

• Try to make a case for why the current standard for Title VI is not enough

• Title VI Definition

  • “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title VI states that:

  No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

• Nov 16, 2023 OCR press release

  • This predates the protests, proactive measures could already have been in place

  • List of open Title VI shared ancestry investigations, the list is being maintained and is up to date.

  • Records related to Title VI Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics Investigations

    • “The Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has determined that some records related to OCR’s investigations of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions for alleged discrimination involving shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, filed in or after October 2023, are ones for which multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been (or are likely to be) received.”

  • All pending OCR civil rights cases at elementary-secondary and post-secondary institutions that are currently being investigated can be found here

  • OCR recent resolution search database can be found here

• “Education and Title VI” page of the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

• DOE Race, color, or national origin discrimination overview

• Title IX and Title VI links fact sheet. Includes a PDF on coordinator duties.

• November 7, 2023 (see footnotes for statistics sources)

  • “As we witness a nationwide rise in reports of hate crimes1 and harassment, including an alarming rise in disturbing antisemitic incidents and threats to Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian students on college campuses and in P-12 schools, the fulfillment of school communities’ federal legal obligations to ensure nondiscriminatory environments have renewed urgency.”

  • 2022 FBI Hate Crime Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice

• Dec. 14, 2023, Sec of Education Miguel Cardona announced an investigation Monday into antisemitic and Islamophobic activities on UCLA’s campus.

  • “The Department of Education announced an investigation into other universities alongside UCLA, including UC San Diego, Stanford University, the University of Washington and Rutgers University. Nearby community college Santa Monica College was added Dec. 4 to the investigation.

  Other notable schools under investigation from November are Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania.”

• One dated May 25th 2023 covered discrimination based on shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics

  • “As we witness a nationwide rise in reports of antisemitic harassment, including in schools, I write to remind you of schools’ legal obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.”

  • Talks about fact sheet “Protecting Students from Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics”

  • “Schools must take immediate and appropriate action to respond to harassment that creates a hostile environment. OCR generally finds that a hostile environment exists where there is harassing conduct that is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit the ability of an individual to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school.”

• OCR policy guidance, bullying and harassment

  • May 7th 2024: Lays out some applicable scenarios,

    • Chants

    • Symbology

    • Resistance is justified

    • Obvious discrimination

    • There’s also non-affiliate conduct that applies i.e. “shoving,” “terrorist”

  • July 2, 2024, harassment based on race, color, or national Origin.

• May 2, 2024

  • “The U.S. Department of Education was asked to investigate Thursday whether civil rights were violated at UCLA where hundreds were arrested following several days of protest by pro-Palestinian and counter demonstrators.”

• UCLA has 8 pending Title VI Investigations from as early as 01/03/2020

• There are UCLA (Title IX) cases from as early as 2014 still pending with OCR

• Newsworthy incidents—

• 9/23 Michigan pro-Palestinian students arrested

• August 5, 2020 Statement, Rose Ritch Resignation Statement From Undergraduate Student Government

  • forward article

  • July 26, 2022 Inside Higher Ed

• David Myers—

  • USAC overreach, 2014

  • Rachel Beyda case at UCLA, 2015

  • Beginning of conflict, 2023

  • Antisemitic imagery, 2024

• Resolution agreements—

• UCSD 2012

• Brown University July 8, 2024

Notes

• Notes on general harassment (not a Title VI violation? but should be part of student training—speech that is disruptive and serves to harass people is no longer protected)

  • 1st Amendment rights are protected based on “time, place, manner”

  • Speech not following appropriate “time, place, and manner” policies is not protected

    • If certain phrases, mainly, “From the River to the Sea…” are used as a form of harassment, can’t they be forced to stop? In other words, it may not be “discrimination” per se, but if its use is sufficiently inappropriate, rules and conduct code against it should apply

      • There is a time and a place for loud chants that can be disruptive to students in class

        • TikTok example from 5/24

      • The big screen that UCLA failed to remove after permit expiration and was disrupting classes

        • Conduct that is not protected under the First Amendment

  • Otherwise based on “totality of circumstances” this language is possibly “actionable”

• Even protected speech can be “explained away” if UCLA acts as a “guide.”

  • “Kohanteb said he feels the university should offer more guidance for students about what constitutes hate speech because he feels some students are ignorant when it comes to antisemitic tropes.“ I’m scared sometimes that hate usually comes from ignorance,” he said. “If we can inform students of what is and what isn’t antisemitic, and where that line is, I think it’d be very beneficial to all.”80

• DB Students voice worries over Islamophobia

  • “”I’ve been spit in the face. I’ve been directly pushed. I’ve been called a terrorist on multiple occasions,” said Mohammad, a student who was granted partial anonymity for safety reasons. “I’m constantly looking over my shoulder, I’m getting mean looks and people looking at me, just eyeing me down. I know they have the intention to make it some kind of form of harassment if they have a chance.””

  • “A Palestinian student, who was granted anonymity for safety reasons, said they have heard numerous accounts of people yelling hateful comments at those wearing keffiyehs. While they said they have only heard accounts of physical violence perpetrated by non-students, they added that they have seen students spreading hate speech on campus about Arab students – such as calling them terrorists and Nazis and saying they deserve to be raped and killed.”

  • “Even if it’s nothing political and you just have Arabic writing on your shirt – and it could literally mean sunshine – they will literally call you a terrorist now.”

• OCR cases in academic scenarios:

  • Evidence is sparse, 1 case denial benefits gender, 1 case denial benefits race, 1 case gender/sexual harassment, 1 case race-based harassment

  • The above cases resulted in tangible negative outcomes, which motivated reporting.

• The history of Title IX is something like the below:

  • Mom’s stories are similar to that Reddit post. She was systematically denied opportunities based on her womanhood, based on the fact that men that have families to support “needed” the work more.

  • She was paid 30% less than colleagues doing the exact same work

  • She was repeatedly asked if she was dating or planning to marry

  • She was asked about Dad’s work, his income, if he would get tenure as part of her own interviews

UCLA-relevant notes

• We have all felt protected by Title IX

  • The entire UCLA community receives Title IX education annually

    • Training required annually, failure to complete training results in registration hold on account

• Who do we have to thank for this?

  • Training requirements and relevant policies

• DB Counter protesters “More counter-protesters gathered, with nearly 50 people there shortly before 7 p.m. Some waving megaphones shouted at students, who they called “terrorists,” to “show your face.””

• UCLA orientation is optional

• SOCR: Systemwide office of Civil Rights—this could be in response to the post Oct 7th activity

• EDI: anti-Muslim prevention resources

• EDI: antisemitism prevention

• EDI@UCLA

• EDI: so-called “mandatory civil rights training for students” is really just Title IX training

• Why we need a Title VI Coordinator(why everyone needs a Title VI Coordinator, because one point of contact can aid in mitigating the confusing mess that is the usual reporting infrastructure at any school)

  • Office of EDI: “The website suffers from poor information architecture, with related content scattered across multiple links, dropdowns, and pages, leading to a disorganized and confusing user experience.” If you find useful information somewhere deep within the website it is nearly impossible to locate that information again should you need it.

• UCLA SAIRO (Student Affairs Information and Research Office) Campus Climate and Diversity

  • Social media study is outdated

    • Can social media be considered constructive notice?

Other schools

• GW has an outstanding Title IX website

• Annual Title IX report vs the Clery Report

  • GW annual report vs. GW Clery Report

  • UCLA annual report vs. UCLA Clery Report

    • Clery jurisdiction off-campus only includes campus-affiliated properties. In UCLA’s case, this includes the fraternities and sororities. site

  • SCU no annual report yet they have problems that are not accounted for in the SCU Clery Report