Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

I've received many queries re the significance of the OCR ruling re 
juicycampus.com in light of the way the ruling was written - which is less 
than explicit.

The following email reflects the content of a conversation I had with 
responsible federal individuals, who, while reluctant to provide guidance 
regarding hypothetical cases, nevertheless, were very clear that under Title 
IX, no school that receives federal funds can decline to investigate, and if 
sufficient facts connect the matter to a particular school, provide "prompt, 
equitable" and "effective" redress to a student who is a victim of sexual 
harassment simply because the harassment occurs "in cyberspace".

August 12, 2009
...

Does a school have a duty, under Title IX, to investigate and redress 
allegations of sexual harassment when the harassment occurs via a website 
such as JuicyCampus.com?
...

ANSWER:? 

If a website such as JuicyCampus.com has a portal that identifies a 
particular school, and the harassment targets a student at that school, and 
the harasser is somehow connected to the school (such as a student, professor 
or administrator), then yes, the school has a duty to investigate and to take 
"prompt, equitable" and "effective" steps to redress sexual harassment 
occurring at the site.

Although the Department of Education has no "cyber-harassment" guidelines, 
sexual harassment that interferes with a student's right to an equal 
educational opportunity can certainly occur in cyberspace, depending on the 
facts, and that the facts set forth above would be sufficient to warrant an 
investigation and appropriate redress by a school, so long as it receives 
sufficient information to identify the source of the sexual harassment, and 
determines that the source is sufficiently connected to the school.

...

This was the first case of its kind and there is little guidance from OCR or 
DOE as to how schools, victims or families should deal with 
"cyber-harassment". Nevertheless, ... even if it is unclear whether a school 
has jurisdiction over the matter because, for example, there is no 
specifically named portal at the website, or because a school is unaware 
whether the student engaged in sexually harassing behavior is meaningfully 
connected to the school, officials still have a duty to investigate the claim 
for the purpose of determining whether they DO have jurisdiction under Title 
IX to provide prompt, equitable and meaningful redress.? In short, if a 
school is unsure whether it has jurisdiction over a sexual harassment claim 
because it occurred in cyberspace, it cannot decline to investigate or 
provide prompt, equitable and effective redress.? It must, at a minimum, 
investigate the claim to determine whether sufficient facts exist to 
establish a school 's jurisdiction over the c
 laim, such that a prompt, equitable and effective response is required under 
Title IX. If the facts are insufficient to establish jurisdiction, it may be 
unnecessary for the school to provide redress.? But a school must 
"investigate", nonetheless, to determine the sufficiency of such facts before 
declining to provide redress.

...

The response to my client's complaint in the Juicy Campus case was that they 
had no duty to take any action whatsoever because the harassment did not 
occur "on campus" and was protected "free speech".? This clarification should 
make it obvious that such a reply, should it occur in response to the facts 
outlined above, would be inappropriate under Title IX. 

Wendy Murphy