Title IX regulations include minimum standards for due process of institutions' internal Title IX proceedings and definitions of sex discrimination. This year, the Department of Education rescinded more expansive requirements and significantly limited those minimum requirements, similar to what they were under President Trump's first term. Additionally, the Department of Education enacted new hazing reporting requirements under the Stop Campus Hazing Act that must be included in the 2026 Annual Security Report (often referred to as the Clery Report) to meet the October reporting deadline.
A series of highly publicized incidents involving fraternities, student organizations, and athletic programs has put renewed attention on how colleges and universities prevent, investigate, and respond to serious misconduct. Collectively, public attention to these campus matters illustrates an important point: Institutional risk can arise not only from the underlying misconduct, but from how universities investigate, document, and ultimately respond to complaints and allegations of misconduct.
For university leaders, recent events offer several practical lessons, which we've outlined below.
Liability and Reputational Risk Can Arise from Title IX, Campus Police, and Prosecutor Investigations
A recent matter involving seven fraternity brothers at an Ivy League institution illustrates the risks that can arise when a university investigates sexual assault allegations and how those investigations intersect with local law enforcement’s criminal investigations.
There, a female student reported to university police that she was sexually assaulted by fraternity members at the fraternity’s chapter house. University police and the university’s Title IX office investigated the matter. University police consulted with local law enforcement regarding the investigation and shared the student’s written statement with the district attorney. The district attorney’s office ultimately declined to bring charges based on the student’s statement. The university’s Title IX office also conducted its own internal investigation. As a result of this investigation, the fraternity was temporarily suspended and the university imposed disciplinary sanctions on several of the students involved.
The former student has now sued the university, asserting claims against the university that include negligence, negligent retention and supervision, breach of contract, and violations of state education and discrimination laws. These claims focus on allegations that the university failed to protect the student and prevent the assault. The complaint alleges, in part, that the university failed to implement appropriate supervision of fraternities in response to a series of complaints and reports of drugging, sexual harassment, and sexual assault at various fraternities and functions since 2020.
While the former student’s complaint focuses on the university’s liability for failing to prevent the assault, the case has generated significant media attention and scrutiny from government officials who have criticized the university’s police investigation. Since the filing of the complaint, the state’s governor removed the investigation from local authorities and assigned it to the state district attorney, citing concerns about both the campus police department’s evidence-gathering practices and the decision not to prosecute. While the university recently announced that it would hire a sexual assault investigator for its police unit, the practical fallout for the university includes reputational harm, increased scrutiny of its practices, and loss of trust among community partners.
For colleges and universities, the broader lesson hits on the necessity of institutional processes that effectively address reports of sexual misconduct, define how potentially criminal allegations are referred to local authorities, and explain when evidence and information developed during an institutional investigation may be shared in compliance with FERPA and other applicable laws and regulations.
Unrecognized Organizations Can Pose Institutional Risks
Two recent cases highlight the challenges presented by organizations operating beyond formal university recognition.
In August, authorities announced charges against individuals allegedly involved in a narcotics operation connected to two off-campus Greek organizations at a large public university. According to the grand jury presentment in the case, illegal drugs were cut and packaged at the fraternity houses and distributed to students; and several reports indicate that fraternity pledges were recruited to assist in the trafficking. One organization was not recognized by the university and operated outside university oversight, while the other was affiliated with the university but was housed off campus.
In September, at a different large public university, authorities arrested two members of a fraternity that had been disassociated with the university years earlier after pledges were found injured, shirtless, and covered in condiments in a basement. Reports indicate that several of the pledges had visible injuries consistent with being physically assaulted.
Universities should therefore consider whether their policies and risk-management strategies are prepared to address disassociated or unregulated student organizations. Such policies may focus on preventative measures such as building student's awareness of recognized campus organizations, as well as responsive measures including enforcing student codes of conduct against unregulated campus activity.
Disciplinary Action Requires a Coordinated Institutional Response
At another large public research university, administrators temporarily suspended activities for all 21 Interfraternity Council chapters after reported misconduct including physical assault, hazing, misuse of drugs and alcohol, and creating unsafe environments. In October, most of the chapters were subsequently reinstated, while five remained suspended and under investigation.
Similarly, in response to the complaint filed against the Ivy League institution discussed above, that university recently put in place a ban on all parties and social events at fraternities on campus extending for the remainder of the school year.
Ultimately, large-scale disciplinary action can involve a number of legal issues, including donor funding, student affairs, and campus safety. Such action should therefore be thoughtfully planned to include consideration of which authorities can impose such measures, what circumstances trigger escalation, and which legal and social functions are impacted to both preserve campus safety and minimize wider legal exposure.
Historical Conduct Can Resurface and Create Current Exposure
Recently, 16 former hockey players filed a federal sex-discrimination lawsuit against a large public research university alleging that coaches and other staff knew about sexual hazing and abuse that occurred between 1984 and 2001. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and mandatory anti-hazing training.
This matter underscores the variety and uncertainty around statutes of limitations as they apply to sexual hazing and abuse cases under Title IX. As Title IX does not impose a federal statute of limitations on such cases, the statute of limitations follows those of the state, which vary widely across states. Additionally, some federal courts have held that the statute of limitations under Title IX does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that the school played a role in causing the injury.
Consequently, recordkeeping, clear document retention policies, reporting structures, and timely institutional responses to allegations are important considerations to prepare and respond to incidents alleged to have occurred several years in the past.
Prepare Before an Incident Becomes a Crisis
When serious allegations arise, colleges and universities may need to make decisions involving student safety, law enforcement, individual rights, evidence preservation, disciplinary procedures, communications, and institutional risk at the same time. These decisions are easier to make when roles, escalation protocols, and investigative processes have been established before an incident occurs. For serious incidents, institutions should also consider a predefined cross-functional response team involving appropriate representatives from the general counsel's office, Title IX, student conduct, law enforcement, crisis communications, and senior administration.
Recent incidents also demonstrate the need for broader oversight of Greek life and athletics. Such oversight can include implementing procedures to:
- track conduct histories;
- regularly engage with chapter advisers;
- implement oversight of new-member education;
- implement anonymous reporting mechanisms;
- establish expectations for recognized organizations and their national organizations or housing corporations; and
- implement strategies for addressing derecognized or underground groups.
Baker Donelson's higher education, white collar, and litigation lawyers regularly advise colleges and universities on Title IX and Clery compliance. If your institution would like a review of its campus safety, Title IX, and crisis response policies and protocols in light of recent developments, please contact a member of our team.
For more on the current regulatory landscape, see our companion alert, Title IX and Hazing Compliance: What Colleges Should Review Now.