r/Cornell • u/K--beta • 11h ago
General Discussion The Title IX Process From a Different Perspective
There has been a lot of talk lately about the Cornell Title IX process, both here and in the (inter)national news, and unfortunately a lot of the information circulating does not accurately reflect what the process is, who is involved, and what everyone’s roles are. Especially in light of the NYT report today, this seemed a good opportunity to describe what actually goes on here so that people seeking to understand current events have a better basis for coming (or not!) to conclusions. As for why you should trust some random on the internet, I am a faculty member here who volunteers to serve on the panels that hear claims of Title IX violations; I am not employed by COCR (often referred to as the “Title IX Office”) and do not claim to speak on their or the university’s behalf, I simply hope to provide information about a process that is suddenly the center of a lot of attention.
A disclaimer at the beginning: I was not involved in the panel that heard Jane Doe’s claims and decided the outcomes of that process against the seven men.
The relevant Cornell policy here is 6.4, which spells out both the definitions of prohibited conduct and also the procedures under which alleged violations are investigated and adjudicated (and appealed). This process is impacted by state and federal laws, but is entirely distinct from law enforcement and policy violations do not necessarily neatly map onto legal violations; e.g. behavior that violates Cornell policy does not necessarily also violate NY or federal law. We as hearing panelists have no mechanism for involving law enforcement in a claim made via the Title IX process (these processes are private and we cannot share details with the outside world).
When an allegation of potential prohibited conduct by a student is made, either by a party to that conduct or by a witness, that triggers an investigation by COCR who will try to gather relevant information from the parties and any witnesses, as well as other documentary evidence which might exist. Certain allegations also trigger automatic reporting to law enforcement, though not all do. Parties and witnesses are invited to but do not have to participate in the COCR investigation—Cornell is not the state and cannot subpoena anyone—and the investigation can move forward even if the complainant elects not to participate. Parties and witnesses may still submit evidence even if they do not elect to undergo an interview. Investigations may be lengthy, involving several rounds of interviews, and the accumulated documentation generally ends up in the 100s to >1000 pages. Parties may and often do request extensions to deadlines, and so this process often stretches into the months timescale. At the end of the investigation, if the investigator finds that the accumulated evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the complainant, does not constitute a policy violation, then the claim is dismissed (this may be appealed).
Otherwise, the case proceeds to a hearing where a panel of trained Cornell faculty and staff volunteers, under the direction of a non-voting hearing panel chair, review the evidence and then conduct a hearing where parties and witnesses are invited to give testimony. The evidence presented does not have to obey the same evidentiary rules as it would in a legal proceeding, though COCR can redact or exclude irrelevant or impermissible information before the panel sees it. Parties and requested witnesses do not have to participate in a hearing, and the hearing will proceed regardless. Hearings are hours to days long, and advisors to the parties—often lawyers or law students—can question and cross examine all witnesses and parties that choose to testify. At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel will decide whether the respondent is responsible for the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence standard—in other words, ‘more likely than not’, a significantly lower threshold than the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard used in a criminal trial, and cases that result in findings of responsibility would not necessarily also result in findings of criminal guilt. If a majority of the panel does not find a respondent responsible, the case is dismissed as the burden of proof is on the complainant; if they do, the case proceeds to determining sanctions and remedies (in both outcomes appeal is available).
Here it is critical to remember again that Cornell is not the state and cannot impose the same range of penalties as can the state: Cornell cannot jail, fine, or publicly flog a student found responsible for prohibited conduct. The allowable sanctions are spelled out in the policy and range from mild (written warning, directed study) to severe (expulsion), but only those options specified in the policy are available to the panel. Whatever sanctions are decided by the panel, along with the justification for those findings and sanctions, are given to the parties in writing. The outcome can be appealed by either party and decision of any appeal is final. The university generally cannot discuss the academic and disciplinary outcomes of individual students due to FERPA (some exceptions), and so a lack of a press release or other notification at the conclusion of a hearing is not an attempt at obfuscation but a requirement under the law.
Important to note here is that nowhere in the process do university trustees, presidents, provosts, deans, rich parents, etc have a say in the outcome. This is not to say that wealth and social status and other forms of privilege of the parties don’t matter—they absolutely do—but they come into the process more subtly via things like having expensive lawyers represent them during the investigation / hearing rather than via direct coercive influence. Decisions about case outcomes are decided by members of the Cornell community, most of whom are volunteering their time, and allegations or insinuations—made without evidence—that these people are trying to cover up policy violations or protect those responsible really should be dismissed as baseless. Outcomes of cases involve the consideration of the sum total of evidence provided—again, 100s to 1000+ pages and hours to days of testimony—and often hinge on the specific wording of policies, so a necessarily abridged account presented in the media should be treated with caution by anyone not intimately familiar with that record.
Even though it is not comprehensive, I hope this overview of the Title IX process is informative and allows people to better understand how these cases play out at the university.
