The AAUP Report on Title IX


The AAUP recently issued a draft report on “The History, Uses, and Abuses of Title IX” and requested comments that are due today, April 15 (send comments to I’ve been putting off my response because I feared that I would have to write a lengthy critique. But it turns out the report is incredibly well-written and covers virtually every important point on this subject. So here are my minor comments:

The AAUP ought to state that a college campus is not simply a workplace; it contains some elements of a workplace, but it is also a community where extramural speech and conduct should not be judged by the standards of an office. Even more important, to the extent that a college campus is like a workplace, it is a very special kind of workplace. Under discrimination law, there is an important exception for business necessity. That’s why, for example, strip clubs can’t be put out of business by sexual harassment lawsuits based on the hostile environment to women of strip clubs, even though a similar environment in an office might be actionable. A university is not a strip club; but it is a workplace where freedom of speech is crucially important to the work it engages in. Therefore, offensive speech requires much greater latitude in the unique environment of a college campus than it does in the typical workplace. Offensive ideas are sometimes part of the essential work done on college campuses.

In the Laura Kipnis case at Northwestern, the AAUP report notes that “university administrators understood OCR rules to mean that once a complaint (however questionable) had been filed, an investigation had to be pursued.” The AAUP should explicitly state that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) needs to inform universities that while all complaints need a response, not all of them need an investigation (which can have a chilling effect on free speech). Sometimes, an immediate dismissal without extensive investigation is the proper response to a complaint that does not meet the standards of discrimination.

Finally, OCR needs to be clearer that a violation of Title IX requires systematic discrimination. Having a policy that someone in the federal government doesn’t like, or making a mistake in a detail of procedure during one case, should not be tantamount to a violation of federal law. Colleges should not fear losing federal funding if they follow the (very good) advice of the AAUP rather than the (often flawed) advice of OCR.

3 thoughts on “The AAUP Report on Title IX

  1. Only Scientists Are Free?
    “To a chemist nothing on earth is unclean.A writer must be as objective as a chemist; he must abandon the subjective line; he must know that dung-heaps play a very respectable part in a landscape, and that evil passions are as inherent in life as good ones.” Anton Chekhov.
    To a university nothing on earth is unclean and poking around in that landscape, academia cannot be selective. Nice,clean speech and pure sweetness in all discourse and PC observance by administrators creates a dank dung-heap for original thought.
    Creativity is buried …in the PC shite of thought / speech control.
    Holding or directing skyward academic noses begs that question …what about the dung heap?


Your comments are welcome. They must be relevant to the topic at hand and must not contain advertisements, degrade others, or violate laws or considerations of privacy. We encourage the use of your real name, but do not prohibit pseudonyms as long as you don't impersonate a real person.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s