December 11, 2014
Dr. R. Gerald Turner, President
Southern Methodist University
P.O. Box 750100
Dallas, TX 75275-0100
Re:

OCR Case Nos. 06-11-2126, 06-13-2081, and 06-13-2088
Southern Methodist University

Dear Dr. Turner:
The U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Dallas
office, has completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaints filed against
Southern Methodist University (SMU or the University). OCR investigated whether the
University failed to promptly and equitably respond to complaints, reports and/or incidents of
gender and sexual harassment of which it had notice, including the complainants’ reports of
gender and sexual harassment and sexual assault, and whether, as a result, students, including
the complainants, were subjected to a sexually hostile environment.
OCR is responsible for determining whether recipients of Federal financial assistance from the
Department are in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20
U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, which prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities. SMU is a recipient of
Federal financial assistance from the Department. Therefore, OCR had jurisdictional authority to
investigate these complaints pursuant to Title IX.
OCR received three complaints between June 2011 and March 2013 alleging gender harassment,
sexual harassment, and/or sexual assault. The complainants alleged that the University failed to
promptly and equitably respond to complaints of gender harassment, sexual harassment, and
sexual violence of which it had notice, including the students’ reports of gender harassment and
sexual assault; and, as a result, students, including the students who filed two of the three
complaints, were subjected to a hostile environment.
SMU is a private, four-year university. SMU’s main campus is located in Dallas, Texas and the
University has two smaller campuses located in Taos, New Mexico and Plano, Texas. In
academic year 2013-2014, the University had a total student population of 10,929 students,
comprising 6,357 undergraduate students and 4,572 graduate students. The student body was
approximately 62% percent male and 38% percent female.1

1

See http://www.smu.edu/AboutSMU/Facts/CampusProfile.

 Page 2 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

OCR’s investigation of the three complaints included interviewing all three complainants;
interviewing relevant faculty and staff; reviewing all relevant University policies; and reviewing
the University’s responses to complaints of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and gender
harassment from the 2009-2010 through 2011-2012 academic years. OCR conducted on-site
visits in 2013. OCR also reviewed information contained in the Department’s Office of
Postsecondary Education’s Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool, including
statistics collected pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus
Crime Statistics Act (“Clery Act”), 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f); this information is located at
http://ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx, and is discussed in more detail below.
OCR determined that the University’s notice of nondiscrimination failed to adequately notify
students and employees of the University’s Title IX Coordinator. OCR also determined the
University’s prior and current grievance procedures failed to comply with the requirements of
Title IX. OCR further concluded that the University did not provide prompt and equitable
responses to Complainant 1’s complaint of gender harassment or to Complainant 3’s report of
sexual assault. OCR further determined that for Complainant 3, this failure allowed for the
continuation of a hostile environment that limited and denied his access to the education
opportunities at the University. On November 16, 2014, the University provided OCR with a
signed Resolution Agreement to resolve the complaints and address the identified compliance
concerns.
Legal Authority
The Title IX implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a), provides that no person shall, on
the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other
education program or activity operated by a recipient of Federal financial assistance. Specific
obligations are set forth at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(b), including a recipient’s obligation to ensure that
its students are not denied or limited in their ability to participate in or benefit from the
recipient’s programs or activities on the basis of sex.
Sexual harassment and gender-based harassment that create a hostile environment are forms of
sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX.2 Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual
nature. Sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors;
and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault or acts
of sexual violence. Gender-based harassment may include acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical
aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping, even if those acts do not
involve conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment and gender-based harassment of a student
create a hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently serious that it interferes with or limits a
student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s program.
2

The applicable legal standards described herein are more fully discussed in OCR’s 2011 Dear Colleague Letter on
Sexual Violence, which is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
(Apr. 4, 2011). See also OCR’s 2010 Dear Colleague Letter on Harassment and Bullying, which is available at:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html (Oct. 26, 2010); OCR’s Revised Sexual
Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties, which is
available at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html (Jan. 19, 2001).

 Page 3 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

In determining whether this denial or limitation has occurred, OCR examines all the relevant
circumstances from an objective and subjective perspective, including: the type of harassment
(e.g., whether it was verbal or physical); the frequency and severity of the conduct; the age, sex,
and relationship of the individuals involved (e.g., professor-student or student-student); the
setting and context in which the harassment occurred; whether other incidents have occurred at
the college or university; and other relevant factors. The more severe the conduct, the less need
there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the
harassment is physical. For example, a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a
hostile environment. Title IX protects all students at recipient institutions from sex harassment,
including male and female students.
If a recipient knows or reasonably should have known about sexual or gender-based harassment
that creates a hostile environment, Title IX requires the recipient to take immediate and
appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred. If a recipient delays
responding to allegations of sexual harassment or responds inappropriately, the recipient’s own
action may subject the student to a hostile environment. If it does, the recipient will be required
to remedy the effects of both the initial sexual harassment and the effects of the recipient’s
failure to respond promptly and appropriately. If an investigation reveals that discriminatory
harassment has occurred, a recipient must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated
to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the
harassment from recurring. These duties are a recipient’s responsibility regardless of whether a
student has complained, asked the recipient to take action, or identified the harassment as a form
of discrimination. If needed, the recipient must take immediate steps to protect the complainant
from further harassment prior to the completion of the Title IX investigation/resolution.
Sexual harassment of a student by a faculty member or other recipient employee also violates
Title IX. If an employee who is acting (or who reasonably appears to be acting) in the context of
carrying out these responsibilities over students engages in sexual or gender-based harassment,
the recipient is responsible for the discriminatory conduct. The recipient is, therefore, also
responsible for remedying any effects of the harassment on the victim, as well as for ending the
harassment and preventing its recurrence.
Additionally, the Title IX regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Section 106.8(b), requires recipients to adopt
and publish grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of
complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by Title IX. Title IX does not require a
recipient to provide separate grievance procedures for sexual harassment and gender harassment
complaints. A recipient may use student disciplinary or other separate procedures for these
complaints. However, any procedures used to adjudicate complaints of sexual harassment or
gender harassment, including disciplinary proceedings, must afford the complainant a prompt
and equitable resolution.
In evaluating whether a recipient’s grievance procedures are prompt and equitable, OCR
considers whether the procedures provide for:
1. notice to students and employees of the procedures, including where complaints may be
filed;

 Page 4 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

2. application of the procedures to complaints alleging harassment carried out by
employees, other students, or third parties;
3. adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including the opportunity to
present witnesses and other evidence;
4. designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major stages of the complaint
process;
5. written notice to the parties of the outcome of the complaint and any appeal; and
6. an assurance that the recipient will take steps to prevent recurrence of any harassment and
to correct its discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate.
To ensure that students and employees have a clear understanding of what constitutes sexual
violence, the potential consequences for such conduct, and how the recipient processes
complaints, the recipient’s Title IX grievance procedures should also include the following in
writing:
1. a statement of the recipient’s jurisdiction over Title IX complaints;
2. adequate definitions of sexual harassment (which includes sexual assault) and an
explanation as to when such conduct creates a hostile environment;
3. reporting policies and protocols, including provisions for confidential reporting;
4. identification of the employee or employees responsible for evaluating requests for
confidentiality;
5. notice that Title IX prohibits retaliation;
6. notice of a student’s right to file a criminal complaint and a Title IX complaint
simultaneously;
7. notice of available interim measures that may be taken to protect the student in the
educational setting;
8. the evidentiary standard that must be used (preponderance of the evidence) in resolving a
complaint;
9. notice of potential remedies for students;
10. notice of potential sanctions against perpetrators; and
11. sources of counseling, advocacy and support.
Pending the outcome of an investigation, Title IX requires a recipient to take steps to ensure
equal access to its education programs and activities and to protect the complainant from further
harassment as necessary, including taking interim steps before the final outcome of the
investigation. The recipient should undertake these steps promptly once it has notice of a
harassment allegation and should provide the complainant with periodic updates on the status of
the investigation. It should notify the complainant of his or her options to avoid contact with the
alleged perpetrator and allow students to change academic or living situations as appropriate. For
instance, the recipient may prohibit the alleged perpetrator from having contact with the
complainant pending the results of the investigation. The specific interim measures implemented
and the process for implementing those measures will vary depending on the facts of each case.
When taking steps to separate the complainant and the alleged perpetrator, a recipient should
minimize the burden on the complainant. Recipients should also check with complainants to
ensure that the interim measures are effective and, if ineffective, identify alternatives. In
addition, recipients should ensure that complainants are aware of their Title IX rights and any

 Page 5 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

available resources, such as counseling services, and their right to file with local law
enforcement.
To ensure individuals can invoke these grievance procedures without fear of reprisal, Title IX
also prohibits the university and others, including students, from retaliating against any
individual “for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by [Title IX],” or
because that individual “has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner
in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under Title IX. Prohibited retaliatory acts include
intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination against any such individual. Universities
therefore should take steps to prevent any retaliation against a student who makes a complaint or
any student who provides information regarding the complaint. At a minimum, under Title IX,
the university must ensure that complainants and their parents, if appropriate, know how to
report any subsequent problems; and should follow up with complainants to determine whether
any retaliation or new incidents of harassment have occurred.
In addition, if there is an incident involving potential criminal conduct, the university must
determine, consistent with state and local law, whether appropriate law enforcement or other
authorities should be notified. But a university’s Title IX investigation is different from any law
enforcement investigation, and a law enforcement investigation does not relieve a university of
its independent Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct. A university therefore should not
wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to begin its own Title
IX investigation, and if needed, must take immediate steps to protect the complainant in the
educational setting. These duties are a university’s responsibility, regardless of whether a student
has complained, asked the university to take action, or identified the harassment as a form of
discrimination.
If the complainant requests confidentiality or asks that the complaint not be pursued, a university
should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the
request for confidentiality or request not to pursue an investigation. If the complainant insists
that his or her name or other identifiable information not be disclosed to the alleged perpetrator,
a university should inform the complainant that its ability to respond may be limited. A
university also should tell the complainant that Title IX prohibits retaliation, and that university
officials will not only take steps to prevent retaliation but also take strong responsive action if it
occurs. If the student still requests that his or her name not be disclosed to the accused or that the
recipient not investigate or seek action against the accused, the recipient will need to determine
whether or not it can honor such a request while still providing a safe and nondiscriminatory
environment for all students, including the student who reported the harassment. A recipient
should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the
request for confidentiality or request not to pursue an investigation.
Grievance procedures generally may include voluntary informal mechanisms (e.g., mediation)
for resolving some types of gender-based harassment complaints. However, it is improper for a
complainant to be required to work out the problem directly with the alleged perpetrator, and
certainly not without appropriate involvement by the recipient (e.g., participation by a trained
counselor, a trained mediator, or, if appropriate, a faculty member or administrator). The
complainant must be notified of the right to end the informal process at any time and begin the

 Page 6 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

formal stage of the complaint process. Moreover, in cases involving allegations of sexual
assault/violence, mediation is not appropriate even on a voluntary basis.
Throughout the recipient’s investigation and in any hearing, both parties must have equal
opportunity to present relevant witnesses and other evidence. Also, in order for a recipient’s
grievance procedures to be consistent with the Title IX evidentiary standard, the recipient must
use a preponderance of the evidence standard for investigating allegations of gender-based
harassment. If a recipient provides for appeal of the findings or remedy, it must do so for both
parties. The recipient must maintain documentation of all proceedings.
In addition, recipients should provide training to employees about their grievance procedures and
their implementation. Recipients should provide such training to any employees likely to witness
or receive reports of sexual harassment and violence, including professors, university law
enforcement unit employees, university administrators, university counselors, general counsel,
health personnel, and resident advisors. Recipients need to ensure that their employees are
trained so that they know to report harassment to appropriate officials, and so that employees
with the authority to address harassment know how to respond properly. All persons involved in
implementing a recipient’s grievance procedures (e.g., Title IX coordinators, investigators and
adjudicators) must have training or experience in handling complaints of sexual harassment, and
in the recipient’s grievance procedures as well as applicable confidentiality requirements. In
sexual assault cases in particular, the fact-finder and the decision-maker also should have
adequate training or knowledge regarding sexual assault.
The Title IX regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a), specifically requires that each recipient
designate at least one employee to coordinate its responsibilities to comply with and carry out its
responsibilities under Title IX, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to
such recipient alleging its noncompliance with Title IX. This provision further requires that the
recipient notify all of its students and employees of the name (or title), and office address and
telephone number of the employee(s) so designated. In addition, OCR’s 2011 Dear Colleague
Letter on Sexual Violence states that recipients should notify all students and employees of the
electronic mail (email) address of the Title IX Coordinator. The recipient must ensure that
employees designated to serve as Title IX coordinators have adequate training on what
constitutes sex discrimination (including gender-based harassment) and that they understand how
the recipient’s grievance procedures operate.
The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9(a), requires that a recipient
implement specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for employment, students,
employees, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or
professional agreements with the recipient that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the
education programs or activities it operates; that the prohibition against discrimination extends to
employment; and that inquiries to recipients concerning the application of Title IX and its
implementing regulation may be referred to the Title IX coordinator or to OCR. The regulation
implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9(b), requires recipients to include the notice of
nondiscrimination in each announcement, bulletin, catalog, or application form that it makes
available to the persons described above, or which is otherwise used in the recruitment of

 Page 7 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

students or employees. OCR policy provides that pursuant to the Title IX regulation, the
notification must include the contact information for the Title IX coordinator.
Factual Information
A. Title IX Coordinator and Notice of Nondiscrimination
SMU designated the Associate Vice President for Access and Equity, and Executive Assistant to
the President and Director of Institutional Access and Equity (Title IX Coordinator) as its Title
IX Coordinator and published her contact information, including her name, title, email and office
address, and telephone number on the website for the Office of Institutional Access and Equity.
The Title IX Coordinator is responsible for implementing the University’s sexual harassment
policies and procedures and is charged with the oversight of all Title IX claims. The Title IX
Coordinator indicated that she had ten years of experience in her position, was the liaison for the
University with Federal enforcement agencies, including OCR and the EEOC, and state
agencies, responded to all internal complaints, and was responsible for providing online and inperson training programs on discrimination laws.
SMU’s notice of nondiscrimination, published on the University website,3 identifies the Director
of the Office of Institutional Access and Equity (Title IX Coordinator) as being designated, “to
handle inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policies.” The notice does not include the office
address, email address, or telephone number of the Title IX Coordinator. SMU’s current student
handbook, as well as earlier versions examined during OCR’s investigation, do not include
contact information for the Title IX Coordinator.4
B. Prior Grievance Procedures
With respect to Title IX grievance procedures, during OCR’s investigation, the University
identified University Policy 2.5, entitled, “Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relationships,” as
the grievance procedure for students to raise allegations of gender-based or sexual harassment.
University Policy 2.5 was in effect until the University adopted Interim Policy 2.5.1 on January
13, 2013 (the revised policy is discussed in more detail below).
University Policy 2.5 governed the University’s responses to sexual harassment and consensual
relationships and outlined the procedures for filing a complaint alleging sexual harassment,
providing two levels of review—an informal proceeding and a formal proceeding. University
Policy 2.5 applied to all administrators, faculty, staff, students and visitors at all of SMU’s
schools and campuses. University Policy 2.5 did not make any reference to gender-based
harassment complaints or other types of sex discrimination complaints.
University Policy 2.5 included specific provisions concerning confidentiality. The policy stated:
“SMU will investigate allegations of Title IX harassment and take corrective action, if
3

http://www.smu.edu/~/link.aspx?_id=DCDFC2ABE69247499D9FA3F1E0AC9A8F&_z=z.
The current handbook is posted on the SMU website at:
http://www.smu.edu/StudentAffairs/StudentLife/StudentHandbook.
4

 Page 8 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

appropriate, in those circumstances where the complainant does not wish to pursue these
procedures or corrective action. A complainant’s desire for anonymity or inaction may hinder
SMU’s investigation of a Title IX harassment complaint.”
Under the informal proceeding, a complainant “may bring an allegation of violation of this
policy to an appropriate Administrative Official, who may be any academic or administrative
officer such as the Director of Institutional Access and Equity [Title IX Coordinator]; a Vice
President; a Dean; the Dean of Student Life; or other director, supervisor, department chair, or
head.” The Administrative Official would counsel the complainant regarding his or her rights
and encourage, but not require, the complainant to seek first a direct resolution of any concerns
by stating objections to the alleged behavior orally or in writing to the alleged offending party. If
the “direct approach” referenced above was successful, the matter would be deemed closed and
the Administrative Official would notify the Title IX Coordinator of the allegation and outcome.
If the direct approach were unsatisfactory, the Administrative Official would direct the
complainant to the “Appropriate Authority” to hear the complaint and handle the case. The
Administrative Official would consult with the Title IX Coordinator to determine the
Appropriate Authority. The Title IX Coordinator could then handle the investigation or select
another Appropriate Authority to handle the investigation.
The Appropriate Authority was required to “conduct a preliminary investigation to determine
whether there is a reasonable basis for believing that a violation of this Policy has occurred;”
would meet separately with the complainant and the accused and obtain signed written
statements from each, if possible; and could also meet with any other persons reasonably
believed to have knowledge about the allegations and obtain signed written statements from
them, if possible. If the Appropriate Authority found a reasonable basis for believing that the
policy was violated during the preliminary investigation, the Appropriate Authority would
inform the accused and conduct an “administrative review” of the complaint, including: (a)
review of the allegations by the complainant; (b) review of the response of the accused to the
allegations; (c) responses from others; and (d) negotiations to resolve the matter in a manner
reasonably acceptable to both interested parties. If the Appropriate Authority concluded there has
been a violation of the policy, the Appropriate Authority “may structure an agreed settlement
which includes, but is not limited to, an oral or written warning, a promise not to commit such an
abuse again, an oral or written apology, professional counseling for the individual who violated
the policy, or any other sanction which appropriately reflects the severity of the violation.”
The informal proceeding could be discontinued and formal proceedings initiated: (a) if, after the
informal proceedings, the Appropriate Authority concluded that there was no reasonable basis
for the complaint; or (b) the complainant wished to end the informal proceeding at any time and
requested a formal proceeding. The University policy concerning informal proceedings also
stated: “[T]he University reserves the right to act as deemed appropriate at any time with or
without written statements and without the agreement of a party or parties.”
University Policy 2.5 stated that formal proceedings would take place in accordance with the
following guidelines:
(a) If a complaint is filed against either a full-time or part-time member of the faculty, a
teaching assistant or a student teaching assistant in his/her teaching capacity, or any

 Page 9 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

other instructional personnel, the matter shall be submitted to the Faculty Senate
Ethics and Tenure Committee for its consideration and action in accordance with its
then-current guidelines and procedures;
(b) If a complaint is filed against a University staff member, the matter shall be submitted
to the Vice President, or to the person designated by the Vice President, responsible
for the unit employing the accused. A formal hearing may be convened in accordance
with the University’s Grievance Policy and Procedures, Policy 2.8, if appropriate.
(c) If a complaint is filed against a student, the matter shall be submitted to the
University Judicial System for adjudication in accordance with the judicial
procedures for alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct.
OCR examined the formal proceedings submitted to the Faculty Senate Ethics and Tenure
Committee (Committee). At the time Complainant 1 filed her complaint with the University in
2010, the Committee did not have any hearing panel procedures in place. The “Southern
Methodist University Faculty Senate Ethics and Tenure Committee Hearing Panel Procedures”
(hearing procedures) were developed during the University’s response to Complainant 1. The
hearing procedure provided for both parties to make a position statement and present witnesses,
allowed both parties to have an advisor or counsel present during the hearing, established the
evidentiary standard as preponderance of the evidence, ensured the confidentiality of the hearing,
and required the committee chair to submit the hearing panel report to the Title IX Coordinator
within 10 days of the hearing. While the hearing procedures provided that the panel submit the
report to the Title IX Coordinator, as discussed below for Complainant 1, the University
President served as the final decision maker for the complaint. Neither the hearing procedures
nor University Policy 2.5 indicated that the President was the final decision maker for the
complaint. The only mention of this comes in a memorandum from the Title IX Coordinator to
the Committee relating to the complaint filed by Complainant 1.
University Policy 2.5 stated that a complainant alleging sexual violence may simultaneously
pursue a criminal complaint with the appropriate law enforcement agency and file a complaint
for Title IX harassment with the Title IX Coordinator. It went on to state that the University
would pursue the Title IX complaint and not delay its handling of a complaint of sexual violence
until the commencement or conclusion of a criminal investigation or proceeding; however,
“notwithstanding the foregoing, at the request of law enforcement authorities, SMU may
temporarily delay its processing of the complaint while law enforcement authorities gather
evidence concerning the allegation of sexual assault.”
SMU maintains its own police department, which is a fully empowered law enforcement agency
that is certified by the State of Texas. Campus police officers are state-commissioned peace
officers with full police authority, duties and responsibilities. In addition to the SMU Police
Department, the University Park Police Department has concurrent jurisdiction on the campus
and assists the SMU Police Department if needed. OCR interviewed the SMU Chief of Police,
who explained that he serves as the point of contact between the SMU Police Department and the
University and shares information with Student Affairs concerning criminal investigations.
C. University’s Responses to Gender Harassment and Sexual Harassment/Violence
Complaints.

 Page 10 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

University Policy 2.5 governed the University’s responses to complaints filed by Complainant 1,
Complainant 2 and Complainant 3, as well as other complaints filed during the 2009-2010, 20102011, and 2011-2012 academic years that were examined by OCR as part of its investigation.
OCR Complaint 06-11-2126
Complainant 1 alleged that she was subjected to sex/gender-based harassment by an SMU law
professor during the spring 2010 semester and that SMU failed to take prompt and effective
action to address the harassment, which was sufficient to constitute a hostile environment.
Complainant 1 expressed frustration with the process for complaining of gender-based
harassment to SMU. She stated that SMU did not interview any of her witnesses or otherwise
conduct a reasonable investigation of her allegations. She also stated that the Title IX
Coordinator did not provide her clear information on how to appeal the result of the informal
proceeding and that the University lacked procedures for a formal proceeding. Complainant 1
informed OCR that she was not informed of the result of actions taken against the professor by
the Law School Dean.
Complainant 1 informed OCR that during the spring 2010 semester the Professor (Professor)
made gender-based comments to and about her. Specifically, Complainant 1 informed OCR that
at both the Professor’s home and during class sessions, the Professor referred to her as
“prom/beauty queen,” “hired bimbo,” “just one of those girls who thinks she’s so pretty,”
“bitchy,” “catty,” “bitch,” and “doody blonde,” and lectured the class that not paying attention to
details was “like looking at a beautiful woman only she’s wearing dirty panties.”
At the conclusion of the semester, Complainant 1 contacted the SMU Dedman School of Law
(Law School) Assistant Dean for Student Affairs (Assistant Dean) about her grade (B-) in the
course and language used by the Professor in class, and informed him of her intent to file a
formal complaint alleging a violation SMU’s sexual harassment policy after she graduated from
SMU and completed the bar examination in August 2010. The Title IX Coordinator informed
OCR that, prior to Complainant 1 filing her August 30, 2010, complaint, she conducted a
preliminary investigation by interviewing the Assistant Dean, the Professor, another professor,
and an Administrative Assistant, and as a result “urged [the Professor] to undertake a number of
changes in his conduct,” discussed SMU’s sexual harassment policy with both professors, and
provided both professors with a copy of the sexual harassment policy.
In August 2010, Complainant 1 filed a formal written complaint with SMU. The Title IX
Coordinator informed OCR that her subsequent investigation into Complainant 1’s August 2010
complaint was a continuation of the preliminary investigation, was conducted pursuant to
University Policy 2.5, and involved interviewing the Professor a second time and requesting
documents from Complainant 1. The Title IX Coordinator did not interview any students other
than Complainant 1. In November 2010, the Title IX Coordinator notified Complainant 1 that the
evidence did not support a finding that the Professor violated Policy 2.5 and directed
Complainant 1 to consult Policy 2.5 for any additional rights of review available to her.
In November 2010, Complainant 1 contacted the Title IX Coordinator and inquired as to how to
appeal the decision and in December 2010, the Title IX Coordinator informed Complainant 1

 Page 11 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

that she needed to submit a request for a formal proceeding to the Title IX Coordinator.
Complainant 1 sent the Title IX Coordinator a request to initiate a formal proceeding and two
weeks later, the Title IX Coordinator informed Complainant 1 that her complaint had been
forwarded to the Chair of the Faculty Senate Ethics and Tenure Committee (Chair), who would
notify Complainant 1 when the date of the review was set, and requested that Complainant 1
provide to the Title IX Coordinator all documents that she wanted the Committee to consider and
the names of witnesses she wished to testify, their contact information, and a brief summary of
their anticipated testimony. In January 2011, the Title IX Coordinator forwarded a memorandum
to the Committee concerning the complaint, which set a meeting with the Title IX Coordinator
and Associate General Counsel for late January 2011, requested the Committee schedule a date
for the formal proceeding within two weeks of the meeting, informed the Committee that
following its review it was to make a recommendation on the appropriate outcome to the SMU
President, and explained the hearing should be conducted in accordance with Title IX and its
regulations. The memorandum was not provided to Complainant 1 and the University did not
provide OCR any documentation demonstrating that it informed Complainant 1 that the
Committee’s determination would only be a recommendation to the SMU President and not a
final University determination.
In April 2011, nearly four months after receiving Complainant 1’s appeal, the Committee
convened a hearing pursuant to the new “Southern Methodist University Faculty Senate Ethics
and Tenure Committee Hearing Panel Procedures” and issued its report 10 days later. The
Committee concluded the Professor violated University Policy 2.5. Specifically, the Committee
found that the Professor made the “prom/beauty queen,” “hired bimbo,” “bitch/bitchy,” “dirty
panties,” “pretty girl,” and “doody blonde” statements as alleged by Complainant 1 and
concluded that these remarks “are either sexual or inappropriately sexist in nature” and “are
consistent with an overall pattern of offensive, gender-specific statements.” The Committee
determined that “when the totality of the situation is considered, a reasonable adult female would
find [the Professor’s] remarks to be a source of discomfort and humiliation” and that the
Professor “engaged in sexual harassment in violation of University Policy 2.5.” The Committee
recommended specific sanctions, including (1) a face-to-face meeting among the Professor, Title
IX Coordinator and Law School Dean to “discuss the necessity of adhering to SMU policies;”
(2) that the Professor no longer meet with students at his home; (3) a requirement that the
Professor participate in a sexual harassment education program prior to the beginning of the fall
2011 semester; and (4) the placing of a copy of the sanctions letter in the Professor’s personnel
file. The Committee also recommended that the Professor issue a written apology to
Complainant 1 and that the content of his class be monitored for three years.
In May 2011, the SMU President informed Complainant 1 that he was “not persuaded that the
conduct of [the Professor] described in this report constitutes a violation of SMU Policy 2.5;”
however, he stated that he found the conduct to be “objectionable and unprofessional” and
directed the Dean of the Law School to take appropriate corrective action to remedy the
situation. The President informed OCR that in making this decision, he reviewed the
Committee’s report and met with the Title IX Coordinator and Vice President of Legal Affairs to
discuss the report and the applicable Title IX legal standard.

 Page 12 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

Later in May 2011, the Law School Dean informed the Professor that he was imposing the
sanctions recommended by the Committee, with the exception of the having the Professor issue a
formal written apology to Complainant 1 and monitoring the content of the Professor’s class
sessions for three years.5 Complainant 1 was not informed of the steps taken by the Law School.
OCR Complaint 06-13-2081
During the course of OCR’s investigation of complaint 06-11-2126, OCR Dallas opened a
second complaint against SMU (06-13-2081) in March 2013, in which a former SMU employee
(Complainant 2) alleged that SMU has a pattern and practice of condoning sexual harassment of
and therefore sex discrimination against its female students and of retaliating against anyone who
attempts to rectify the situation.6 Complainant 2 stated that she believed SMU had a pattern of
not responding appropriately to complaints of sexual harassment, citing to Clery Act data, news
reports about campus sexual assaults, and other anecdotal information about sexual harassment
of colleagues and students by a co-worker that Complainant 2 reported to SMU and about a
student not knowing how to report sexual assault to campus officials. OCR’s investigation
revealed that SMU’s investigation of the sexual harassment reported by Complainant 2 did not
substantiate that the harassment had occurred. OCR considered the other information provided
by the Complainant as part of its investigation of the University’s responses to sexual harassment
and sexual assault complaints and reports.
OCR Complaint 06-13-2088
OCR opened a third complaint against SMU (06-13-2088) in April 2013, in which an SMU
student (Complainant 3) alleged that SMU discriminated against him on the basis of sex when
the University failed to appropriately respond after he notified the University that he had been
sexually assaulted and that the University also failed to protect him from the retaliatory actions
of the alleged perpetrator’s friends and associates. During the 2012-2013 school year,
Complainant 3 was a freshman at SMU and a member of a University scholarship program.
Complainant 3 alleged that in the early morning of September 23, 2012, he was sexually
assaulted on SMU’s campus by another male student (Student 2).
OCR’s investigation revealed that on September 23, 2012, Complainant 3 reported the sexual
assault to the SMU Police Department and also reported the sexual assault to an SMU staff
member who encouraged him to report the sexual assault to the Associate Provost and also
informed the Associate Provost (who oversees the scholarship program) of Complainant 3’s
report. OCR’s investigation showed that after receiving notice of the alleged sexual assault, the
Associate Provost informed the Dean of Student Life, the Chief of Police and the Provost. The
Associate Provost stated that she did not inform the Title IX Coordinator and believed the Dean
of Student Life was designated as an Assistant Title IX Coordinator. The evidence indicates that
5

OCR notes that when a recipient works to address sex harassment, it must respect the free-speech rights of faculty.
Title IX does not regulate the content of speech protected under the U.S. Constitution.
6
Complainant 2 also alleged to OCR that, as a result of her complaint to SMU about alleged sexual harassment, she
was retaliated against when her employment with SMU was terminated. Complainant 2’s retaliation allegation was
included in a lawsuit she filed in April 2013. Accordingly, because OCR had not investigated or made any
compliance determinations regarding the retaliation as of April 2013, OCR closed this allegation.

 Page 13 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

the Dean of Student Life also met with Complainant 3 after she was made aware of the alleged
sexual assault.
SMU officials informed OCR that the SMU Police Department conducted the investigation into
Complainant 3’s sexual assault allegations and based on the evidence obtained, arrested Student
2 on September 24, 2012. Complainant 3 informed OCR that he was not provided information
from the SMU Police Department concerning his Title IX rights and felt that he was encouraged
by University officials to only use the student conduct process and not the criminal justice
system.
The Chief of Police stated that during the investigation he worked with the Dean of Student
Life’s office because that office issues no-contact letters, moves housing, changes classes, etc.
The Dean of Student Life informed OCR that she was not provided a copy of the police report
but was provided a written summary. She also stated that she knew when the investigation
started and ended but did not recall receiving any specifics from the police about the
investigation. The Chief of Police further stated that the Title IX Coordinator receives the same
briefing and that he would “eventually” share the investigation with the Title IX Coordinator if it
does not interfere with the criminal investigation and the district attorney was not pursuing
prosecution. However, evidence reveals that although the District Attorney dropped the charges,
the Chief of Police did not give the Title IX Coordinator a copy of the police report.
The University responded to the initial report of the alleged sexual assault by issuing an interim
suspension for Student 2 (three days after the incident) and by referring Complainant 3 to the
University’s counseling services, advising Complainant 3’s roommate that he was not permitted
to have any guests in their shared room, having the SMU Chaplain and Chief of Police speak to
members of Student 2’s fraternity, notifying Complainant 3’s professors that he would be unable
to take exams or complete coursework, issuing Student 2 a “No Contact Order,” changing
Complainant 3’s housing as he requested and having follow-up meetings with the Associate
Provost and Complainant 3 to verify that his professors were accommodating him and to checkin on Complainant 3’s well-being. The University did not conduct its own investigation of
Complainant 3’s sexual assault allegation.
Complainant 3 informed OCR that after the September 23, 2012, incident he was subjected to
retaliation by students other than Student 2. Complainant 3 stated that a group of male students
asked him and his friends, “Did you know that [fraternity] rapes guys?”, and stated that Student
2’s fraternity knew who Complainant 3 was and that they wanted to “beat the shit out of” him.
Complainant 3 stated that fraternity members would smile at him in the cafeteria, furrow their
brows in an exaggerated way, yell across the cafeteria “Hey, [Complainant 3]” and “Look it’s
[Complainant 3],” and text him invitations to come to the fraternity. Complainant 3 stated that he
overheard his roommate saying that he believed Complainant 3 was the victim in the crime alert,
that his roommate said to him, “come here, you need a hug,” and that his roommate also sent him
a picture of a shirtless guy with the caption, “Hi, [Complainant 3].” Complainant 3 also stated
that after he changed housing, he received phone calls late at night where someone would call
and then hang up, and that someone would knock on his window or door and run away.
Complainant 3 did not provide OCR with the names of any witnesses to these incidents; however
he stated that he informed the Associate Provost and Officer 1 of these incidents.

 Page 14 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

SMU confirmed that Complainant 3 had reported these incidents and the Associate Provost and
Officer 1 advised Complainant 3 to contact the police dispatch if he felt unsafe. The Associate
Provost stated to OCR, that Student 2 was “well-liked” and “powerful in the Greek system” and
that Complainant 3 “was not wrong to think that [Student 2] could cause people to dislike him.”
Officer 1 said that Complainant 3 was unable to provide specific details about the incidents and
that there were no direct threats to Complainant 3 but Complainant 3 “perceived a lot of threats.”
The Title IX Coordinator informed OCR that she was aware that Complainant 3 was concerned
about Student 2’s friends and fraternity members but she believed the police and the Associate
Provost were providing Complainant 3 support. She further confirmed that the University
Chaplain spoke with the fraternity involved. However, the University did not investigate any of
Complainant 3’s concerns regarding retaliatory harassment by Student 2’s fraternity members or
friends.
Both Complainant 3 and Student 2 withdrew from the University. Complainant 3 submitted his
withdrawal to the University in November 2012. On November 2, 2012, Student 2 was indicted
by a grand jury on sexual assault charges relating to the incident involving Complainant 3. On
December 7, 2012, the Dean of Student Life sent a letter to Student 2 following his indictment
and confirmed that the interim suspension and the terms of the Criminal Trespass Warning
remained in effect until “the matter is resolved.” The District Attorney later dropped the charges
against Student 2. The Dean of Student Life and Vice President of Student Affairs stated that
Student 2 would be required to re-apply to return to the University and would be required to
include a written statement and be interviewed by the Dean of Admissions, Dean of Student Life,
and Chief of Police to determine his fitness to return to the University.
Additional Incidents of Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, and Gender Harassment
According to the Clery Act statistics outlined in the Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education’s Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool, SMU
reported one sex offense - forcible in 2010, two sexual offenses - forcible in 2011 and five sexual
offenses - forcible in 2012 on its Main Campus.
OCR reviewed the fifty complaint files SMU produced in response to OCR’s request for all
sexual and gender harassment and sexual assault complaints or grievances filed by current or
former students during the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years:







15 of the complaints involved allegations of sexual assault or sexual violence;
1 of the complaints involved an allegation of gender harassment;
22 of the complaints involved allegations of peer-on-peer harassment;
16 of the complaints involved allegations concerning harassment by faculty or staff;
22 of the complaints had some SMU police involvement; and
12 of the complaints resulted in a hearing through the University’s grievance procedure.

OCR observed that some of the files included a “Complaint/Inquiry Record Form,” which
identified who filed the complaint, the basis, the individuals involved, and the disposition. Only
twelve of the fifty files included these forms. When OCR inquired as to the purpose of this form,

 Page 15 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

the Associate General Counsel informed OCR that the Title IX Coordinator developed the form
to be used in all complaint investigations; however, OCR found that the form was not
consistently used. When the file included the form, it was often incomplete. In reviewing the
complaints and grievances provided by SMU, OCR observed that the files generally did not
include any written complaints or other documents initiating an investigation. In addition, several
complaint files were incomplete (e.g., only a single document was included in the file).
The files further revealed that when SMU conducted an investigation, the University did not
routinely issue specific findings or maintain witness statements or notes of conversations. Many
files did not show that complainants were offered interim remedies in all cases. In several
instances involving both complaints against students and against faculty/staff, the files did not
indicate that the complaining party was notified of the disposition. In one case, when the
University received a report from a student that she had a “quid pro quo” relationship with a
male professor, the University took steps to remove the professor from campus; however, the
investigative file did not provide any information to indicate whether the student was notified of
the disposition or provided any individual remedies, such as counseling or academic support.
Further, OCR observed that in several situations of student-on-student harassment, SMU’s
response appeared to be limited to talking to the students, referring the students to counseling
services, and/or issuing no-contact orders, unless the student filed a complaint with the
University Conduct Board.
D.

SMU Task Force on Sexual Misconduct Policies and Procedures

On September 28, 2012, the SMU President created the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct
Policies and Procedures to “re-examine the University’s procedures and policies related to sexual
misconduct.” The twenty members of the Task Force included the Title IX Coordinator,
representatives from Student Affairs and Residence Life, the Director of Counseling, faculty
members, undergraduate and graduate students, alumni, SMU trustees, community leaders, and
representatives from the Dallas County District Attorney’s office. The Task Force invited
feedback from sexual misconduct complainants and respondents who had cases reviewed
through the University student conduct process, as well as from campus and external
constituents, including law enforcement and community resource agencies. During meetings, the
Task Force heard from a variety of students and alumni regarding their perspectives and
concerns about the issues of sexual assault and harassment on campus.
The Task Force issued its report and recommendations on April 22, 2013. The Task Force found
that SMU has a strong commitment to and procedures for helping students report sexual
misconduct and obtain needed assistance and resources in dealing with issues of sexual
misconduct. The Report included 41 recommendations concerning the following categories:
sexual misconduct reporting, marketing and communication, Title IX policies, the student
conduct process and Student Code of Conduct, accountability, and education and training.
The Task Force’s recommendations regarding sexual misconduct reporting asked the University
to provide clear information about internal and external support services available to the campus
community in the event of sexual misconduct. The Task Force further recommended that the
University explicitly define confidential and non-confidential campus resources and inform
students that any sexual misconduct reported to a non-confidential resource must be referred to

 Page 16 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

the Title IX Coordinator. The recommendations included permitting anonymous reporting of
sexual misconduct and allowing students to request anonymity. In addition, the Task Force
recommended encouraging complainants to undergo a health assessment by a Sexual Assault
Nurse Examiner (SANE); encouraging students to report sexual misconduct to the SMU Police
Department or other law enforcement agency; funding after-hours counselors and/or publicizing
the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center; ensuring that adequate resources are provided to the SMU
Health Center for specially trained and dedicated sexual assault counselors and to the SMU
Police Department for specialized training for police officers; creating a pocket-sized card for all
SMU employees with information about how to support students who report sexual misconduct;
and creating a checklist for staff members who may meet with a student to outline their rights
and the resources available. Similarly, the Task Force’s recommendations concerning marketing
and communication recommended the University develop a comprehensive print and online
publication that addresses sexual misconduct prevention and resources and develop an
outreach/marketing team through the Health Education Office to coordinate further efforts to
publicize information on campus resources and support.
The Task Force’s recommendations regarding the University’s Title IX Policies recommended
that Interim University Policy 2.5.1 become permanent policy, the University enhance its efforts
to educate students about the Title IX Coordinator’s role, and the University ensure that neither
the Title IX Coordinator nor the Deputy Title IX Coordinators directly oversee the student
conduct process. With regard to the student conduct process, the Task Force recommended that
the language in the Student Code of Conduct preamble be more accessible and conversational;
the SMU sexual misconduct policy be a separate section of the Student Code of Conduct; the
Student Code of Conduct indicate that amnesty for alcohol and drug violations may be extended
to students in sexual misconduct cases; the policy affirm that the University may serve as the
complainant in the conduct process; the University review the definition of consent in other
conduct codes and make appropriate changes; and the sexual misconduct policy forbid retaliation
against the complainant and others involved in the reporting. Further, the Task Force
recommended the University take clear steps to address the possibility of retaliation and
adjudicate any retaliatory behavior immediately. The Task Force recommended ensuring that
students understand the difference between pursuing a sexual misconduct case through the
University conduct process and through a criminal process and their option to pursue both or
either process. With regard to hearing boards, the Task Force recommended that the University
continue to use hearing boards, and the complainant and the respondent be treated fairly
throughout the process. The Task Force further recommended that the University should
continue to use the multidisciplinary teams currently in place to determine whether the
respondent should be removed from campus and whether any temporary action should be taken
to protect the complainant prior to the formal disciplinary hearing.
With regard to accountability, the Task Force recommended mobilizing its internal auditing
department to monitor compliance with Title IX and OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter and
establishing regular communication between the University and the District Attorney’s office,
local law enforcement agencies, and local service providers. In education and training, the Task
Force recommended the student body adopt a new SMU Values Statement; the Residential
Commons leadership develop a mandatory citizenship program for first year students; the
University review and evaluate all current sexual misconduct prevention education and training

 Page 17 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

programs; the student leaders’ training emphasize their importance as role models in fostering
positive values and developing a culture that does not tolerate sexual misconduct; the definitions
of consent, sexual misconduct and sexual assault be reviewed with incoming students during
orientation and during other training programs; the University initiate mentorship programs; the
University develop a bystander intervention program; and the University educate parents of
incoming students.
On May 6, 2013, the SMU President accepted all of the Task Force’s recommendations. The
Task Force Report and the President’s acceptance of the recommendations are both published on
the University’s website.7
E. Revised Grievance Procedures
During the course of OCR’s investigation, SMU revised its Title IX grievance procedures.
University Policy 2.5.1, Interim Title IX Harassment, replaced the previous policy (Policy 2.5)
and became effective January 13, 2013.
SMU provided notice to all students and employees of the revised grievance procedures by
publishing University Policy 2.5.1 on its website.8 The policy is also available on the Office of
Institutional Access and Equity website, under the Policies and Procedures subheading.9 In
addition, SMU maintains a page on its website entitled, Live Responsibly Health & Safety
Information & Resources, which includes specific information concerning sexual misconduct,
such as a poster/handout about resources for victims of sexual assault, a link to the revised
policies, and the contact information for the Title IX Coordinator.10
University Policy 2.5.1 addresses Title IX harassment complaints, including gender-based
harassment and sexual assault/sexual violence complaints and applies to complaints alleging
discrimination or harassment carried out by students, staff, faculty, applicants, all other members
of the SMU community, and visitors participating in the educational activities or programs of the
University. The policy provides notice concerning where to file a complaint, and identifies the
Title IX Coordinator and four Deputy Title IX Coordinators, along with their names, titles, office
addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses.
University Policy 2.5.1 allows both the complainant and respondent timely access to information
used and presented at the hearing; requires that all records of Title IX harassment complaints and
the investigation and internal adjudication be maintained by the Office of Institutional Access
and Equity; includes assurances that the University will take steps to prevent recurrence of
harassment and to correct its discriminatory effects, if appropriate; and includes a range of
potential remedies and sanctions. The procedures include definitions of “gender-based
harassment,” “sex discrimination,” “sexual harassment,” and “sexual violence,” including a nonexhaustive list of examples of impermissible harassment. Further, the procedures address
7

https://sites.smu.edu/dea/LiveResponsibly/PDFs/TaskForceReport.pdf.
http://www.smu.edu/IAE/PoliciesandProcedures/2-5-1%20Interim%20Title%20IX%20Harassment.
9
http://smu.edu/aao.
10
http://smu.edu/smunews/liveresponsibly/default.asp.
8

 Page 18 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

confidentiality and notify the complainant that the University will investigate allegations of
sexual harassment but that a desire for anonymity may hinder the University’s investigation of
the complaint.
Pursuant to the revised grievance procedures, the complaint must be reported within 180
calendar days of the date of the act or if the person believes that he or she is being subjected to
recurring instances or patterns of Title IX harassment, within 30 days of the date of the last
incident. Further, the Title IX Coordinator must interview the complainant and respondent
separately within 10 days of receipt of the complaint, conclude her investigation within 20 days
of receipt of the complaint, and prepare a written report within 10 days of the conclusion of the
investigation. For complaints filed against students, within 10 days of receiving this request, the
Office of the Dean of Student Life must refer the complaint to the University Conduct Review
Process. The procedures provide timeframes for providing information to the complainant and
respondent throughout the hearing; however, the procedures do not indicate that the hearing will
be concluded within a certain period of time.
The revised procedures also prohibit retaliation; offer the complainant and respondent equal
opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence; use a preponderance of the evidence
standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred); allow the
investigation to continue even if a criminal investigation or proceeding is pending; provide that
the University may take interim steps to protect the students involved; provide for Title IX
training for all individuals involved in the hearing process; permit the presence of attorneys or
representatives for the complainant and respondent at a hearing; provide for written notice of the
outcome to the complainant and respondent; and include an appeal procedure for both parties.
The procedures address the “sequencing of criminal investigations of allegations of sexual
violence” and provide that the complainant may simultaneously pursue a criminal complaint with
the appropriate law enforcement agency and file a complaint for Title IX harassment with the
Title IX Coordinator.
The procedures provide that the final decision is subject to the discretionary review of the
University President. The President’s review includes the power to “take any action deemed
appropriate, including reversing, amending, or remanding with instructions” and the power of
review is “not limited in any way.”
The procedures do not include specific notice that the parties may end the informal process and
begin the formal process at any time, do not specifically address conflicts of interest, and do not
specifically disallow evidence of past relationships.
F. Training and Outreach
The Office of Institutional Access and Equity offers two online training tutorials concerning
sexual harassment: Preventing Sexual Harassment Tutorial and Preventing Workplace
Discrimination Tutorial. Both trainings are available to faculty, staff, students and members of
the public with separate links for individuals to select “faculty,” “supervisory,” “nonsupervisory,” “student,” or “guest.” The Preventing Sexual Harassment Tutorial includes
training for first-time users and a refresher course. The Title IX Coordinator informed OCR that

 Page 19 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

she is responsible for the online and in-person training programs on discrimination laws. The
University requires that all new employees complete this training.11
In addition, the University provides training on sexual misconduct to all incoming students
during its new student orientation program. The University currently provides training on sexual
misconduct for leaders of all student organizations and, following Complainant 3’s notice of the
alleged sexual assault during the fall 2012 semester, a staff member from legal affairs and a staff
member from student affairs visited all of the fraternities and sororities on campus and discussed
harassment and provided examples of prohibited conduct. The SMU Police Department
developed a pamphlet to provide to individuals reporting sexual assault or sexual violence, which
includes information about their rights under Title IX and resources for counseling and other
services.
As noted above, the University established a website, Live Responsibly, Health & Safety
Information & Resources, which provides a link to University Policy 2.5.1; contact information
for campus resources, such as the SMU Police, the Title IX Coordinator, the Office of
Psychological Services for Women and Gender Issues, Counseling and Psychiatric Services, the
Chaplain’s Office, the Office of Institutional Access and Equity, the Office of the Dean of
Student Life, the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center, and a description of the services each provides;
contact information for “Giddy-Up,” which offers free rides on campus from 9:00 p.m. – 3:00
a.m., and “SMU Rides,” which provides service to campus with an SMU ID; information on
SMU’s Sexual Harassment Assault and Rape Prevention Program (SHARP), which is designed
to help students, faculty and staff defend themselves against physical attacks and sexual assault;
and multiple pamphlets and posters on what to do in case of sexual assault.
On February 21, 2014, SMU announced the creation of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center
for Victims of Crimes Against Women at the SMU Dedman School of Law, which will assist
victims of domestic violence, sex trafficking, and other crimes against women.
On March 4, 2014, SMU Counsel informed OCR that the Student Senate recently initiated a
“Not on My Campus” campaign against sexual assaults in the SMU Community. The student-led
movement asks students to sign a pledge to uphold five statements: (1) drunken sex is not
consensual; (2) students will step up; (3) students will speak out; (4) students will not be
bystanders; and (5) students will not let friends become rape victims. In September 2014, SMU
joined a national campaign called “It’s On Us,” which asks all members of the university
community to take responsibility to prevent sexual assault and create an environment in which
sexual assault is unacceptable. On October 27, 2014, the SMU Student Senate sponsored an “It’s
On Us” signing day.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
OCR concluded that the University did not provide a prompt and equitable response to
Complainant 1’s complaint of gender harassment. While SMU University Policy 2.5 was in
place at the time for complaints of sexual harassment, the grievance procedures did not make any
11

See https://www.smu.edu/BusinessFinance/HR/LearningAndDevelopment/TotalOrientationProcess.

 Page 20 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

reference to gender-based harassment and were incomplete, as no policy was in place to conduct
a formal proceeding at the time Complainant 1 filed her complaint. As a result, the complaint
processing was delayed approximately four months while the Faculty Committee drafted the new
procedures. Moreover, Complainant 1 was not provided a copy of these procedures or informed
that the Committee’s decision was only a recommendation to the University President and not a
final University decision. OCR notes that SMU ultimately responded to Complainant 1’s
complaint, held a hearing where both parties were allowed to present evidence, and informed
both Complainant 1 and the respondent in writing of the outcome of the hearing and the
President’s review. OCR also noted that the University took several remedial actions in response
to Complainant 1’s complaint, including requiring Title IX sexual harassment training for the
Professor and placing a letter of reprimand in his employment file; however, Complainant 1 was
not notified of the actions taken by the Law School. OCR further determined that the evidence
did not support a conclusion that Complainant 1was subjected to a gender-based hostile
environment. The Professor’s comments, while offensive to Complainant 1 and “objectionable
and unprofessional” in the University’s view, were not sufficiently serious to limit Complainant
1’s ability to participate in or benefit from the University’s education program.
For Complainant 3, the SMU police promptly investigated the assault and arrested Student 2, but
the University did not conduct a separate investigation under Title IX and did not make any
determination as to whether Complainant 3 was subjected to a sexually hostile environment.
OCR found that the University removed and suspended Student 2 from campus and issued him a
no-contact letter within three days of receiving notice of the alleged harassment; offered
Complainant 3 counseling and a housing change as requested; notified Complainant 3’s
professors and requested leniency regarding his assignments; and later granted Complainant 3’s
request for a withdrawal. However, the evidence established that Complainant 3 reported to
SMU on multiple occasions that other students were harassing him with threatening and taunting
comments, text messages, phone calls and visits to his room, and that the University did not
investigate these concerns and instead advised Complainant 3 to contact the police if he felt
concerned for his safety. OCR determined that the University did not provide a prompt and
equitable response to Complainant 3’s complaint under Title IX and that there was sufficient
evidence to support a conclusion that Complainant 3 was subjected to a sexually hostile
environment as a result of the sexual assault and that he continued to be subjected to a sexually
hostile environment as a result of the University’s inadequate response to his reports of
retaliatory harassment.
Additionally, in reviewing SMU’s handling of other complaints filed under the former grievance
procedure in the 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years, OCR observed that the
file documentation did not support that the University provided prompt and equitable responses
to the harassment complaints and reports. Many complaint files were incomplete, lacking
information about whether and how the University responded to the complaints and reports. The
files generally did not include the written complaint or other documents initiating an
investigation. Files did not include the University’s specific findings or indicate that the
University provided notice of the outcome of its investigation to both parties or offered interim
remedies to complainants. Files also lacked documentation of witness statements or interview
notes.

 Page 21 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

OCR also determined that neither former University Policy 2.5 nor revised interim University
Policy 2.5.1 conform to Title IX requirements. While SMU had grievance procedures for
complaints of sexual harassment in University Policy 2.5, OCR found that the grievance
procedures did not make any reference to gender-based harassment or other forms of sex
discrimination. In addition, the procedures were incomplete, as no policy was in place to conduct
a formal proceeding at the time Complainant 1 filed her complaint.
OCR concluded that the University’s current grievance procedures (Policy 2.5.1) address Title
IX harassment complaints, including gender-based harassment and sexual assault/sexual violence
complaints. University Policy 2.5.1 provides for many of the procedures outlined in OCR’s Dear
Colleague Letter to ensure the grievance procedures are prompt and equitable. Specifically, the
policy provides notice to students and employees of the procedures and where complaints may
be filed, applies to harassment carried out by employees, students or third parties, provides for
written notice to the parties of the outcome of the complaint and any appeal, provides adequate
definitions of sexual harassment, prohibits retaliation, and sets the evidentiary standard as
preponderance of the evidence. However, University Policy 2.5.1 gives the President unrestricted
authority to review all student conduct decisions, without any reference to Title IX or assurances
that the review will comply with Title IX. In addition, the procedures do not provide reasonably
designated timeframes for the appeal process, which is a major stage in the complaint process, or
include specific notice that the parties may end the informal process and begin the formal
process at any time. The procedures also do not specifically address conflicts of interest or
specifically disallow evidence of past relationships.
Based on the above, OCR concluded that that SMU did not provide prompt and equitable
responses to gender-based harassment and sexual harassment/sexual violence complaints, reports
and/or other incidents of which it had notice, and thereby SMU failed to comply with the Title
IX regulation, at 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.9(a) and 106.31.
OCR also found that while SMU has designated an employee, the Associate Vice President for
Access and Equity, as its Title IX Coordinator, the University’s notice of nondiscrimination does
not include contact information for its Title IX Coordinator. Thus, OCR concluded that the
University failed to properly notify students and employees of the Title IX Coordinator pursuant
to 34 C.F.R. § 106.9(a).
As noted above, the University requested to resolve these complaint investigations with a
voluntary resolution agreement. The provisions of the resolution agreement are aligned with the
complaint allegations, the information obtained during the investigation, and are consistent with
applicable regulations.
Under the terms of the enclosed voluntary Agreement, the University will:


Revise and, following OCR review and approval, implement and publicize its Title IX
grievance procedures related to sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, gender
harassment, and sexual violence, to comply with Title IX. The University’s revisions will
clearly state the applicable timeframes for investigation and appeal of sexual harassment
complaints, require that the President’s review of any decisions comply with Title IX and

 Page 22 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner















make clear that parties are aware that they may end informal resolution and proceed to a
formal proceeding at any time;
Notify students and employees of the University’s Title IX Coordinators and their contact
information in its nondiscrimination notice, as well as in other publications and notices;
Develop and implement a comprehensive system for tracking reports, investigations,
interim measures, and resolutions that may constitute sexual or gender-based harassment;
Develop and implement a procedure for sharing information between the SMU Police
Department and the Title IX Coordinator;
Implement the Task Force Recommendations as specified and report to OCR on their
ongoing implementation;12
Train staff and students on the revised University policies and procedures to ensure that
the University community understands the University’s obligations under Title IX and
provide instruction on recognizing and appropriately addressing allegations and
complaints of sex discrimination, including an explanation of the differences between
sexual harassment, gender harassment, and sexual assault;
Develop additional resources for students to advise them of their rights pursuant to Title
IX, including a new brochure for students that will contain an explanation about what
constitutes sex discrimination and gender discrimination, including harassment, and
information regarding the University’s grievance procedures;
Conduct annual climate assessments of the effectiveness of steps taken pursuant to this
Agreement, including the Task Force Recommendations incorporated into the
Agreement, and use the information gathered during these climate checks to inform
future proactive steps to be taken by the University to provide for a safe and supportive
educational environment;
Review the sexual harassment/violence complaints filed and reports made of sexual
harassment/violence during and since academic year 2012-2013 to determine whether the
University investigated each complaint or report promptly and equitably and, following
OCR review and approval of the University’s proposed response, take action to address
any problems identified in the manner in which these complaints were handled; and,
Provide to Complainant 3 reimbursement for all University-related expenses for the fall
2012 semester and counseling expenses incurred from September 23, 2012 through the
date of execution of the Resolution Agreement.

The University entered into the Agreement on November 16, 2014. OCR will monitor
implementation of the Agreement. If the University fails to implement the Agreement, OCR may
initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the specific terms and
obligations of the Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9,
100.10), or judicial proceedings to enforce the Agreement, OCR shall give the University written
notice of the alleged breach and a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged
breach.
12

The Agreement does not require implementation of all of the Task Force Recommendations. For example, the
Task Force recommended that students continue to serve on hearing boards, including for sexual misconduct cases.
Although Title IX does not dictate the membership of a hearing board, OCR discourages schools from allowing
students to serve on hearing boards in cases involving allegations of sexual violence. See
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf.

 Page 23 – Dr. R. Gerald Turner

This concludes OCR’s investigation of the complaint and should not be interpreted to address the
University’s compliance with any other regulatory provision or to address any issues other than
those addressed in this letter. The complainants may file a private suit in Federal court whether
or not OCR finds a violation.
This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formal
statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR’s
formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to
the public.
Please be advised that the University may not harass, coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against
any individual because he or she has filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution
process. If this happens, the harmed individual may file a complaint alleging such treatment. A
complainant may have the right to file a private suit in Federal court, whether or not OCR finds a
violation.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related
correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will
seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if
released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
We appreciate the University’s cooperation during the preliminary investigation and resolution
of the complaints. If you have any questions about this letter or OCR’s resolution of this case,
please contact Emily Babb, the attorney assigned to the complaint, at (214) 661-9677, or Justin
T. Evans, Supervisory Attorney, at (214) 661-9600. We look forward to receiving the
University’s monitoring report by March 2, 2015.
Sincerely,

/s/
Taylor D. August
Regional Director