UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
915 2ND AVE., SUITE 3310
SEATTLE, WA 98174-1099

February 21, 2017

REGIONX
ALASKA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
HAWAII
IDAHO
MONTANA
NEVADA
NORTHERN
MARIANA
ISLANDS
OREGON
WASHINGTON

Via U.S. Mail and E-Mail

James R. Johnsen
President
University of Alaska System
P.O. Box 755000
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5000
Re:

Case No. 10-14-6001
University of Alaska System

Dear President Johnsen:
This letter is to advise you of the resolution of the above-referenced compliance review that was
initiated by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education (the Department),
involving the University of Alaska System (the System). The compliance review examined the
System's handling of complaints and reports of sexual harassment, including sexual violence,
to determine if the System responded promptly and effectively, with particular emphasis on
complaints of sexual assault.
OCR is responsible for enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), as
amended, 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 any education program or activity receiving
financial assistance from the Department. The System offers education programs and activities
and receives financial assistance from the Department and is therefore a recipient subject to
Title IX.

The System
Alaska has a state-wide system of public higher education. A board of regents governs the
System, and the president of the System serves as the board of regents' chief executive officer.
The System's three universities are University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), University of
Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), and University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) in Juneau (the state capital).
UAA, UAF and UAS each has a main campus and various other satellite campuses across the
state. Each university is led by a chancellor who reports directly to the System president.

The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
l-VWW-.ed.gov

 Page 2 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
The board of regents has issued for use by the System the Regents' Policy and University
Regulation, which includes policies and regulations relevant to complying with Title IX (BOR
Rules). 1 During its investigation, OCR also found policies and practices unique to particular
campuses. Drawing npon a definition found in the BOR Rules (P.01.03.990 at G), this letter will
use the term "System" to refer to "the public universities and community colleges of the State of
Alaska referenced collectively as a system of higher education," with the intent to be inc!nsive
of the universities and other units. In contrast, this letter will use "university," "campus,"
"college," or other similar term to refer only to that particular unit.
At the beginning of the 2015-16 academic year, System-wide there were approximately 30,500
full-time and part-time students. 2
Legal Standards

The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31, provides generally that, except as
provided elsewhere in the regulation, "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 ...
education program or activity" operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
Sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited
by Title IX. 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. Sexual
harassment of a student creates 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 or activity.
OCR considers a variety of related factors to determine if a sexually hostile environment has
been created and considers the conduct in question from both an objective and a subjective
perspective. Factors examined include the degree to which the misconduct affected one or more
students' education; the type, frequency, and duration of the misconduct; the identity of and
relationship between the alleged harasser and the subject of the harassment; the number of
individuals involved; the age and sex of the alleged harasser and the subject of the harassment;
the size of the university, location of the incidents, and the context in which they occurred; and
other incidents at the university. The more severe the conduct, the less the need to show a
repetitive series of incidents.
Once a recipient knows or reasonably should know of possible sexual harassment, Title IX
requires a recipient to take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise
1

The BOR Rules are divided into policy sections and regulation sections. Cites to the policy sections begin with a
"P" and cites to the regulation sections begin with a "R."
2

University of Alaska Institutional Research, Planning and Analysis: UA in Review 2016, p. l l, available at
http://www.alaska.edu/s wbir/ir/reports/ua-i n-review/uar2015/UAR-20 16-Final. pdf.

 Page 3 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
determine what occurred; and if the conduct occurred, whether it created a hostile environment
for the harassed student(s) and for others. If an investigation reveals that sexual harassment
created a hostile environment, a recipient must take prompt and effective steps reasonably
calculated to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment, prevent the harassment
from recurring and, as appropriate, remedy its effects. 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.
The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a), requires each recipient to
designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry ont its
responsibilities under the regulation implementing Title IX (Title IX coordinator), including
investigation of any complaint communicated to the recipient alleging any actions which would
be prohibited by the regulation implementing Title IX. And the regulation implementing
Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b), requires that a recipient adopt and publish grievance
procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee
complaints alleging any action prohibited by the regulation implementing Title IX. Finally, the
regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9, requires each recipient to implement
specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for admission and employment, students and
parents of elementary and secondary school students, employees, sources of referral of applicants
for admission and employment, 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 any educational program or activity which it operates, and that it is required by
Title IX and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106 not to discriminate in such a
tnanner.

These regulatory provisions are discussed in more detail below.
Summary

For the reasons briefly stated here and discussed further in this letter, OCR determined that the
System violated Title IX with respect its response to sexual harassment complaints, including
complaints of sexual assault and sexual violence. OCR reviewed a number of cases processed
under a former student grievance procedure. The former grievance procedure provided
numerous rights only to student respondents and, as written, violated the Title IX requirement of
providing an equitable procedure. The System's processing of cases under that former grievance
procedure thus led to inequitable resolutions that violated Title IX. In addition, OCR determined
that certain investigations were not prompt and the System failed to assess and address hostile
environment. The System implemented revised grievance procedures during OCR' s
investigation, but OCR has identified deficiencies in them, primarily due to several inconsistent
or unclear provisions. OCR also identified violations with the System's notices of nondiscrimination.

 Page 4. OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
During the compliance review, OCR received documents from the System and also reviewed
information posted on the System and university or college websites. 3 OCR interviewed the
System's Title IX liaison. In addition, at the university level, OCR interviewed various
personnel, including personnel at Kuskokwim, Ketchikan, and Sitka campuses, past and present
Title IX coordinators, Title IX investigators, deans and associate deans of students, directors of
student conduct, directors and employees of Residence Life, chiefs of university police
departments, coordinators for Alaska Native and Rural Outreach Programs, coordinators for
student and Greek Life, and former judicial board members. OCR interviewed a total of 59 staff,
with key personnel interviewed more than once. OCR reviewed the System's handling of
indi vi dual complaints of sexual harassment made between academic years 201 1-12, 2012-13,
2013-14 and 2014-15. OCR also conducted 17 on-site focus group sessions with various
students, as well as listening sessions with distance learners.
On February 17, 2017, the System signed a resolution agreement to address violations and
concerns identified as part of OCR' s compliance review.
This letter summarizes OCR' s findings.

Designation and Notice of a Title IX Coordinator
Each recipient must designate at least one employee as a Title IX coordinator to coordinate its
efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under the regulation implementing
Title IX. 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a). The regulation also requires each recipient to notify all of its
students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or
employees so designated. A Title IX coordinator must be knowledgeable about what constitutes
sexual harassment, including sexual violence, and how the recipient's grievance procedures
operate.
Data from the System reflect that in 2011, UAA and UAS had Title IX coordinators, and UAF
appointed a Title IX coordinator in 2012. UAA appointed a new Title IX coordinator in June
2015, and UAS appointed a new coordinator in January 2016. UAF's Director of Diversity &
Equal Opportunity appointed the Title IX coordinator in 2012, but the Director then took over
the role in January 2014. In July 2016, UAF appointed an interim coordinator. As of September
2016, the coordinators at UAA and UAS had received training; the individual serving as interim
coordinator at UAF had served as a Title IX investigator since October 2014 and completed
additional training as of October 2016.
In February 2016, the System designated a Title IX liaison whose responsibilities included
gathering information pertaining to Title IX and relaying that information to the System
president. In May 2016, when OCR interviewed the liaison, he reported that he had not received
training in Title IX. His contact information was posted on the System's website.

3

Unless otherwise specified, OCR last reviewed relevant web pages as of September 26, 2016, and all references to
\vcb-accessible infonnation are as of that date.

 Page 5 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
OCR notes that, on February 9, 2017, the System appointed a Chief Title IX Officer. This
individual "has primary responsibility for coordinating the [System's] efforts to comply with
and carry out its responsibilities under Title IX." The position description listed education
requirements of a "master's degree" in a relevant discipline, as well as a minimum of five years
of experience in a higher education environment, including "demonstrated knowledge of/or
professional experience related to Title IX." The Chief Title IX Officer is to report directly
to the System's president and take over the duties of the former Title IX liaison.

Notice of Non-Discrimination
Each recipient must implement specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for admission
and employment, stndents, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and
employment, 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
any educational program or activity which it operates, and that it is required by Title IX and its
implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106 not to discriminate in such a manner. 34 C.F.R. §
106.9(a). Such notification shall state at least that the requirement not to discriminate in any
education program or activity extends to employment therein, and to admission thereto, unless
Subpart C does not apply to the recipient, and that inquiries concerning the application of
Title IX to such recipient may be referred to the employee designated pursuant to§ 106.8, or
to OCR's Assistant Secretary. Section 106.9(b) requires each recipient to include the notice of
non-discrimination in each announcement, bulletin, catalog, or application form which it makes
available to the types of persons described in§ 106.9(a), or which is otherwise used in
connection with the recruitment of students or employees.
The System has a notice of nondiscrimination (POI.02.020). It is published on the System's
website, but OCR has no evidence it is published in print publications. This notice states that
discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited. It does not identify a Title IX coordinator or
OCR as contact points for issues involving Title IX compliance. Moreover, it does not mention
expressly that the requirement not to discriminate extends to applicants and employees.
Each of the three universities has its own notice of nondiscrimination. All three notices properly
identify each university's Title IX coordinator and OCR. Both the UAA and UAS notices fail to
mention that the requirement not to discriminate extends to applicants, and the UAA notice fails
to mention expressly that the requirement not to discriminate extends to employees. The UAF
notice is published online, but it has not been included prominently in print publications.
Many of the satellite campuses also have their own separate notices of nondiscrimination.
UAA's Kodiak College had a notice that identified OCR and the UAA Title IX coordinator
and extended its prohibition of discrimination to applicants for employment and admissions,
but it was not published in print publications. UAA's Prince William Sound College's notice
that was published in its print publications, as well as the notices for Matanuska-Susitna and
Kenai Peninsula College, did not specify that the nondiscrimination provision extended to
applicants for admission and employment. For four of UAF's satellite campuses, OCR received

 Page 6 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
no evidence from the System and could not find evidence that the notice was published in print
publications. Likewise, for UAF's Kuskokwim Campus, OCR did not receive any evidence
from the System and was unable to locate a notice of nondiscrimination on the Kuskokwim
campus website. The print publications for the Kuskokwim campus that OCR located did
not mention that the prohibition on discrimination applies to employees and applicants for
employment and admission. UAS's two satellite campuses use the same notice described
above; OCR received no evidence that they published the notice of nondiscrimination in print
publications.
OCR determined that the System is in violation of Title IX and its implementing regulation at
34 C.F.R. § 106.9. The notices used and distributed by the System and its various units did not
comply with the requirements of Title IX.
Grievance Procedures

A recipient must adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable
resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action prohibited by the regulation
implementing Title IX. 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b). The following elements are necessary to achieve
compliance with Title IX: (a) notice to students and employees of the procedures, including
where complaints may be filed, that is easily understood, easily located, and widely distributed;
(b) application of the procedures to complaints alleging discrimination or harassment carried out
by employees, students, and third parties; (c) adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation,
including an equal opportunity to present witnesses and evidence; (d) designated and reasonably
prompt timeframes for major stages of the grievance process; (e) notice to parties of the outcome
and any appeal; and, (f) an assurance that the recipient will take steps to prevent further
harassment and to correct its discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate.
The regulation implementing Title IX does not require a recipient to provide separate grievance
procedures for sexual harassment complaints; however, a recipient's grievance procedures for
handling discrimination complaints must comply with the prompt and equitable requirements of
the regulation implementing Title IX. Recipients should ensure that complainants are aware of
their Title IX rights and any available resources, such as counseling services, and their right to
file a complaint with local law enforcement.
Title IX prohibits a recipient 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. 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e)
(incorporated by reference through 34 C.F.R. § 106.71). Prohibited retaliatory acts include
intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination against any such individual. When a recipient
knows or reasonably should know of possible retaliation by student or third parties, it must
take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate or otherwise determine what happened.

 Page 7 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
A recipient must ensure that complainants know how to report any subsequent problems
aud should follow up with such individuals to determine whether any retaliation or new
incidents of harassment have occurred.
Throughout the period of OCR' s investigation, the System represented that it had chosen to use
one set of grievance procedures across all of its campuses. Specifically, the System identified
to OCR sections of the BOR Rules as comprising the written procedures for the processing of
sexual harassment complaints, including those alleging sexual violence. During the course of
OCR's review, the System revised aspects of the BOR Rules.
Current Rules

The BOR Rules include a part entitled Mission and General Provisions. According to Title IX
coordinators, this part is to apply broadly and be read in conjunction with all other sections of
the BOR Rules; the part includes a chapter on General Provisions, which in turn has a section
entitled Nondiscrimination and Title IX Compliance (PO 1.02.020, revised as of September 18,
2015 (General Provisions)). According to the System, complaints against employees are
governed by chapter 04.02 General Personnel Policies (last revised September 9, 2014), and
chapter 04.08 Dispute and Grievance Resolution (last revised March 2, 2015) (together, Human
Resources Procedures). Complaints against students are governed by 09.01 Student Affairs:
General Provisions (last revised December 12, 2014) and 09.02 Student Rights and
Responsibilities (last revised December 15, 2015) (together, Student Conduct Code or Code).
Notably, the System takes the position that the three sections of the BOR Rules are compliant
with Title IX when read together, but that they are "cumbersome." Title IX coordinators at the
universities also reported to OCR that the multiple, intersecting procedures caused confusion
among staff.
•

General Provisions

This section offers an assurance that the institution will take steps to prevent recurrence of
harassment and to correct its effects on the complainant and others. There is a "commitment
to respond appropriately to sexual harassment and sexual violence, in accordance with" Title IX,
as well as other state and federal law. The System and its administrators are identified as
responsible "for a campus educational and workplace climate free from discrimination and
intimidation based on sex." The section affirms that the System will respond appropriately
to sexual harassment and sexual violence.
•

Human Resources Procedures

Chapter 04.02 has two parts: General Personnel Policies, which is a series of policy statements,
and General Personnel Regulations, which set forth regulations to implement the policy
statements. The policy part of 04.02 includes a "Discrimination" provision that states the System
will not engage in discrimination on the basis of legally protected categories, among other

 Page 8 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
designations, and that the System will "protect employees and students from discrimination by
agents or employees of the university, students, visitors and guests." It also includes a "Sexual
Harassment" provision, where the System states that it will not tolerate sexual or sexually
harassing behavior and seeks to prevent such conduct, explains the responsibility of faculty
and staff, and commits to providing an environment free from sexual harassment.
In the regulation section outlining the procedures for addressing "Sexual Harassment," sexual
harassment is referred to as "a form of employee or student misconduct," and is defined as
"unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct
of a sexual nature" where: submission is made a condition of employment or education,
submission is used as a factor in making employment or academic decisions, or the conduct
has the purpose or effect of interfering with work or creating a hostile environment and is known
by the offender to be unwelcome, harmful or offensive," or a "person of average sensibilities
would clearly understand the behavior or conduct is unwelcome, harmful or offensive;" sexual
violence is not mentioned expressly as a kind of sexual harassment. No specific steps are
provided as to how the System will take action to prevent recurrence of sexual harassment
that creates a hostile environment and remedy its effects.

The Sexual Harassment section outlines two resolution processes: informal and formal.
Neither procedure addresses providing interim relief, as appropriate, pending the outcome
of an investigation.
The informal process consists of a conversation between the complainant and respondent.
The complainant "generally should try to inform the person directly that his or her behavior is
unwelcome, harmful or offensive;" however, the procedures also allow for the use of a mediator
as an option. The informal process does not include any written reports, sanctions, or witnesses.
The procedures acknowledge that where "informal resolution efforts fail to achieve satisfactory
results, or[ ... ] is inappropriate in consideration of the circumstances or the egregious nature of
the alleged behavior," formal resolution is available to the complainant. The procedures do not
indicate what a "satisfactory result" is, what circumstances indicate informal resolution is
inappropriate, or what would constitute "egregious" behavior.
The formal resolution process "requires an investigation and written findings." Specifically,
investigators "will be designated to conduct a timely investigation to insure an objective review
of the allegations." They gather statements from the complainant, respondent, and witnesses,
which then "become part of a written record for administrative review and action as necessary."
"A copy of the written findings will be distributed to the complainant, the respondent" and
various other administrators.
Complaints under the formal process require that the complainant provide the names of both
parties, their affiliation to the university, and a description of what occurred. The complaint
should also include a history of any previous informal resolution attempts, how the incident
impacted the complainant, and any requested remedies. In resolving a formal complaint, the
investigator must consider the totality of the circumstances and applicable regulatory guidelines.

 Page 9 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Where a preponderance of the evidence supports the complainant's position, the university may
take disciplinary action, which will be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
No timeframes are specified for the info1mal resolution process. For the formal resolution
process, the only timeframes specified concern the following: a party who disputes the written
findings of the investigation report may request a review within five working days of the release
of the findings; a request for a discretionary review must be made within five working days of
that decision, which will be granted within 15 working days; if denied, the decision becomes the
final decision.
Retaliation is addressed in two provisions. The first provision states that all persons "have the
right to complain about any conduct they reasonably believe constitutes sexual harassment.
No university official may take disciplinary or other adverse action against a person who
genuinely but mistakenly believes himself or herself to be harassed, even if the practices
complained of do not, in fact, constitute sexual harassment." The second provision states that
"[t]hreats or other forms of intimidation or retaliation against complainants, respondents,
witnesses or investigators will constitute a violation of this regulation." Neither provision
defines who is a "university official" or explains if the prohibition of threats and other forms
of intimidation applies to everyone or only extends to university officials.
The Human Resources Procedures include Chapter 04.08, entitled Dispute and Grievance
Resolution. According to the System's Title IX Scorecards and metrics, this chapter applies
to sexual harassment. In the regulatory definitions section of Chapter 04.08 (R04.08.60), it states
at D. that "employee" includes student employees and at G.2.a that allegations or findings of
sexual harassment "are governed by alternate processes and can not (sic) be processed under this
chapter."
•

Student Conduct Code

Chapters 09.01 and 09.02 govern the conduct of individual students and all university-affiliated
student organizations; as with the Human Resources Procedures above, they contain policy
statements and regulations. Students and student organizations are "responsible for ensuring
that they and their guests comply with the [Code] while on property owned or controlled by the
university or at activities authorized or sponsored by the university." In addition, the policy
section states that no student acting in good faith will be subject to retaliation for initiating a
request or complaint, or for participating in any proceeding, that is designed to foster compliance
with the regents' policy, university regulation, or other administrative rules and procedures.
The Code, under the heading of "Gender-based or Sexual Misconduct," defines sexual
harassment "as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature where" someone must submit as a condition of employment
or education, someone may suffer retaliation, or the conduct "has the purpose or necessary effect
of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or creating a hostile, intimidating, or
offensive working, living, or learning environment" and the conduct is either "known by the
offender" or "a person of average sensibilities would clearly understand" that the conduct is

 Page 10 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
"unwelcome, harmful, or offensive." The Code identifies various forms of sexual violence as
sexual misconduct.
According to the Code, a Student Conduct Procedure is a "review" undertaken to determine
"whether there is substantial information to determine whether it is more likely than not that
a student violated the Code," and an Administrative Review is "the review process for matters
involving imposition of either a minor or major sanction." Each university is to have appointed
a "senior student services professional experienced in student discipline proceedings" (Senior
Professional) to supervise and implement the "student conduct review process," including
"serving as, or designating, a student conduct administrator to conduct administrative reviews."
The student conduct administrator is tasked with "collect[ing] information, initiat[ing] the
student conduct process, articulat[ing] alleged violations, present[ing] information indicating
whether alleged violations occurred, conduct[ing] administrative reviews, and impos[ing] or
recommend[ing], as applicable, sanctions."
Under the heading "Initiation of a Student Conduct Review," the Code explains that complaints
must be in writing and submitted to the student conduct administrator. Anonymous complaints
are allowed, but without identifying information for the complainant, "the university's ability to
investigate and respond to a complaint" is limited. The Code does not identify any employee
responsible for handling confidential reporting. 4 The student conduct administrator will send the
student written notification that includes the allegations and whether a major or minor sanction is
likely to be imposed should the allegations be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence.
According to a provision entitled "Rights Afforded Students in Student Conduct Proceedings,"
students have the right to due process, have the right not to respond to allegations, may be
accompanied by an advocate of their choice during student conduct proceedings, may have
access to records of their proceedings, and may appeal. A provision entitled "Rights Afforded
Injured Parties During the Student Conduct Process," refers to several measures, including an
"equal opportunity to participate in the student conduct process," with the enumerated right to
"notice of the opportunity to schedule an administrative review separate from the administrative
review held for the respondent," participate in the "student conduct process, including the right
to participate in the administrative review and other meetings, present relevant witnesses and
other evidence," and "comment upon the findings, conclusion, and recommendations of cases
that could result in the imposition of major sanctions." In a provision entitled "General Rules for
Administrative Reviews," it states that "student disciplinary determinations of responsibility are
based on whether substantial evidence establishes that it is more likely than not that the
respondent violated the Code." A provision entitled "Procedures for Administrative Reviews,"
states that the "student(s), if present, will be given the opportunity to present relevant
4
While not in the Code, the System has online and printed resources containing this information. The System's
main \Vebpage has a link to a "Stop the Silence" webpage, which links to each university's Title IX resources. The
Syste1n's main page also has links for confidential resources and a confidential hotline phone number. The System
developed a "Title IX Gender-based and Sex Discrimination" brochure, which lists confidential resources and
telephone numbers. Also, according to staff interviewed, each Title IX office provides a list of campus-specific
confidential and other resources to anyone who inquires.

 Page 11 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
information, names of witnesses, relevant explanations, and/or mitigating factors for the alleged
violation." 5
Timeframes are provided for the following steps: (I) administrative conduct reviews will
ordinarily be scheduled within three and 15 days after written notice of the allegations has
been sent to the student, at times determined by the student conduct administrator; (2) an
administrative review will result in the "preparation of written findings and conclusions within
10 days of the conclusion" of an administrative review; (3) if a major sanction is recommended,
within 10 days of the conclusion of an administrative review, notifications will be sent to the
respondent and complainant, and the record forwarded to the Senior Professional; (4) a
complainant who wants to submit a comment regarding the conclusions of the administrative
review has seven days after the notification is sent out to do so; (5) after receiving the
recommendation regarding the administrative review, the Senior Professional has 14 days,
barring extenuating circumstances, to decide whether to "uphold a decision and/or recommended
sanction" or take other outlined actions; (6) appeals about imposition of or dismissal of
allegations involving minor sanctions go to the Senior Professional, who has seven days from
receipt to "uphold a decision and/or recommended sanction" or take other outlined actions; and
(7) appeals from imposition of major sanctions, as well as appeal from a decision to dismiss an
allegation or impose only a minor sanction, go to the chancellor, who will, barring extenuating
circumstances, render a decision within seven days.
The Code provides that both parties are to receive simultaneous written notice of findings and
conclusions. Alleged victims will be provided "support and assistance options, other remedies,
and the university's responses as required by law." Appeals may be made on several bases,
including that the decision "is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence."
The Code does not specifically address Title IX and does not assert that the institution will take
steps to prevent recurrence of harassment and to correct its effect on the complainant and others,
if appropriate.
Previous Version of the Code

The cases that OCR reviewed arose under a previous version of the Student Conduct Code (Past
Code), which already was in effect at the initiation of OCR' s review and remained in effect until
July 2015. Under the Past Code, a complaint was resolved by determining "whether there [wa]s
substantial information to determine whether it [wa]s more likely than not that a student violated
the [Past] Code." There were two options for review of complaints, including complaints of
sexual harassment and sexual violence, a judicial board hearing or an administrative review, but
both required an initial judicial review to determine what occurred and whether a major sanction
was implicated. This initial process called for a judicial officer or his designee to review
allegations and conduct a preliminary investigation. Once the judicial officer completed this
5

Throughout the Code, the tenn "student" is used to define rights without a clear reference as to whether the student

is the complainant, the respondent, or both. Although the Code does refer lo "injured parties" separately from
"student(s)," the latter term is never preceded by any qualifying language, such as "accused" or "charged."

 Page 12 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
review, he or she informed the respondent through written notification, identifying the relevant
allegations as well as whether a minor or major sanction was likely to be imposed. If the judicial
officer determined that a minor sanction was likely to be imposed, then an administrative review
was initiated. If the judicial officer determined that a major sanction was likely, then the
respondent was allowed to choose between a judicial board hearing or an administrative review.
The administrative review process and the judicial board hearing set fo1th different rights and
opportunities for both parties.
If the respondent chose a judicial board hearing, only the respondent received written notice
of "the names of witnesses, copies of any witnesses' written statements, or other documents on
which the university will rely." The respondent had to submit "the names of witnesses, copies
of any witnesses' written statements, or other documents on which the student will rely." There
was no corresponding right for the complaining student. The respondent had to abide by a no
contact order, requiring that he or she avoid all "contact with judicial board members or alleged
victims involved in the matter, and, where appropriate, limited contact with other individuals
involved with the hearing." The judicial board comprised students, faculty, and staff who might
come from a campus or site other than the one where the respondent was located. Only the
responding student had the opportunity to object to the jndicial board members if he or she
believed that they were biased. Only the respondent could choose whether to have an open or
closed hearing. A closed hearing, the default option, meant that the testimony and hearing was
closed to everyone, including the complainant, except the judicial board members and the
respondent. Regardless of whether the hearing was open or closed, only the respondent could
question all witnesses, present a defense including witnesses, exhibits and information or
mitigating factors supporting his or her position. The judicial board deliberated and then
informed only the respondent of its decision.
If the respondent chose an administrative review, it was a closed proceeding involving only the
review officer and the respondent, though the respondent could invite an advisor to be present.
The respondent could "present information, explanations, and/or mitigating factors for tbe
alleged violation." It was unclear whether the respondent could present witnesses. The Past
Code did not expressly mention an opportunity for the complainant to participate or be present
for an administrative review. There was also no provision for notice regarding the outcome of
the proceeding.

The Past Code provided an appeals process for an accused student who wished to challenge
tbe imposition of minor sanctions. Under the provision addressing appeals of minor sanctions,
one of the bases for appeal was that "the decision is not supported by substantial information."
For matters involving the recommendation of imposing a major sanction, an accused student
was given the opportunity to submit written comments within seven days of the date of the
"findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the administrative review or judicial board
hearing." A senior student services officer would then conduct a review of the record with
14 class days. If the senior student services officer recommended the imposition of a major
sanctions, the chancellor of the university would then conduct a review of the record and render

 Page 13 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
a decision within seven class days. According to the Past Code, the chancellor could "dismiss
the charges, impose a major or minor sanction, or take such action as the chancellor deems
appropriate."
Other Policy Statements

During the investigation, OCR reviewed other policy statements regarding sexual misconduct
that the System did not identify to OCR but that OCR found published by the three universities
and one satellite campus. The statements are summarized below.
In its 2015-16 Academic Catalog, UAA published a Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct
Policy, which stated that gender-based and sexual misconduct are forms of discrimination
because "women are more often victims than men." It stated that gender- and sex-based
discrimination include sexual violence, sexual harassment, domestic violence, dating violence,
and stalking.
In its 2013-14 Academic Catalog, UAA stated that sexual and other kinds of harassment are
against the BOR policy and the Student Code of Conduct. It stated that UAA prohibits gender
discrimination but it did not explicitly state that sexual assault and sexual violence are forms
of sexual harassment.

UAS's 2014-15 Academic Catalog stated that sexual harassment is a form of employee
or student misconduct that is prohibited by Human Resources Procedure 04.02.020.
Kenai Peninsula College has a Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Policy, which states that
sexual harassment involves unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors by a
member of the campus community. Sexual harassment also includes other verbal or physical
conduct related to sex when it has the purpose of or effect of substantially interfering with an
individual's performance at work or study by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment in which to work, live, or learn. The policy states that a sexual assault may be
considered a violation of the UA System's policy against sexual harassment (BOR 4.08.02).
OCR conducted supplemental interviews in May, June, and July 2016 of each university's
personnel responsible for handling sexual harassment complaints. UAA and UAS both stated
that their intent is that complaints of sexual harassment should be processed under the Human
Resources Procedures and the Student Conduct Code. UAA acknowledged, however, that it still
had a former Sexual Offenses Policy on its website that provided procedures for addressing
sexual harassment complaints that were different from the Human Resources Procedures and
both the Code and Past Code. UAF, on the other hand, admitted Residence Life still used its
own procedures for handling sexual harassment complaints it deemed to be "low-level." 6
6

Residence Life has a 2016-2017 Department of Residence Life Housing Handbook that is provided to residents
on the Fairbanks campus. This handbook contains written procedures that apply to incidents of misconduct,
including "gender-based or sexual misconduct." If the incident of misconduct could potentially lead to the
imposition of major sanctions, such as suspension or expulsion, these procedures would not apply and the matter

 Page 14 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001

ANALYSIS
Current Grievance Procedures

OCR finds that the System's notice about its grievance procedures, including where complaints
may be filed, is not easily understood. For instance, the System's Title IX Scorecards state that
a Human Resources Procedures chapter on grievances (04.08) is relevant to sexual harassment,
yet that chapter itself states grievances regarding allegations of or findings that an employee
engaged in sexual harassment are not processed under that section. The chapter instead refers
readers to "alternate processes." If the alleged harasser is a student employee, it is unclear
whether a complaint is to be filed and processed under the Human Resources Procedures
(which refers to sexual harassment as a form of employee or student misconduct, and then
defines students as "employees" only in the grievance section that does not apply to sexual
harassment), under the Code, or under both the Human Resources Procedures and the Code.
The lack of easily understood notice generated by the three relevant BOR Rules is acknowledged
by the System both in university Title IX Scorecards and in interviews with Title IX coordinators
and other employees tasked with addressing sexual harassment and sexual violence. Notice of
what grievance procedures apply also is unclear where the System has not fully and successfully
implemented its central policies and procedures, as evidenced by campuses that have retained old
information or utilized a nonconforming Residential Life process.
OCR finds the System's grievance procedures do not consistently include information regarding
coverage of discrimination or harassment carried out by third parties. The General Provisions
do not address this required element. Although the Human Resources Procedures have a general
statement that the System will protect against discrimination by third parties, the specific
provision addressing sexual harassment states that "[s]exual harassment is a form of employee or
student misconduct" and contains no statements elsewhere applicable to third party harassment.
Finally, the Code applies only to students and student organizations, making them responsible
for the conduct of their guests. Thus, as written, neither the Human Resources Procedures nor
the Code applies to sexual harassment, including sexual violence, carried out by third parties.
In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, mediation is not appropriate even on a voluntary
basis. The Human Resources Procedures, however, refer to an informal process being
inappropriate "in consideration of the circumstances or the egregious nature of the alleged
behavior," which does not clearly prohibit use of the process for all allegations of sexual assault.

would "be referred to the Dean of Students for action." For all other incidents of potential misconduct, the
procedures provide for a Conduct Meeting between the student and a Residence Life staff member. This meeting is
conducted in an informal 1nanner, may consist of multiple sessions, and is closed to the public. The Residence Life
staff me1nber will decide whether or not to hear from potential witnesses. Although there is not explicit language
stating that the Residence Life staff member will hear from the alleged victim, the proceedings are "conducted in a
manner that assures fundamental fairness." Only "[t]he student will receive a written summary of the meeting and
any decisions made." The procedures specify that "the student" will receive a decision "normally within 10

business days" of the end of the proceedings. The procedures also provide for an appeals process.

 Page 15 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Further, with respect to investigations under the Code, one provision addressing only the injured
party specifies the right to present relevant witnesses during the Student Conduct Process, which
is the investigative stage. On the other hand, there is a general reference to the right to present
witnesses under the Procedures for Administrative Reviews, which addresses the rights of
students during the adjudicative stage. The System's enumeration of the right to present
witnesses should be clearly stated so as to give notice of the right to present witnesses for all
students in the grievance process.
The System's grievance procedures do not provide designated and reasonably prompt
timeframes for the major stages of the complaint process. The General Provisions contain no
timeframes. Similarly, neither the informal nor formal process within the Human Resources
Procedures addresses timeframes, except with respect to appeals under the formal process.
Finally, the Code outlines timeframes for some steps in the administrative process, but there
are no identified timeframes for the investigative stage. OCR notes, however, that as of
February 16, 2017, the System's website included a statement that it expects its Title IX
investigation process "will typically be complete in 60-business days."
The General Provisions and the informal process under the Human Resources Procedures do not
state an evidentiary standard, and the formal process under the Human Resources Procedures
uses preponderance of the evidence. The Student Conduct Code refers to both preponderance
of the evidence and "substantial information to determine whether it is more likely than not that
a student violated the Code."
OCR finds the System's grievance procedures provide notice of the outcomes to both parties.
Notice is provided to both parties in the formal process under the Human Resources Procedures;
the informal process does not mention whether notice is provided, but because this process does
not result in any findings or sanctions, there is no outcome about which to provide notification.
The Student Conduct Code does provide for notice to both the complaining and responding
parties.
OCR finds the System's grievance procedures offer assurances about preventing recurrence of
harassment and correcting its effects in compliance with Title IX. Both the General Provisions
and the Human Resources Procedures contain statements that the System will not tolerate sexual
harassment. Moreover, the assurance in the General Provisions commits that the System will
respond to sexual harassment and sexual violence appropriately.
OCR has a concern about the System's written policies regarding retaliation. The System
addresses retaliation in its grievance procedures in two instances. Title IX prohibits retaliation
by the recipient and others, such as students, against anyone who files a complaint or participates
in a complaint resolution process. The policy section of the Code specifically prohibits only
retaliation against students, not employees or third parties, for initiating or participating in
proceedings regarding university policy, regulations, or rules, and the Human Resources
Procedures prohibit retaliation by university officials for complaints about sexual harassment,
but they are silent regarding retaliation by individuals other than university officials.

 Page 16 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001

Past Grievance Procedures
The System's Past Code as written violated the Title IX requirement to provide equitable
grievance procedures. The Past Code did not provide the complainant an opportunity to
participate in the initial review or in deciding how the complaint would be adjudicated.
Moreover, while the respondent received written notice of the results of the initial review
and his or her options, there was no corresponding notice provision for the complainant.
On its face, the Past Code provided only to the respondent the right to various notices, present
witnesses, object to judicial board members, select an open or closed proceeding, and receive
notice of outcome.

Handling of Criminal Complaints/Law Enforcement's Role
Under Title IX, a recipient must provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints
pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 106.S(b). Criminal investigations by law enforcement do not relieve
a recipient of its Title IX duty to respond promptly and effectively to complaints/reports.
Entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with law enforcement agencies can facilitate
a recipient's meeting its obligations under Title IX.
The System provided to OCR one executed MOA with the Alaska State Troopers (State
Troopers), executed in January 2016. The MOA is specifically tailored toward sexual assault
investigations and requires the State Troopers to share information relating to a sexual assault
report or investigation "as soon as reasonably possible" with the System, provided the victim
gives written consent. UAA, UAF, and UAS are all covered under the MOA. UAF has MOAs
with four additional law enforcement agencies that largely track the MOA that the System has
with the State Troopers, are specific to sexual assault, and became effective by early February
2016. 7 Likewise, the Juneau Police Department signed an MOA with UAS on November 9,
2016, that tracks the MOA the System has with the State Troopers. Finally, as of November
2016, UAA reported that it had reached an MOA with the Anchorage Police Department.
Any MOA must allow the System to meet its Title IX obligation to resolve complaints promptly
and effectively. It is unclear whether the MOA's requirement that law enforcement share
information as soon as possible refers to a temporary delay in order for law enforcement to
complete its fact-finding or to the completion of law enforcement's report or investigation.
OCR notes that, as of February 16, 2017, the System's webpage entitled "Title IX Compliance"
stated that investigations might be paused if there is a parallel criminal investigation, but that the
System "will maintain regular contact with law enforcement to determine when it may begin or
resume its investigation" and will not delay its investigation until the criminal investigation is
concluded.

7

The four MOAs arc with (i) Fairbanks Police Department, (ii) Fairbanks International Airport Police and Fire
Department, (iii) North Pole Police Department, and (iv) Kotzebue Police Department.

 Page 17 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Training

As previously discussed, the regulation implementing Title IX requires both the designation
of a Title IX coordinator and grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable
resolution of complaints. One means to ensure these measures are effective is for recipients
to provide training to responsible employees, including the Title IX coordinator, other staff
with Title IX responsibilities, and students.
The System's administrative office provides training to employees at all three universities.
As part of the System's internal self-assessment of its compliance with Title IX, the System's
administrative office developed criteria and outcome metrics designed to ensure Title IX staff,
faculty, and other staff received adequate training. Training occurs annually and faculty and
staff must demonstrate knowledge and competence in specific areas, which include among
others: grievance procedures, confidential resources, responsible employees, definition of
consent, role of bystanders, impact of trauma on victims, role of alcohol/drugs and amnesty
policy, and protection against retaliation. Orientation programs for new students, faculty and
staff must incorporate sexual misconduct education. Additionally, at various times during the
review period, the System's administrative office has provided Title IX training conducted by
outside consultants to the Dean of Students staff, Title IX coordinators, investigative staff, and
other administrators.
According to UAA's November 2016 Title IX Scorecard 8 , 67 percent of faculty and staff have
taken online or in-person Title IX training. Additionally, UAA has notified all employees other
than those designated as confidential sources that they are a "responsible employee" and the
meaning of that designation in the context of sexual harassment. At times, Title IX investigative
staff have provided training to on campus groups, including staff in residence life, athletics,
health and counseling, enrollment, student affairs, student life and leadership, conference
services, and general support services. As of May 2016, the Title IX Coordinator reported
that since her appointment in June 2015, she has been developing a Title IX Campus Climate
Committee with faculty and students. With respect to students, the November 2016 Scorecard
indicates that 21 percent of students have been trained using in-person training at new student
orientation and resident hall, club, and organization meetings. UAA was also developing
training for specific student groups, such as commuter students, non-traditional students, and
international students. According to staff and student interviews, although some training
occurred during new student orientation in the past, it was limited in duration (sometimes as
little as 30 minutes) and usually not mandatory.
According to UAF's October 2016 Title IX Scorecard, 98 percent of UAF faculty and staff have
taken online Title IX training. Like UAA, UAF has notified all non-confidential employees that
they are a "responsible employee" and the meaning of that designation in the context of sexual
harassment. UAF's Title IX office also provided training that occurred monthly to various
8

In February 2016, the System published a set of"Title IX Compliance Scorecard Metrics" that identified

co1npliancc requirements. The 1netrics were applied by each universily to identify compliance issues. These

were put into a scorecard format. The scorecards have been periodically updated and are publicly available.

 Page 18 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
groups such as supervisory staff, graduate students, the chancellor and his cabinet, and residence
life and advising staff. The Scorecard indicates that the chancellor has made sexual harassment
and sexual violence training a mandatory requirement for all students starting in the 2016-17
academic year, and that as of October 5, 2016, 2,160 students had registered for training.
Since 2011, UAF's Title IX office has also made presentations on sexual harassment and sexual
violence during new student orientation.
According to UAS's November 2016 Title IX Scorecard, 70 percent of employees were
trained and 100 percent of certain groups of staff were trained, including staff with Title IX
responsibilities, staff academic advisors, and Residence Life. In-person training was offered
at new student orientation and UAS was incentivizing student participation in online training;
no data was reported about what percent or number of students had been trained.
OCR has a concern with UAA's, UAF's, and UAS's training efforts prior to the 2016-17
academic year.

Record-Keeping Practices
The System is required to comply with the records provisions of the regulation implementing
Title IX. 9 A recipient is required to make available to OCR information that may be pertinent to
reach a compliance determination.
OCR has a concern about the System's records. Staff at a rnral UAF satellite campns shared that
they were aware of and had received reports of sexual misconduct, but OCR did not receive any
documentation of these incidents. Only 19 out of a total of 163 UAA cases came from UAA
satellite campuses; UAF and UAS both failed to identify any cases from their satellite campuses.
In fact, for the entire review period, UAS only identified 14 cases to OCR. Of the 296 cases
reviewed by OCR, the majority had incomplete and poorly maintained records, and many of the
early files from the 2011-12 academic year had no investigation records at all; instead, the
System prepared incident summary sheets for OCR in 2014.
The absence of complete records means that relevant information was not available to OCR
during its investigation to assess whether the System was carrying out its legal obligations
under the regulation implementing Title IX.
OCR notes that the System has chosen to move its three universities towards centralized tracking
of Title IX complaints and investigations; it is in the process of implementing uniform tracking
software. As of January 2016, UAF became the pilot university for the new software program
to track Title IX investigations. UAA and UAS were expected to implement the software by
Spring 2017.

9

The regulation implementing Title VI, at 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(b) and (c), requires that a recipient of Federal financial
assistance make available to OCR information that may be pertinent to reach a compliance determination. This
requirement is incorporated by reference in the regulation i1nplementing Title IX at 34 C.F.R. § 106.7 l.

 Page 19 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Response to Complaints of Sexual Harassment/Violence
The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.3l(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 education program or activity operated by a recipient. Sexual
harassment that creates a hostile environment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by
Title IX. Sexual harassment creates a hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently severe,
pervasive, or persistent that it denies or limits one's ability to participate in or benefit from a
recipient's program.
In determining whether the sexual harassment of a student was sufficiently severe, pervasive,
or persistent such that it denied or limited a student's ability to participate in or benefit from
a recipient's program, OCR examines all of the relevant circumstances from both 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 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.
For peer-to-peer harassment, if a recipient knows or reasonably should have known about the
harassment, Title IX requires a recipient to take immediate and appropriate action to investigate
or otherwise determine what occurred. On the other hand, if employees engage in sexual
harassment in the context of carrying out their day-to-day job responsibilities, the recipient is
responsible for discrimination whether or not it knew or should have known about it, because
the discrimination occurred as part of the school's undertaking to provide nondiscriminatory aid,
benefits, and services to students.
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.
Under Title IX, once a university is on notice of off-campus sexual harassment, it must assess
whether there are any effects on campus or in an off-campus education program or activity that
are creating or contributing to a hostile environment and, if so, address that hostile environment
and its effects, as appropriate.

 Page 20 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
As part of its investigation, OCR examined how the System handled sexnal harassment
complaints, including complaints of assault and violence, filed between academic years 2011-12,
2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. OCR reviewed investigation files and incident summary sheets
for 296 individual cases. 10
As already stated, the cases that OCR reviewed arose under the Past Code. Due to the poor state
of the records, OCR often could not determine whether a preliminary investigation occurred;
if so, whether the case moved on to a judicial board hearing or an administrative review; and
during the hearing or review, what rights were actually accorded the parties. As noted above,
the Past Code provided for grievance procedures that were not equitable and violated Title IX.
Investigations, hearings, and administrative reviews conducted under the Past Code failed to
provide equitable rights to complainants and therefore violated Title IX.
In addition to the inequitable procedures above created under the Past Code, set forth below
are additional factual findings and conclusions about the System's grievance procedures that
affected individual cases. 11
Failure to Respond Promptly and Equitably to Complaints of Sexual Harassment and
Sexual Violence

OCR found that the System failed to provide prompt and equitable investigations in response
to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual violence. This failure to properly respond
included not conducting or completing investigations, not completing prompt investigations
and failing to provide notice of the outcome.
•

Failure to Conduct or Complete Investigations

OCR found a number of instances where the System failed to conduct or initiated but failed
to complete investigations of sexual harassment or sexual violence as required by 34 C.F.R.
§§ 106.8(b) and 106.31. Under Title IX, the recipient has a duty to ensure that its sex
discrimination grievance procedures apply to all complaints of sex discrimination, including
sexual harassment, against employees, other students, and third parties, and to conduct
investigations. The fact that a complaint involves a third party or occurred off campus does
not relieve the System of this duty. Even where a complainant does not want to proceed,
a recipient must assess if it can honor the request and still provide a non-discriminatory
environment for the complainant and all other students and employees. Below are examples
of cases where the System either failed to investigate or failed to complete an investigation.

io Separate from this letter, OCR has provided the recipient with identifying infonnation for 23 cases, some of which
are discussed in this letter.
11
These findings are based on the documentation provided by the System to OCR during the co1npliancc review and
during negotiations, presumably encompassing all of the System's available and relevant documentation.

 Page 21 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Case Number JO

In 2013 a student was found in a university residential building intoxicated, unconscious,
and wrapped in a blanket with her clothing partially undone. She said that she had met a
soldier, but could not recall what had happened because she had blacked out. The soldier
was ultimately court-martialed for sexually assaulting the student and university staff
testified at the court-martial for which the soldier received three years of confinement and
a dishonorable discharge. The case records indicate that Residence Life handled the
situation and the university failed to conduct a Title IX investigation or offer the student
any interim measures, but it did investigate and discipline the student for underage
drinking on the night of the sexual assault.
Case Number 17
In 2015 a student at a satellite campus disclosed to her advisor that she was
sexually assaulted. The respondent was not a student. The records the university
provided to OCR acknowledge that it is "unknown why no fmther action was
taken."

Case Number 11
In 2013, university faculty became aware that one of its students placed in various
middle and high schools as a student teacher was accused of sexually harassing
middle school students. Documents reflect that university faculty discussed what
to do internally, but no one reported the incident to the university's Title IX
office, took steps to initiate a complaint, or sought any guidance from the
university's administration. More than six months later, when the student's
misconduct was discovered by the university's Title IX office through a news
article published about his arrest for sexually harassing two high school students,
the university's Title IX coordinator decided not to complete an investigation
because there was allegedly no victim at the university. 12

Additionally, while the System's grievance procedures were applicable to complaints of
harassment made against employees, the System suspended investigations after accused
employees resigned their positions or failed to discipline employees who remained on
campus. Cases 3, 4, and 22 each illustrate instances where individuals in positions of
authority were reported to have sexually harassed or sexually assaulted students or
employees; in each of these cases, the System failed to complete investigations or
determine the effects of the misconduct on the affected students or employees.

12

In 2015, the university re-opened this case to investigate. In March 2016, a decision was issued expelling
respondent and revoking his degree.

 Page 22 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Case Numbers 3 and 4

In 2012 a student reported that a
allegedly was involved in an intimate
relationship with a student. System officials investigated the report and
conducted witness interviews. However, according to documents provided to
OCR, the respondent opted to resign "in lieu of participating in the investigative
interview." After the
resignation, the records indicate that the university
suspended its investigation and did not issue a final investigative report or provide
any relief, including interim relief, to any students who may have been affected.
Three months after the
resigned, the university received a report that the
replacement
had engaged in sexual assault and sexual harassment during
a recruiting trip. The new
was interviewed twice regarding the allegations,
and he opted to resign after the second interview. After the replacement
submitted his letter of resignation, the records indicate that the university failed
to complete its Title IX investigation, and failed to provide any relief, including
interim relief, for any students who may have been affected.
Case Number 22

In 2013, a student reported that a professor was sexually harassing female
students. The complainant stated that she knew at least four students with
whom the professor had had a sexual relationship. When interviewed, a female
professor said that several students had complained about this professor's conduct
towards female students. The documents provided to OCR contained a draft
Title IX investigation report, concluding that the respondent behaved
inappropriately with students and recommending a letter of expectations of
behavior from the Dean. The investigation was not completed, and neither a final
report with findings nor a letter from the Dean was issued.
Finally, the System failed to complete investigations of complaints involving students
who were placed in off-site locations for internships or clinical programs. The regulation
implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31( d)(2), expressly identifies the recipient's
responsibilities for ensuring Title IX compliance in educational programs or activities
to which a recipient requires or permits participation by any student or employee.
Moreover, where the entity providing the program or activity, such as an internship
or clinical practicum, does not assure the recipient that it will comply with Title IX's
obligations, the recipient cannot obligate or allow participation in the entity's program
or activities. The System provided no information to indicate compliance with this
regulatory requirement. Case number 19 illustrates a failure to complete investigations
and ensure that mandatory, off-site practicums comply with Title IX.

 Page 23 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Case Number 19
In 2015, a nursing student complained about sexual harassment by a nurse
employed by the hospital during a university mandatory practicum course.
The student reported that the employee was making sexually explicit comments
and propositions and had referred to engaging in sexual activities with other
nursing students. The student informed the university that the employee's
actions made her extremely uncomfortable during the practicum and that as a
result of the harassment, she was experiencing heightened anxiety and depression.
The university initiated a Title IX investigation but failed to complete it once the
hospital fired the employee.
Based on the review of individual case files, OCR determined that the System is in violation of
Title IX and implementing regulations 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.S(b) and 106.31 for the System's failure
to conduct or complete Title IX investigations (case numbers 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, and 22).
•

Failure to Provide Prompt Investigations and Resolutions

OCR found that the System failed to provide prompt resolution of Title IX complaints, as
required by 34 C.F.R. § 106.S(b). Title IX requires that a recipient adopt grievance procedures
providing for the prompt resolution of student and employee complaints of sex discrimination,
including sexual harassment. Whether a complaint is completed timely will vary depending
on the complexity of the investigation and the severity and extent of the sexual harassment.
Although a university may need to delay temporarily the fact-finding portion of a Title IX
investigation while the police are gathering evidence, once notified that the police department
has completed its gathering of evidence, the university must promptly resume and complete its
fact-finding for the Title IX investigation.
OCR reviewed files for four academic years and found that the universities had the highest case
processing averages during the 2013-14 academic year; that year UAF's case processing time
averaged 122 days and the longest time was 567 days; UAA had an average of 97 days and the
longest case took 403 days, and UAS provided only one investigative record to OCR for a case
that took 125 days. Investigations required less time in 2014-2015, with averages ranging from
a high of 155 at UAF to 58 at UAA. OCR identified several examples of cases with no evident
circumstances to explain the prolonged resolution times.
Case Number 9
In 2013, a female student reported being assaulted and restrained by a male student in his
university dorm room. The files provided to OCR show that the perpetrator was barred
from residences other than his own, but he was otherwise allowed to remain on campus.
A year later, in 2014, the university's Title IX office learned that the same male student
sexually assaulted a female student. This female student had attended a dorm room party
and passed out. She awoke to the respondent trying to remove her clothing. She told him

 Page 24 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
"no" and tried to stop him. The second female student also informed the university that
the respondent threatened her. The Title IX office completed the investigation and
notified the second female student and respondent after 151 days that the respondent
was found guilty. It then took a total of 203 days between the filing of the complaint
about the sexual assault to the imposition of the sanction, which was expulsion.
Case Number 16

In 2014, a female student reported that she was sexually assaulted by a male studentemployee. The female student had fallen asleep intoxicated and she awoke to another
student putting his hands down her pants despite her protests. She later awoke to the
respondent lying on top of her. The student sent a message to the manager of the school
organization employing the respondent, which led to a report to the Dean of Students.
The Deau of Students and Title IX offices conducted a joint investigation; in July, the
Title IX office sent its investigative report to Dean of Students. Almost nine months
later, respondent's sanction was finalized after an administrative review and appeals.
The investigation took 78 days and the entire process, including the finalizing of
sanctions, took 351 days.
Additionally, OCR found examples where the university unduly delayed or suspended Title IX
investigations due to local law enforcement activities, as discussed below.
Case Number 5

A university received reports that a male student sexually assaulted two different female
students. In November 2012, the first sexual assault was reported and the Dean of
Students office took no action, instead deferring to the university police and the local
prosecutor to conduct au investigation and take appropriate action. In January 2013,
the Dean of Students' office interviewed the complainant but did not conduct an
investigation. In March 2013, after another complainant alleged that she had been
sexually assaulted in her dorm by the respondent, the university notified the police of the
second assault. At that point, the university initiated an investigation. The respondent
was arrested in April 2013 and at that time, the System suspended its Title IX
investigation. The student was ultimately criminally convicted for both sexual assaults. 13
Case Number 7

In 2013, at a satellite campus, the Title IX office learned of the off-campus sexual
assault of a student by another student. The complainant declined to file a rep01i
even though she already had a restraining order against the respondent as a result
of the off-campus sexual assault. Although the university banned the respondent
from campus pending resolution of his criminal trial, no Title IX investigation
13
This case was re-opened in 2015 and an investigation was completed. In June 2016, respondent \Vas expelled.
Almost four years passed between the date the complaint was received and the date sanctions were issued.

 Page 25 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
was conducted until two years later, after a criminal conviction was obtained.
At that time, the university found the respondent responsible for violating the
Code and expelled him.
Case Number 20

In 2015, university police reported the sexual assault of a female student by a member
of a men's athletic team to the university's Title IX office and Residence Life. Ten days
later, university police reported to the Title IX office that two other students allegedly
had been raped by the same respondent. Soon after the complainants reported their
sexual assaults, members of the athletic team began calling the complainants and their
friends "whores." Investigation of all three cases was put into abeyance at the request
of the district attorney's office. OCR received no indication that the university resumed
the investigation.
OCR determined that the System failed to promptly resolve complaints of sexual harassment and
sexual violence (case numbers 9, 16, and 18) including in cases where they unreasonably delayed
investigations due to law enforcement investigations or proceedings (case numbers 5, 7, and 20).
•

Failure to Provide Adequate Investigations and Notice of Outcome

Prompt and equitable grievance procedures include providing an investigation that is
adequate, reliable, and impartial, as well as notice to parties of the outcome of the
investigation and any appeal. OCR identified a number of concerns related to this
requirement, as illustrated in the cases below.
Case Number 18

A student reported to a university administrator in 2015 that she had been raped
by three students at an off-campus party. Three respondents allegedly raped
the student while she was intoxicated. The university conducted a Title IX
investigation and issued a report that recommended disciplinary hearings for two
of the three respondents, finding that one of the respondents and the complainant
were too intoxicated to have consented. Consistent with the flawed structure of
the Past Code, only the two respondents were offered a choice of administrative
review or judicial board hearing.
Case Number 21

In 2012, a student was allegedly sexually assaulted in student housing. Residence
Life staff indicated in the case file that they recalled speaking with a hospital
employee, who had advised them that a determination had been made that the
complainant had not been raped. In response to this information, Residence Life

 Page 26 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
determined the complainant was not sexually assaulted without speaking to
witnesses and concluded its investigation.

Case Number 8
In 2013, a student at a satellite campus reported that a student resident advisor sexually
assaulted her in her dorm room. The Title IX investigation resulted in a finding of no
violation; however, there is no evidence in the file that the System notified either party
of the outcome of the investigation.
OCR determined that the System failed to conduct adequate and reliable investigations
(case numbers 18, 21, and 22), and failed to provide notice of investigation outcomes
(case numbers 2, 5, and 8). 14

Failure to Prevent Retaliation
Title IX makes it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for the purpose of interfering with
any right or privilege secured under Title IX. OCR found incidents where the System did not
investigate claims of retaliation brought by complainants after they filed complaints of sexual
violence. Case number 2 illustrates OCR's concern.

Case Number 2
In 2011, a student was raped in a dorm room by multiple students while others watched
and videotaped the assault. The video was publicly posted on social media and discussed
by other students in the residence hall. In the months after the assault, the complainant
reported to the Director of Residence Life that she was being harassed by the
respondents' friends on social media and that she felt afraid to walk by herself on
campus. There is no evidence that the university took any steps to remove the video
once it was posted or address it with students who may have viewed it, or to address
the alleged retaliation. 15
Additionally, OCR has concern regarding the System's failure to respond to allegations of
retaliation in case number 20, discussed above. Complainants reported their sexual assaults,
and then reported retaliatory actions by members of the athletic team, but there was no
documentation of any response by the university to the alleged retaliation.
As a result, OCR has concern with respect to the System's apparent failure to address retaliatory
harassment (case numbers 2 and 20).
14

Case number 2 is discussed below.
Over three years later, in May 2015, the case was re-opened to assess further sanctions for four of the respondents.
In April 2016, one respondent was permanently expelled. Another respondent was suspended in June of 2016 for
15

one year. A third respondent was suspended in July 2016 for one year. The sanctions process for the fourth
respondent was not yet complete as of the date when OCR and the System commenced negotiations.

 Page 27 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Failure to Provide Interim Measures

A recipient must provide interim measures where appropriate to comply with the regulation
at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31 and ensure individuals can fully access a recipient's programs while an
investigation is pending. OCR's review identified numerous instances with no record that the
System assessed the need for or provided interim measures, or with records that demonstrated
limited and sometimes improper interim measures. Case number 12 is a notable example of the
System's failure to identify or provide any interim measures, and case number 14 is a notable
example of the System's failure to properly implement interim relief identified as necessary
(either completely or in a timely fashion).
Case Number 12
In 2013, a student alleged that she was raped in her dorm room. After investigating,

Residence Life found that respondent had violated a provision about "endangerment,
assault, or infliction of physical harm," but found no violation regarding sexual assault
or harassment. It sanctioned the respondent with a one-year suspension from campus
housing and all other residential properties at the university. The complainant was not
offered interim measures; instead, she was sanctioned for engaging in underage drinking
when the incident occurred. 16
Case Number 14

In 2014, a student alleged that the respondent sent sexually harassing text messages to her
and her boyfriend and that she had obtained a restraining order against him. During the
investigation process, the Title IX office learned that several other students contacted
the police about the respondent sending them sexually graphic and threatening messages.
The investigation took a little over three months, and the final investigative report
identified changes to classroom, work, living, and transportation accommodations as
necessary for the students, and stated that the accommodations should have been
provided immediately. However, there is no evidence that shows these changes were
implemented, except for the class change, which was implemented after a three-week
delay.
OCR found no documentation that the System provided adequate interim relief to alleged
victims, despite the pervasiveness of some of the sexual harassment and the severity of some
of the sexual misconduct in several instances (case numbers 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, and 15).

16
This case was re-opened in 2015 to assess further sanctions for respondent and he was expelled in February 2016.
No further action was taken with respect to the sanctions imposed against the complainant.

 Page 28 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
Failure to Assess Hostile Environment
If a recipient ignores or otherwise fails to end harassment and ameliorate a hostile environment,

and in so doing allows the hostile environment to continue, it is in violation of its obligations
under Title IX.
OCR did not find evidence in the files of the System that indicated that it assessed whether a
hostile environment existed in the cases that it investigated. Instead, OCR found instances where
a university did investigate, but failed to investigate promptly or equitably and thus allowed a
possible hostile environment to continue. Case numbers 2 and 15 are notable examples of this.
Case number 2, discussed above, involved a rape that was videotaped and posted on social
media. Because rape by its nature is sufficiently serious to create a hostile environment,
the university had an obligation to investigate and remedy the hostile environment that was
experienced by the student. The university was made aware of the alleged incident and
determined that sexual assault had occurred; it barred the perpetrators from campus housing.
OCR was not provided with any documentation about what actions, if any, the university took
to remove the video, and assess and address the effects on the students who witnessed the event
or saw the posted video of the sexual assault.
Case Number 15
In 2014, the then-director of a satellite college was alleged to have sexually harassed
multiple students, employees, and members of the community. Title IX investigators
interviewed five complainants, witnesses and the director himself, who resigned
immediately following the interview. There is no evidence in the available records that
the university completed its Title IX investigation, provided any relief, including interim
relief, to the multiple complainants, or assessed and addressed any hostile environment
that may have been created for students and employees through the director's actions.
The university's failure to take follow-up action raises concerns that a hostile environment
continued. The fact the alleged harasser was no longer at the university did not necessarily
eliminate a hostile environment. OCR determined that in multiple cases (case numbers 2, 12, 15,
18, and 20) the System failed to assess whether a hostile environment existed, and thus if one did
exist, the System failed to take any action to address it.
The System's Actions To Comply With Title IX
OCR initiated the compliance review in 2014. During OCR's investigation, the System has taken
several actions to address its obligations under Title IX. In May 2014, the System created a
permanent state-wide Title IX taskforce (Title IX Taskforce) composed of employees in the
System responsible for Title IX compliance. The purpose of the taskforce, at least in part, is to
share best practices relating to Title IX compliance across the entire System. In February 2015,
the Board of Regents started to receive regular updates on Title IX, including information on
Title IX compliance and progress that was insufficient or absent.

 Page 29 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001

In September 2015, after the System discovered that UAF had not suspended or disc iplined
any student for any sexual assault cases between 2011 and 2014, the System commissioned an
independent review of U AF and its compliance with Title IX. On October 20, 2015, a month
after commiss ioning the independent review, UAF interim chancellor Mike Powers issued a
public statement apologizing for UAF's failure to address sexual assault on campus and calling
17
for an end to si lence and inaction around campus sexual assault.
The System published the report of that independent review (Feldman Report) on March 31,
2016. 18 To remedy the deficiencies identified in the Feldman Report, UAF took the following
steps: appointed a new Dean of Students; made changes to the Title IX office; made structural
changes to ensure transparency in the discipline process and knowledge of the status of pending
cases by all stakeholders; obtained software to centralize the tracking of student conduct cases
across all departments; trained employees on Title IX requirements; and created a UAF Title TX
taskforce. Additionally, in response to the Feldman Report, the System reopened certain UAF
cases to investigate and assess sanctions where it determined that the Dean of Students'
19
discipline philosophy resulted in a fai lure to hold the respondent accountable.
In February 2016, each university began publishing a "Title IX Scorecard," the purpose of
which is to allow each university to measure its performance and compliance with Title IX.
The scorecards are publicly available.
Finally, as already noted, the System has appointed a Chief Title IX Officer and made recent
changes to its website concerning Title IX compliance.

Summary of Resolution Agreement
During the investigation , the System expressed an interest in resolving the issues under
investigation prior to the conclusion of OCR's compliance review. On November 10, 2016,
having reviewed certain investigati ve materials and identified violations and concerns under
Title IX, OCR concluded that it would be appropriate to negotiate a resolution agreement before
OCR completed its investigation.
Pursuant to the OCR Case Processing Manual, the parties had a period of up to 90 calendar
days, or until February 8, to reach a final agreement. No agreement was signed by February 8,
so OCR issued an impasse letter on February 9. The impasse letter advised the System that OCR

17

Press Statement avai lable at hllp..,://www.uaf.edu/c.:hanccllor/communications/mcn10s/oc10hcr-20-20 IS,
(September 26, 2016).
18
The Feldman Report identified six reasons for UAF's fai lure to iniliate a major sanctio ns process for sexual
violence between 20 11 and 20 14: (I) the di scipline philosophy of UAF's Dean of Students, (2) a lack of qualified
personnel to respond to guidance issued by OCR, (3) a lack of oversight and resources a t UAF, (4) no system to
monitor a nd track cases, (5) lack of monitoring and guidance by the UAF administration and the absence of a T itle
IX compliance function at the UA System statewide office, and (6) a failure to request guidance and direction from
the Gene ral Counsel' s office.
19
These cases included case numbers 2, 5, 11 , and 12 discussed above.

 Page 30 - OCR Reference No. I 0-14-600 I
wonld issue a letter of findings if the parties did not reach an agreement within 10 calendar days
of the date of the letter.
The System delivered an executed copy of the Resolution Agreement to OCR on February 17,
2017. The Resolution Agreement addresses the compliance concerns identified in OCR' s
investigation.
In accordance with the Resolution Agreement, the System agrees to:
•

Ensure that each of its universities' Title IX coordinators: oversees the handling of all
complaints of sex discrimination, inclnding sexual harassment and sexual violence, at
their respective universities and satellite campuses; addresses any patterns or systemic
concerns; assesses the overall efficacy and response to sexual harassment and sexual
violence; and participates in training for themselves and their staff.
• Designate a senior Title IX administrator who will oversee the System's efforts to
comply with and carry out its Title IX responsibilities.
• Continue the state-wide Title IX taskforce.
• Revise the System's publications to include the title, office address, e-mail address and
telephone number of the senior Title IX administrator and for each university, the same
information for its respective Title IX coordinator.
• Create a single notice of nondiscrimination that complies with the requirements of Title
IX and take steps to ensure it is appropriately published and distributed System-wide.
• Revise the System's grievance procedures for addressing complaints alleging
discrimination on the basis of sex (including sexual harassment and sexual violence) to
ensure that these are not unduly complicated, written in a way that is easily understood,
easily locatable, and otherwise comply with Title IX; remove references to old, noncompliant procedures.
• Provide training to the senior Title IX administrator, university Title IX coordinators, and
all other employees involved in processing, investigating, adjudicating, and/or resolving
complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and sexual violence,
including training on the importance of fully documenting all steps of an investigation
and resolution.
• At each university, develop a protocol for ensuring that Residence Life staff report and
refer complaints involving sex discrimination to the Title IX office within 24 hours.
• Continue to provide training to all employees responsible for recognizing and reporting
incidents of sex discrimination, including training on the new grievance procedures.
• Provide information sessions to new and returning students as part of annual student
orientation and Residence Life orientation addressing sex discrimination, including
sexual harassment and sexual violence, and information on the System's Title IX
grievance procedures.
• Ensure that existing informational materials contain information on the following or
develop new materials to address: how and where to file a complaint of sexual
harassment or sexual violence with the System; the contact information for the senior
Title IX administrator and the respective universities' Title IX coordinators and a

 Page 31 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001

•

•

•
•

•
•

•

description of the responsibilities of the senior Title IX administrator and university Title
IX coordinators; information on how to obtain counseling and academic assistance in the
event of sexual harassment and sexual violence; and information on what interim
measures can be taken to protect a complainant and how to request interim measures.
Establish a student committee at each of the three universities, with representation from a
cross-section of the student community, which will identify and recommend strategies to
the System to ensure that students understand their rights under Title IX and the System's
grievance procedures, including how to report possible violations of Title IX as well as
recommend strategies for improving the effectiveness of the System's procedures,
support services and resources available to students, and for preventing sexual
harassment and sexual violence, including outreach and educational activities.
Conduct annual climate checks for students to assess the effectiveness of steps taken
pursuant to this Resolution Agreement and otherwise by the System to achieve its goal
of a campus free of sex discrimination, in particular sexual harassment and sexual
violence.
Continue to coordinate with local law enforcement agencies.
Provide written notice or information sessions to all students participating in internships,
clinical programs, or other off-campus programs of the System's prohibition against sex
discrimination; the System's grievance procedures for Title IX complaints; and related
System resources; and develop and implement a procedure designed to assure the System
that operators or sponsors of education programs and activities at which the System
places students will take no action prohibited by Title IX.
Take actions to address the specific cases that OCR identified based on its review of
cases from academic years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15.
Review all reports of sexual harassment and violence filed with the System during
academic years 2014-15 and 2015-16, to determine whether the System investigated each
complaint promptly and equitably; and take appropriate action to address any problems
identified regarding the manner in which these complaints were handled, including
providing appropriate remedies that may still be available for the complainants, such as
counseling or academic adjustments.
Provide complete investigation files and information about the System's processing of
sexual harassment complaints for the next three academic years.

Conclusion
OCR will monitor implementation of the Resolution Agreement. If the System fails to
implement the Resolution Agreement, OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or
judicial proceedings to enforce the specific terms and obligations of the Resolution Agreement.
Before initiating administrative enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10), or judicial
proceedings to enforce the Resolution Agreement, OCR shall give the System written notice
of the alleged breach and 60 calendar days to cure the alleged breach.

 Page 32 - OCR Reference No. 10-14-6001
This letter should not be interpreted to address the System's compliance with any other
regulatory provision or to address any issues other than those addressed in this letter. 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 System 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 should occur, an individual may file a complaint alleging such harassment or
intimidation.
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, it 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
pnvacy.
If you have any questions about OCR' s determination, please contact Amy Klosterman,

Attorney, by telephone at (206) 607-1622 or by e-mail at amy.klosterman@ed.gov; Shirley
Oliver, Senior Equal Opportunity Investigator, by telephone at (206) 607-1633 or by e-mail at
shirley.oliver@ed.gov; or Tina Sohaili, Attorney, by telephone at (206) 607-1634 or by e-mail
at tina.sohaili@ed.gov.

· da Mangel
Regional Director
Enclosure: Resolution Agreement
cc: The System, Office of General Counsel