Summary of Initial Recommended

Policy Changes
The University of Texas at Austin engaged Husch Blackwell, LLP to conduct a review of the
University’s efforts to prevent and respond to allegations of sex discrimination.1 The University’s
goal for this review is to be advised of concrete and actionable recommendations that are: (1)
aligned with best practices and emerging trends in higher education; (2) consistent with applicable
federal and Texas law; and (3) informed by community input on how to improve the University’s
response processes, communication efforts, and delivery of resources in these areas.

Community-Based Input

Our recommendations for policy changes are based, in part, on feedback provided by a diverse
group of University stakeholders, including:

 Title IX Office  Human Resources

 Office of Institutional Equity  Voices Against Violence
 Student Affairs  Student Government Association
 University Advocates  Graduate Student Assembly
 University Counseling and Mental  Interpersonal Violence Prevention Coalition
Health Center  Coalition of Students Against Sexual Misconduct
 Faculty Council  Members of the LGBTQIA+ community
 Staff Council  Women in STEM programs
 Faculty Gender Equity Council  Greek Life

We also hosted several “office hours” sessions on campus, which were open to all University
community members and advertised through the Misconduct Working Group (“MWG”) email list
and community networks. Through these meetings, we were able to hear from and benefit from
the perspective of many other stakeholders, including survivors, individuals accused of
misconduct, employees from a variety of University departments, and students not involved with
community activism but nonetheless concerned about this issue. We are grateful for the substantive
and thoughtful conversations we were able to have. We are also grateful for the input provided by
the Misconduct Working Group, comprised of student advocates who called for reforms in this
area as well as staff and faculty with experience and responsibilities in prevention, support, and
complaint processing.

1
Throughout this document, “sex discrimination” is used as an umbrella term to refer broadly to unacceptable
behaviors in violation of University policy, including sexual assault, sexual harassment, interpersonal violence
(including domestic and dating violence), stalking, and sexual exploitation. “Sex” as used in University policy and
this document includes sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and pregnancy status.
Initial Policy Recommendations

Based on these stakeholder meetings, a consideration of national best practices for peer institutions
as well as emerging legal developments, and our review of various University policies, procedures,
and other documents, we offer the following recommendations for policy changes at The
University of Texas at Austin.

1. Confidential On-Campus Resources to Be Featured, Consolidated, and Expanded.

There was clear consensus among University stakeholders about the paramount importance
of providing confidential support services to students impacted by sex discrimination. It
was equally clear that the University’s robust current offering of support services was
perceived as confusing, not clearly communicated to impacted parties, and possibly
underutilized. We recommend that the University create a single office where University
students who are impacted by discrimination can receive access to confidential personnel
who can provide them with emotional and other support, as well as information about
available institutional resources to empower those individuals to make informed decisions
about their rights and options. That office should be staffed with trained professional staff
who are trauma-informed and qualified to provide individualized support to students who
have been impacted by sex discrimination and/or interpersonal violence. Communication
about this office should be prominently featured in the University’s sex discrimination
policies and easily accessible on the University’s website. Offices for these confidential
resources should be located in an accessible location and maximize student privacy. In
making this recommendation, we note that student experiences with the University
Advocates program was universally positive and we believe ensuring that office is
appropriately staffed is prudent.

2. Implement Presumptive Termination for Certain Sex Misconduct. The consensus

from speaking to a diverse group of stakeholders is that the University’s sex discrimination
policies should make plain that certain behavior is entirely unacceptable at The University
of Texas and should presumptively result in an employee’s separation from the University
community. Based on stakeholder feedback, we recommend that the University make
termination of employment the presumptively appropriate discipline for a finding of
responsibility for the following policy violations: (1) sexual assault, (2) interpersonal
violence, (3) stalking, and (4) sexual harassment, all of which should be as clearly defined
as possible in the University’s policy. We believe establishing such presumptively
appropriate sanctions in these instances is consistent with the shared values of the
University community as expressed in our meetings. In those meetings, there was also a
consensus that there might be extraordinary cases when an employee should not
automatically be terminated for these offenses and that the presumption for termination
should be able to be rebutted or confirmed by reference to mitigating or aggravating factors.
Accordingly, we recommend the University adopt mitigating and aggravating factors to be
considered in deciding whether to uphold termination.

3. Proactively Disclose Names of Employees Found Responsible for Certain Sex

Misconduct. Texas law requires the Title IX Coordinator to compile all allegations of
sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking the Coordinator receives.
2
 The law requires that publicly-available compilation to include information about the
investigation and disposition of those reported allegations but does not expect the
disclosure of the name of respondents. For those cases where an employee remains
employed by the University after being sanctioned for sexual assault, interpersonal
violence, stalking and/or sexual harassment, we recommend that the University supplement
its publicly-available compilation with the name of the employee found responsible, a brief
description of the incident giving rise to the finding, and a brief description of the
mitigating factors which led the decisionmaker to conclude that the employee should
remain employed. Such descriptive information should be provided in a way to preserve
the privacy interests of the victim of misconduct to the extent practicable. It is worth noting
that this practice is not utilized by any of the peer institutions benchmarked for this review;
however, we believe there are unique legal issues in Texas, including the mandatory
reporting law and Texas’s robust public information law, that warrant a unique approach.

4. Differentiate Between Qualitatively Different Forms of Sexual Misconduct in a

Revised Policy. The University’s current sex discrimination policy lumps together
qualitatively different forms of misconduct into its definition of “Prohibited Conduct.” This
foments confusion within the University community. This is especially true of the
University’s broad policy violation of “Sexual Misconduct.” We recommend that the
University clarify that not all violations of its sex discrimination policy are equally
egregious—a point that should be emphasized in the definitions themselves as well as the
presumptively appropriate sanctions the University metes out for violations of the policy
(see above). The current policies prohibit a broader range of conduct than what state and
federal law prohibit. We agree that it is essential for the University community to be able
to correct unprofessional and inappropriate conduct before it rises to the level of legally
actionable sex discrimination. We recommend that the policy continue to prohibit sex-
based inappropriate and unprofessional misconduct that does not, for instance, rise to the
level of actionable sexual harassment, so long as the policy clearly delineates these terms
and makes plain that not all violations of the policy are equally egregious. We also
recommend that each discreet act of misconduct identified by the University’s sex
discrimination policies be defined with as much precision as reasonably possible.

5. Develop and Implement Alternative Resolution Options and Restorative Justice for
Sex Discrimination Matters. There was clear consensus that the University community
wanted as robust an offering of alternatives to investigation/adjudication as possible for
dealing with sex discrimination complaints. This consensus is in line with developing best
practices. We recommend that such alternative resolution processes be offered and
formalized to the extent practicable in the University’s sex discrimination policies. Of
course, it is essential to recognize that alternative resolution will not be appropriate in all
cases (e.g., when such resolution will not adequately protect the safety of the university
community) and we recommend that the policy provide a process for the Title IX Office to
assess when alternative resolution would be inappropriate.

The community expressed a special interest in developing a robust restorative justice

program, which we wholeheartedly recommend. We note that some of the country’s
leading restorative justice scholars and practitioners have long been teaching and working
3
 at the University, and we recommend that the University tap into this resource to develop
robust and comprehensive restorative justice responses to misconduct in appropriate
circumstances. In particular, we believe restorative processes would be especially
worthwhile in (1) the context of informal or alternative resolution of cases that do not
present imminent safety concerns for the harmed individual or the community; (2)
reintegrating and rebuilding trust in situations when individuals are found responsible for
violating University policies but are permitted to remain in or return to the campus
community; and (3) in response to larger climate and bias issues and community building.

6. Instead of Optional Training, Require Mandatory Training for University

Employees. The University community expressed nearly universal agreement on the need
for improved, deeper and more intentional training relating to prevention and awareness of
sex discrimination. We believe subsequent recommendations will assist in this regard. For
the time being, we recommend that all faculty and staff be required to attend training on
Texas Senate Bill 212’s mandatory reporting requirement, which would include training
on recognizing and refraining from prohibited conduct. We think such training is essential
given the potential stakes of non-compliance (termination and possible criminal
prosecution). We also believe such training would encourage reporting to a centralized
Title IX Office of misconduct that may have previously been handled informally by
individual departments and offices.

7. Implement Timelines for Resolutions and Options for Participants in Untimely Cases.
Throughout our time on campus, we were provided with anecdotal information from
various stakeholders that the resolution of sex discrimination claims took an unreasonably
long period of time. While we acknowledge that many complaints of sex discrimination
can be complicated, we recommend that a reasonable and presumptively appropriate
timeline be memorialized in institutional policy. We recommend that the timeframe can be
extended for good cause (e.g., to ensure the integrity and completeness of an investigation;
comply with a request by law enforcement for temporary delay to gather evidence; provide
reasonable accommodations for availability of key witnesses; etc.).

In addition, in the event an investigation is not being handled in a timely manner, we

recommend the University provide participants with an opportunity to complain directly to
the University’s Compliance Officer, who will be empowered to direct additional resources
to the investigation to ensure that it is conducted as promptly as possible.

Next Steps and Additional Considerations

In the coming weeks, Husch Blackwell will make a series of other recommendations related to
process and policy in revised policy and process documents that require further consideration for
thoughtful implementation. Topics for consideration include the following:

 Optimal organization of the Title IX Compliance Function;

 Reviewing the University’s Investigative Resolution Process in Light of the Pending
Issuance of U.S. Department of Education Regulations;

4
  Best Practices for Addressing Third Party Impacts; and
 Structural Options to Ensure Consistency of Sanctions.

We look forward to continued community engagement on these and other issues.