US Commission on Civil Rights members ask Congress not to increase Office of Civil Rights budget due to overreach

Letter here. Excerpt (starts on pp. 6-7 of the .pdf file):

'3. OCR misstates applicable law on sexual assault and harassment on campus, encourages unfair treatment for some accused students, and gives colleges and universities a green light to trammel students’ First Amendment rights.

We hate to pile on here. But when members of the law faculties of both Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania—hardly bastions of conservative thought—express deep misgivings over the sexual harassment policies adopted under pressure from OCR by their respective institutions, it is clear that something is wrong.

OCR has pushed past the limits of its legal authority in addressing sexual assault and harassment on college and university campuses. This letter has already addressed the expansive and problematic definition of harassment found in OCR’s October 26, 2010 Dear Colleague letter on harassment and bullying, which discusses harassment/bullying in both K-12 public schools and on college and university campuses. In addition to that letter, OCR has released an important Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence on April 4, 2011. In addition, it published documents titled “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence” (April 29, 2014) and “Know Your Rights: Title IX Requires Your School to Address Sexual Violence” (April 29, 2014.) OCR also published a highly burdensome settlement agreement with the University of Montana (“Montana Agreement”) that it labelled as a “blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault.” OCR has since sometimes backed away from its characterization of this document as a national model, although its signals to regulated universities about the Montana Agreement’s intended effect have been mixed.

To be crystal clear: we think sexual violence is deplorable. The question is not whether it should be tolerated on campus. There is no question that it should not be. The only public policy question relevant here is “What does (or should) federal law require colleges and universities to do to prevent it?” Much of the task of keeping women (and men) safe on campus must be done by local police and prosecutors. If OCR has a role, it is merely to supplement that important work.

To study all this, the Commission convened a nearly daylong briefing on July 25, 2014 that featured testimony from 11 different expert witnesses from government, academia, and non-profits. The testimony that we heard and our own study of the matter has led us to be concerned that OCR has unfortunately over-stepped its authority again.'

Signatories: Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow