Faced with a serious complaint of sexual harassment involving two students, the University took prompt action. It investigated the circumstances, separated as best it could the antagonists and removed the cause of the con ict through expulsion. The trouble is, the Student Code did not give the University authority to act when the misconduct occurred somewhere other than its campus or at University sponsored or supervised events. There is no proof in the record that Yeasin posted the tweets while he was on campus. Through every step of the disciplinary proceedings, the University relied on Article 22 of the Student Code as the basis for Yeasin's discipline. But, on appeal, the University cherry-picks a small phrase from Article 20 to argue that it did indeed have the authority to expel Yeasin for his actions in Johnson County during the summer and for his tweets in violation of the no-contact order. The University asks us to nd that the district court should have interpreted the phrase “or as otherwise required by federal, state or local law” found in Article 20 to mean that the University's jurisdiction to discipline a student for violating Article 22.A. extended to a student's off-campus conduct. The University argues that this interpretation of Article 20 is consistent with the obligations imposed on it under Title IX. The University does not dispute that it used its student disciplinary procedure, i.e., the Student Code, instead of some separate grievance procedures to resolve Title IX complaints regarding sexual harassment grievances. The 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter” speci cally warned that if the recipient to Title IX funds relies on student disciplinary procedures for Title IX compliance, it should have its Title IX coordinator review the recipient's disciplinary procedures to ensure that the procedures comply with the requirements of Title IX and then the recipient should “implement changes as needed.” The University's fears of federal reprimands arising from Title IX are not without some merit. The “Dear Colleague Letter” sent to various educational institutions across the country in 2011 is lled with advice, illustrations, and implicit warnings. The loss of federal funding which the U.S. Department of Education suggests is a possibility, would be calamitous. In particular, one example from the letter is pertinent to this case. It deals with the effect of off-campus events and the on-campus environment: “Schools may have an obligation to respond to student-on-student sexual harassment that initially occurred off school grounds, outside a school's education program or activity. If a student les a complaint with the school, regardless of where the conduct occurred, the school must process the complaint in accordance with its established procedures. Because students often experience the continuing effects of off-campus sexual harassment in the educational setting, schools should consider the effects of the off-campus conduct when evaluating whether there is a hostile environment on campus. For example, if a student alleges that he or she was sexually assaulted by another student off school grounds, and that upon returning to school he or she was taunted and harassed by other students who are the alleged perpetrator's friends, the school should take the earlier sexual assault into account in determining whether there is a sexually hostile environment. The school also should take steps to protect a student who was assaulted off campus from further sexual harassment or retaliation from the perpetrator and his or her associates.” Note the letter does not direct the school to take action off-campus. Instead, the letter clearly advises that the school must take steps to prevent or eliminate a sexually hostile environment. It seems obvious that the only environment the University can control is on campus or at University sponsored or supervised events. After all, the University is not an agency of law enforcement but is rather an institution of learning. The University believes that to comply with Title IX requirements it must, and did, extend its jurisdiction to disciplining its students for off-campus misconduct. In contrast, Kansas State University contends in its amicus curiae brief that Title IX does not require a school to sanction students for off-campus conduct. To resolve this rst issue we need not address whether Title IX requires a recipient to Title IX funds to discipline off-campus conduct. Instead, the extent that a Title IX recipient believes it exerts jurisdiction over student conduct to comply with its Title IX obligations must be re with ected the in thelatest language for its student disciplinary procedures or separate procedures to resolve Stay up to date on chosen the law! such complaints. In other words, if we are to agree that the University's jurisdiction to discipline students extended to off-campus misconduct, we must nd that power clearly arises from the express framework of the Student Code and not because we simply Subscribe Please enter your email address accept that the authority should be there based on the University's own interpretation of Title IX. By submitting this form, you agree to FindLaw.com's terms (https://www. ndlaw.com/company/ ndlaw-terms-of-service.html). We respect your privacy (https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/privacy-statement.html). In contrast to the University's position, Yeasin argues the University cannot claim Article 20 gave it jurisdiction to discipline him for off-campus conduct for two First, Policy he argues the phrase the University relies upon in Article 20 is ambiguous, and second, This site is protected by reCAPTCHA andreasons. the Google Privacy (https://policies.google.com/privacy) and Terms of Service (https://policies.google.com/terms) the University expelled himapply. for violating Article 22, which expressly contradicts any such interpretation of Article 20. Since Article / ×