In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit court has ruled that Universities can be held liable under Title IX for off-campus assaults. The ruling overturns a previous panel decision. The significance of this ruling is highlighted by Alexandra Brodsky, a staff attorney at Public Justice in Washington D.C., who argued the case before the en banc court. She views this as a victory not just for the petitioner, Mackenzie, but for student survivors nationwide.
According to Brodsky, “Gender violence has grave effects on students’ access to education. For that reason, the civil rights law Title IX requires schools to address known abuse”. She further notes the critical assertion made by the Ninth Circuit in its verdict, that a school’s power to intervene and halt violence, as well its obligation to do so, doesn’t end at the campus boundary.
This ruling emphasizes the significance of academic facilities being accountable for the safety of their students, including incidents that occur off-campus. It is a significant interpretation of Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sexual harassment and violence in education. The Ninth Circuit’s pronouncement serves as a reminder to educational institutions of their responsibility to safeguard their students from harm, irrespective of the geolocation of the crime.
This development lends a fresh perspective in the interpretation of Title IX, with potential implications on the responsibilities of educational institutions. For a detailed review of this case, the original judgment and comprehensive discussion provide more extensive insights.