JEFFERSON CITY — A bill introduced in both houses of the state legislature last week would make Title IX investigations at Missouri’s colleges and universities more like legal proceedings.

Senate Education Committee Chairman Gary Romine, R-Farmington, and House Higher Education Committee Chairman Dean Dohrman, R-La Monte, are sponsoring legislation requiring due process in Title IX investigations.

It would guarantee all students the right to representation by an attorney in a Title IX case and allow students to request a review of adherence to due process rules by the state’s Administrative Hearing Commission.

The commission oversees the application of state regulations and makes decisions “in cases involving a state agency and private citizen,” according to its website.

In an interview, Dohrman said the bill is of the “same line of thinking” as the proposed new Title IX regulations U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released in November. DeVos has said the rules are meant to increase due process for accused students.

“Each college or university does it a little differently, but those are basic constitutional standards,” Dohrman said.

Victims’ advocates have said the rules will make it harder for accusers to obtain the justice they seek.

The bill says the commission can enforce discovery, the legal term for how each party in a case may obtain evidence from the other party, “by the same methods as provided by rule of the Supreme Court of Missouri for use in civil cases.”

The bill also makes higher education officials personally liable if they violate the due process requirements outlined in the legislation. The institution will be fined $250,000 in this situation.

If passed, the bill would be the only law allowing the Administrative Hearing Commission to review decisions made by the University of Missouri, spokesman Christian Basi wrote in an email.

UM System rules allow parties to have advisers during Title IX hearings but the adviser cannot represent the party during a hearing or examine witnesses. Some victims of sexual assault are unwilling to relive their trauma in public by testifying at a trial but want to pursue action in the closed disciplinary process, said Donell Young, assistant vice chancellor for Student Engagement and Success at the university.

“Adding an attorney to these processes, and also being allowed to represent students, it imposes a different level,” Young said. “It could silence some students, one that was already afraid to go through the legal process anyway, but it can also stop them from going through a university process because they don’t want the double taxation of going through the process.”

Dohrman said legal representation and discovery are key elements of due process that are absent from current Title IX procedures because they are not required.

"Due process is vital in both civil and criminal proceedings and Title IX proceedings are no different,” Dohrman said in a news release about the bill.

Romine said conversations with his constituents brought the issue of due process to his attention.

“Once you ring the bell, you can’t un-ring it,” he said. “We want to make sure that those who have been assaulted have a venue in which they can voice the allegation, but we also want to make sure that if someone has been accused, their identity is protected as well.”

The proposed federal rules narrow the definition of sexual harassment and set stricter requirements for reporting it. They also would allow schools to set a higher standard of evidence and offer the option of cross-examination. Both parties in a case would have equal access to all evidence and the chance to appeal all decisions.

The comment period for the proposal ends Jan. 30.

DeVos’ proposal would require schools to hold live hearings and would not hold schools responsible for investigating incidents that happen off campus. Neither provision is included in the Missouri bill.

The Association of American Universities, a group of 62 research universities including MU, issued a statement Thursday saying it has provided comments to the Education Department about its proposal.

The comments signed by AAU President Mary Sue Coleman argue the new rules are based on the faulty premise that the system is broken. Allowing attorneys to represent the parties and cross-examine witnesses will bring “unnecessary contention and disruption” to the proceedings.

The proposal also “ignores the fact that internal disciplinary processes at a college or university are separate and distinct from the adversarial procedures that govern the criminal and civil justice systems,” the comments state.

The department’s final rule should “ensure policies and procedures are fair to all involved, and result in safer campus communities,” Coleman said in the statement.

The federal rules are “a good step in the right direction,” Dohrman said, but do not establish as much due process as he would prefer. The next presidential administration could change DeVos’ regulations because they are not federal law, he said.

The bill would require that schools must “ensure that all parties use the terms ‘complainant’ and ‘respondent’ and refrain from using the term ‘survivor’ or any other term that presumes guilt before an actual finding of guilt.”

That maintains neutrality before a case is decided, Dohrman said.

“If the complainant is referred to as the survivor, we’ve automatically put some sort of judgment on the case,” he said.

Institutions are currently not required to have anyone “with a legal mind” on the commissions that hear cases, and the bill would provide this option for issues that “may need more of a legal interpretation,” Romine said.

The most important part of the bill is the opportunity for either party to appeal a decision, Romine said.

The Title IX investigation process at MU does allow appeals. The Tribune reported in July 2018 that the appeals process can undo or put off punishments for alleged sexual predators, sometimes catching the complainant off guard.

Colleges and universities share the concern that all parties are treated fairly, said Paul Wagner, executive director and lobbyist for the Council on Public Higher Education.

His job as a liaison between Jefferson City and the presidents and chancellors of all 13 public, four-year colleges and universities is to work with lawmakers to make sure there are no conflicts between the bill and federal Title IX guidelines.

“We’re very confident that we’ll have productive conversations with the sponsors,” Wagner said. “We know that their intentions are good, and we know that they’re trying to make these processes the best that they can be.”

Adding due process will make Title IX cases “more serious in nature,” Dohrman said. He also said it will help the accused be more aware of what the exact charges are and make sure all the facts of a situation come to light.

“There’s a whole continuum of things that could happen (in a Title IX case), from a misunderstanding all the way up to criminal activity,” he said. “Due process will help uncover where they’re at within that continuum.”