I think what you found was a lot of instinctive behavior that was very common in another era coming in conflict with the era of regulation, compliance and transparency. Football coaches used to be gods. You didn’t take anything outside the program. You’d lose your job. I can’t imagine anyone going above Joe Paterno’s head or Bear Bryant’s. How you ran a successful football program was with a certain level of independence from things. Now, a lot of coaches are running to their boards and presidents saying, “I need Title IX. If I’m going to get my people on the field, and we’re going to win games, I’ve got to have a Title IX system.”

What underlies it is something almost ironic — a lot of schools were using preponderance of evidence, so when the change came there was no change at all. It still was for some, but not for others. You really have civilians running these college courts. When you say to them, “preponderance,” or “clear and convincing,” lawyers are confident that the lawyer-meaning will be conveyed. I don’t know if educators process legal standards the way lawyers think educators process legal standards. I’m not one to criticize the Office for Civil Rights. But I think one thing in retrospect: that if they had included more educators in the initial dialogue in the creation of the guidance, they would’ve anticipated some of the operational issues I encountered as a Title IX coordinator. I can hand an investigative matter to an investigator for the preponderance of evidence standard, and what I get back is not what a sitting judge would understand that means. I have to train to the legal standard. And I’m not sure it fits that well in an educational context.