Published on: November 17, 2025
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Saundra K. Schuster, J.D., M.S., Kimberly Pacelli, J.D., M.Ed., and Katherine Weathers, J.D., USCG CDR (Ret.)
As civil rights law practitioners, we often find ourselves tracing the edges of complex issues, trying to determine where protected expression ends and discriminatory conduct begins. Nowhere is this more evident than in the evolving conversation about hostile environments under Title VI. Understanding when to take action and the most appropriate way to do so is essential to maintaining educational spaces that are lawful, responsive, and inclusive.
Where One Hostile Environment Ends and Another Begins
Taking a closer look at hostile environments under Title VI in educational settings, it’s common for harassment to be rarely confined to a single, isolated act. More often, it emerges over time through ongoing conflict that manifests in patterns of conduct—verbal, nonverbal, or physical—that collectively alter the conditions for participation in a program or activity. The challenge for institutions lies not only in discerning when that pattern becomes “severe” or “pervasive/persistent” enough to create a legally recognizable hostile environment, and how to act once that threshold is met, but also in being appropriately responsive when the conduct does not meet that hostile environment standard.
Consider that a hostile environment is definable but hard to describe. How many hostile environments exist based on a series of events, each constituted of hostile environment-creating acts, or is it only the aggregate of those acts that is enough to make an environment hostile? Where does one hostile environment end and another begin?
If a school acts to end a hostile environment, and it succeeds for a time, only to have the conflict recur, is that a new hostile environment, or the continuation of the previous one? If a hostile actor directs their hostility at Student A, then Student B, how many hostile environments exist? If Students C and D create a hostile environment for Student E, how many hostile environments must a school address? If two groups of students are in a politically-motivated conflict centering on ethnicity, do they create hostile environments for each other, or does one group have a superior claim to the other, and if so, on what basis? Being the aggressor? Is self-defense against a political attack itself an act of harassment?
If the hostile environment cannot be ended, what amount of mitigation is sufficient? How do we measure mitigation? It is hard to describe, indeed.
Understanding the Title VI Framework
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any federally funded program or activity. The law applies to everyone within an institution’s educational community, not only students. Faculty and staff are covered as well, although employment-related cases may also implicate Title VII. For practitioners who work with Title IX matters, Title VI feels familiar in its civil rights foundation, but it operates differently in key ways.
Unlike Title IX, Title VI does not come with detailed regulatory procedures. Institutions must still maintain a grievance process, but the law leaves greater discretion for how those processes function. This flexibility requires intentional policy development and a clear understanding of jurisdiction, especially since the conduct in question may occur on or off campus, through social media, or within the broader community. ATIXA’s Model Title VI Policy for Educational Settings can guide your policy development. Ensuring compliance means understanding and correctly applying the distinct language and definitions of Title VI and Title IX.
For K-12 schools and higher education institutions, it is crucial to articulate where jurisdiction begins and ends. Even when an incident occurs outside the physical or digital boundaries of an institution, the downstream effects within the school environment may still trigger responsibility to act. A student or employee who experiences racially charged harassment online, for instance, may bring the resulting climate of fear or exclusion back into the classroom.
Shifting Standards: From Actual Notice to Constructive Notice
A key distinction between Title IX and Title VI lies in the standard of notice that triggers institutional responsibility. Under Title IX, schools act when they have actual notice of potential harassment, meaning someone has reported a concern or the institution otherwise knows of the behavior. Title VI operates under a constructive notice standard. We are expected to know what we reasonably should have known.
This higher expectation requires strong centralization of reporting. Title VI complaints might enter through any number of doors, including department chairs, HR offices, or equity coordinators, and must be aggregated so the institution can recognize broader patterns. Multiple reports addressed in isolation may obscure the existence of a pervasive campus climate issue. By maintaining centralized reporting and coordinated response protocols, institutions can more effectively fulfill their obligations to stop, prevent, and remedy hostile environments. Familiarize yourself with best practices in reporting, response, and investigations in an expert-led Title VI training and certification course.
Defining a Hostile Environment
At its core, a Title VI hostile environment exists when conduct based on race, color, or national origin is severe or pervasive enough to limit or deny an individual’s ability to participate in or benefit from educational opportunities. This differs slightly from the Title IX standard, which requires that the conduct be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive (SPOO), a higher bar designed in part to protect free expression in matters of sex-based harassment. It may be that similar speech protections apply to Title VI complaints, but the courts have not yet addressed that explicit question. Public institutions subject to the First Amendment may want to consider remedial responses under Title VI, rather than disciplinary responses, when protected speech is implicated.
Title VI cases often implicate larger groups or the campus climate, rather than individual disputes (the “or” in the severe or pervasive standard matters). A single severe incident, such as a hateful symbol placed in a residence hall, can constitute a hostile environment. So can a pattern of persistent lower-level incidents, such as repeated racial slurs or exclusionary remarks, that cumulatively pollute the environment.
Determining whether conduct crosses that line requires a holistic assessment of the totality of the circumstances. Factors include the nature, frequency, and location of the conduct; whether it was directed at a particular person or group; and the effect it had on the community. Both the subjective impact on those affected and the objective reasonableness of that impact are essential considerations. Consulting institutional legal counsel will be essential to balancing free speech and hostile environment considerations.
Responding Effectively
Once an institution knows or should know that a hostile environment may exist, it must respond promptly and appropriately. That response will vary depending on the circumstances, but several best practices apply broadly:
- Centralize and track reports. A single report may seem isolated, but when viewed collectively, patterns emerge that reveal a systemic problem.
- Act even without formal complaints. Supportive measures and informal interventions can help address harm and prevent escalation, particularly when reporters do not wish to pursue discipline.
- Assess climate and culture. Regular climate surveys help identify unreported or underreported concerns and inform prevention strategies.
- Train and communicate. Faculty, staff, and students should understand both how to report and what happens after they do. Training is not just a compliance tool; it is a cultural one.
- Balance rights and responsibilities. Public institutions must navigate First Amendment protections carefully, while still addressing conduct that creates a discriminatory effect.
The Broader Context
Be careful of isms, phobias, and other terms that blur lines. Islamophobia is likely protected speech. So is antisemitism. Antisemitic discrimination is prohibited. So is Islamophobic harassment that creates a hostile environment. Hate speech is protected. Hate acts are not. Conduct and speech don’t always have a clear delineation from each other.
Although Title VI, Title VII, and Title IX differ in their regulatory details, their shared purpose is to ensure equitable access to education and employment. Each requires us to look beyond individual incidents and consider the holistic learning environment.
Title VI enforcement has gained renewed attention as incidents of bias and discrimination have increased across campuses nationwide. The federal government has emphasized that institutions must establish clear protocols, conduct climate assessments, and ensure that all responsible employees report potential violations. Whether in higher education or K-12 settings, the obligation is not merely to respond to harm after it occurs but to create conditions that prevent it.
Schools, districts, and institutions should immediately update policies, consult general counsel to anticipate legal risks, and expand Title VI compliance training for staff. Failure to do so risks non-compliance, loss of federal funding, and OCR investigations.
ATIXA’s Title VI Community
From the Title VI Model Policy to consulting partnerships and certification trainings, ATIXA provides schools with the tools, guidance, and expertise designed to strengthen institutional compliance and equity efforts.
Subscribe today to the ATIXA + VI community for exclusive resources and professional development opportunities that help your institution stay ahead of evolving Title VI expectations.