Published on: July 30, 2026
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Brett A. Sokolow, J.D., and Sharon Perry Fantini, Ph.D., MBA
Title VI complaints rarely fit neatly into a single protected category. Because identities overlap, individuals filing complaints with their schools and colleges may not know which aspect of their identity shaped the alleged discrimination or whether multiple characteristics contributed to their experience.
People who seek help from Title VI offices describe experiences, not legal theories. It’s the institution’s role to determine how the facts fit into policies and laws. Rather than asking, “Which protected category is this?” practitioners should first ask, “What happened?” An intersectional approach recognizes overlapping identities, helping institutions to analyze complaints as they were experienced and apply the appropriate legal frameworks to the facts.
We recently explored this topic during a subscribers-only VIewpoints event. Below are key takeaways from that conversation to help you move from insight to action.
ATIXA + VI subscribers can watch the recording in their My ATIXA portal.
The Institution’s Role Is to Translate Experience Into Process
You are not bound by a complainant’s initial characterization of their experience. Individuals might name one protected characteristic when several apply, or they may not know why they were treated differently. This makes intake an analytical process, not an administrative one. Title VI coordinators and administrators will benefit from exploring the reported experience in detail before narrowing a complaint to a particular protected category or policy pathway.
The institution’s lens isn’t always the same as the lens of the complainant sitting across the desk. The intake conversation is the foundation for understanding the scope, identifying overlapping protected identities, clarifying the reported conduct, and determining how a complaint should proceed. As the facts develop, the complaint may look very different on paper than the complainant initially expected.
A Broader View Can Lead to Better Decisions
Avoid making the complaint artificially narrow. Complaints involving overlapping protected identities should not automatically be separated into isolated issues. Instead, consider whether evaluating the allegations together provides a more accurate understanding of the reported harm while avoiding unnecessary procedural barriers. Sometimes animus is layered because of overlapping identities, and other times it is intersectional, with mixed, indivisible motives. The goal is not to assume a complaint is either overlapping or intersectional, but to remain open to going where the facts lead.
Intersectionality is far more prevalent than we tend to think, because identity is complex. An intersectional approach does not change the legal standards that apply under Title VI. Instead, it changes how practitioners begin their analysis. Starting with the reported experience, rather than assigning an immediate legal classification, can help to ensure that investigations, policies, and resolutions reflect the full context of a complaint.
Continue Building Your Title VI Expertise
Understanding intersectionality is just one part of effective Title VI practice. ATIXA’s Title VI Compliance Curriculum Path provides a structured yet flexible learning progression that equips Title VI coordinators and related personnel with the knowledge and skills to apply the law with confidence and sound judgment.