Published on: October 30, 2026
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Sharon Perry Fantini, Ph.D., MBA
Recent events at Cornell University highlight a longstanding contradiction. When sexual misconduct allegations prompt institutional scrutiny, senior leaders form committees and draft plans to prevent similar incidents, and everyone questions the Title IX office.
Institutions expect Title IX Coordinators to prevent and address sexual violence and discrimination yet often exclude them from decisions shaping that response. How can Coordinators be accountable for institution-wide compliance without influence over institution-wide decisions?
This Tip of the Week advocates for Coordinators having a seat at the table. What does that mean? For some, authority. Coordinators need the authority to carry out Title IX’s mandate, and that often means they need to report to the president or senior leadership, with a direct or dotted line. For others, institutional dynamics will mean it makes sense for the Coordinator to have a cabinet role, especially when their portfolio includes ADA/504, Title VI, or other areas of overarching compliance. For others, it will mean Coordinators need to be regularly briefing Boards of Trustees and cabinets so that no one is surprised, and leaders can make decisions with full information.
What’s Keeping Title IX Coordinators Out of Leadership?
Over many years in higher education, I’ve heard presidents and senior leaders offer many reasons for keeping Title IX Coordinators out of leadership conversations. All deserve a closer look in light of how incendiary Title IX has become for most colleges and universities.
“We’ve always done it this way.”
Higher education values titles, seniority, and tradition. Cabinets include leaders overseeing finance, academic affairs, athletics, institutional advancement, and student affairs, yet Coordinators oversee compliance across these divisions without comparable influence.
“I already have general counsel on my cabinet.”
One president relied on legal counsel, even though counsel admitted relying on the Title IX office for specialized civil rights expertise. ATIXA has trained professionals including attorneys, individuals with master’s and doctoral degrees, and practitioners with extensive civil rights compliance experience. Their expertise isn’t interchangeable with that of legal counsel.
“We already include campus police.”
One president asked why Title IX offices investigate sexual assault allegations instead of leaving them to campus law enforcement. This question reveals a deep misunderstanding of the Coordinator’s role. Institutional investigations assess potential policy violations, not criminal guilt. They fulfill a federal equity mandate, rather than serving a law enforcement function.
“We have reputations to protect.”
One president had close personal relationships with individuals implicated in Title IX matters and expressed concern about protecting reputations. Reputation matters to every institution, but not at the expense of a fair, impartial process. Protecting some employees over others is cronyism, and inequitable.
“We have the right people working on it.”
At one institution, senior leaders planned a centralized civil rights office without involving administrators responsible for that work. Imagine how much more effective that effort could have been if the people already doing the work had helped shape it.
“Title IX investigations are not a badge of honor.”
A president suggested that investigations reflect poorly on the institution. But investigations aren’t badges of shame, either. They’re essential to a healthy Title IX program. This president insisted I persuade parties to pursue informal resolution to avoid investigations, despite my explanation that informal resolution requires voluntary agreement. If leaders misunderstand institutional investigations or want to avoid them, isn’t that reason enough to include Coordinators in decisions?
Perhaps most uncomfortably, what happens when a Coordinator’s responsibility to ensure process integrity conflicts with senior leadership’s preferences or decisions? How do we more effectively convince senior administrators that high levels of reports, and steady increases in formal complaints over time, are not just desired, but the goal, and an emblem of a successful, trusted program? Cornell’s situation can quite readily be leveraged to make that argument now, right? Underserved populations are at risk, and the more people who seek to make civil rights complaints, the better we serve our communities.
What Happens When Expertise Is Excluded?
The consequences go beyond Coordinators feeling unheard or being blamed for problems they were not invited to help solve. When a crisis like the Cornell 7 arises, a Coordinator’s stock might go up, but that stock was worth investing in to have potentially avoided the crisis. Decisions made without Coordinator input can create ongoing compliance challenges they’re expected to resolve, or create problems they could have helped the institution to avoid.
We see the same disconnect when allegations spark protests, even at other institutions. Protests can raise concerns about discrimination, hostile environments, and access to education, yet public safety and senior leaders may respond without input from civil rights professionals. That expertise is needed as events unfold and decisions are made over time. This ensures senior leaders have a realistic grasp of the scope of the problem, don’t overstate how the institution will respond, and don’t make promises that can’t be fulfilled.
Exclusion also means inadequate resources. We regularly hear from Coordinators who are the only person in their office, who wear multiple hats, or who lack adequate resources. Some are expected to educate entire campus communities on sexual violence prevention but receive just 30 minutes during orientation or faculty meetings. If institutions want prevention to be a priority, they must give Coordinators the time and resources to make it one. While there was a time when ATIXA suggested it would likely be beneficial for prevention efforts to have autonomy from Title IX offices, that has resulted not in autonomy, but neglect. We’re rethinking that, and moving toward a sense that prevention needs the clout and resources of the Title IX office, so we hope you heard us above when we made the pitch that Coordinators need clout and resources.
A Seat at the Table Is Only the Beginning
ATIXA teaches that Coordinators should have direct access to presidents and senior leadership. But access must come with influence: consultation before decisions are made, advocates who remove institutional barriers, and sufficient staffing, training, technology, and budgets.
Sometimes solutions require creativity. At one institution, I partnered with Student Affairs to split the cost of a complaint management system that neither office could afford alone. Disability Services later joined, reducing costs further. But creative partnerships cannot replace sustained institutional investment.
Title IX Coordinators shouldn’t have to wait for a lawsuit, federal investigation, or public controversy for their expertise to matter. And presidents shouldn’t need a crisis committee to discover what their Coordinators have been trying to tell them all along.
Give Title IX Coordinators a seat at the leadership table. Give them the authority and resources to do their jobs. And when they speak, listen. Otherwise, don’t be surprised when everyone wonders what went wrong.
Need help evaluating your Title IX program’s organizational structure, staffing, or resources? Contact inquiry@tngconsulting.com to discuss how TNG can support your institution.