Published on: November 20, 2025
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Brett A. Sokolow, J.D., and Kayleigh Baker, J.D.
We see a fair number of reports where one student or employee uses a sexualized label to describe another, sometimes in the heat of conflict, sometimes as gossip, and sometimes to create deliberate exclusion. These labels might include references to being a “predator” or “rapist.” The question for Title IX administrators is whether and when these kinds of sex-based derogatory statements, and the exclusion that sometimes stems from them, cross the threshold into sexual harassment as defined by the Title IX regulations.
The short answer? It depends. Not every sexualized accusation or label constitutes Title IX sexual harassment. But when such labeling is sex-based, demonstrably false, and results in tangible exclusion or limitation from participation, it may indeed become actionable. As with many Title IX questions, the answer is complicated, contextual, and fact-dependent, and much messier in practice than simply applying the regulations. One especially complex aspect of this question is whether a Title IX Coordinator can screen initial reports or complaints of such conduct and determine that the conduct would not violate Title IX, if proven, or whether they need to allow the formal Title IX resolution process to unfold so that the process can help to ascertain whether labeling crosses a line. As with many complex legal questions, it depends.
Sex-Based Derogatory Accusations
As practitioners, we must be cautious of over-focusing on whether the respondent acted because of the complainant’s gender identity or sex. That’s certainly one path to showing sex-based motivation, but not the only one. Another inquiry is whether the conduct itself is sexual in nature or based on sex.
Courts have held that when the underlying content of the statement or action relates either to someone’s sex or to sexual conduct, the behavior can be considered “sex-based.” For example, earlier this year, in Doe v. Univ. of Maryland, a former student’s lawsuit survived summary judgment after he reported a “persistent pattern” of being publicly identified as a rapist, leading to his removal from a university program—all after being found Not Responsible in the institution’s grievance process. The District Court stated that referring to the student as a “rapist” or a “sexual predator” or that he was dangerous to women was language “aimed at” the student’s sex and his sexual conduct, and thus, could be determined to be based on sex.1
Within this context, even labeling someone as a “sexual harasser” invokes sexual conduct and carries an inherently sexual dimension. Even absent explicit sex-based animus, such labeling can fall within the purview of sexual harassment analysis.
The Central Question
From a Title IX perspective, calling someone a “rapist” or similar term is not, in and of itself, sexual harassment if the statement is true or provable through some legally authorized process, such as a criminal trial or campus Title IX hearing. In public settings, stating any kind of truth, however reputation-harming, could fall within constitutional free speech protections. Society shuns rapists, and reputational consequences for proven offenders do not constitute unlawful discrimination. Put succinctly, it’s not sexual harassment on a college campus or in a school setting to call a rapist a rapist, or to exclude them from educational programs on that basis. For one, it’s likely not going to be objectively offensive to call it like it is, but there is daylight between personal liability for what one student might say about another and what liability an institution may have for the resulting hostile environment such labels may create.2
Practitioners need to understand that when a person is falsely accused of being a rapist and also excluded from education programs or activities based on that false premise, that can constitute a form of sexual harassment that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive (SPOO) under the regulatory definition at 34 C.F.R. § 106.30. When that is the case, institutions have an obligation to respond, and sometimes, that may mean reinstating the person to the club from which they were removed.
While a Title IX office can’t prevent the chess club from excommunicating a member before that happens (it can try!), it can act on a complaint and remedy the exclusion once it occurs. If the chess club has a rule that members must be in good-standing with the institution and wants to void a rapist’s membership, and it does so through standard membership processes, on the basis of a finding by the institution and the member’s current standing with the institution, that would likely survive challenge in the courts. Without the finding, that exclusion will possibly constitute sexual harassment in violation of Title IX, especially if the underlying accusation is false. None of this is to say that removal from the chess club can’t be a sanction if a student is found responsible for violating an institution’s Title IX policy (it can be), but without the finding, unauthorized institutional action from the chess team can amount to sexual harassment.
In order to have a complaint move forward, this member would have to allege that
- They were excluded from the team (an institutional program or activity)
- Because of being labelled a rapist
- And those allegations were false
Without a showing of falsity, the conduct may be unkind, unfair, or reputationally damaging, but it is not necessarily sexual harassment and thus, a Title IX Coordinator would be required to dismiss the complaint.
Process Implications
Do we dismiss or investigate? Here’s where things get tricky. The regulations require dismissal of a Title IX complaint that does not allege conduct meeting the definition of sexual harassment. Yet, institutions often face pressure to “do something” in response to sexualized allegations, even when Title IX may not apply.
If the falsity of the allegation cannot be established within the Title IX process (e.g., where there is no underlying finding that the accused committed the act in question), a dismissal may be appropriate, with referral to another applicable conduct process. Many campuses employ alternative processes (often referred to as Process B, in contrast to the Title IX regulatorily-prescribed process, Process A) for situations like this. ATIXA’s One Policy, Two Procedures (1P2P) template offers a model framework for an equivalent procedure to address misconduct that falls outside Title IX’s scope but still violates institutional policy, such as making demonstrably false or bad-faith accusations. It may still be necessary to show falsity, in an institutional process, so if it cannot be shown through Process A, it may also be difficult to establish in Process B.
If there is evidence that supports that the label is false (e.g., through the grievance process, lack of any credible basis, or a conduct finding showing the accusation was made in bad faith), then a Title IX sexual harassment investigation may be justified. In such cases, the institution would be addressing a sex-based false accusation that materially affects educational access. A key understanding here is that some complaints won’t be dismissible, if the labeled student believes that through the Title IX process, they can demonstrate falsity. So, Title IX coordinators may need to do some initial vetting on whether that possibility is viable. If not, dismissal is appropriate. If so, allowing the investigation to go forward to see if falsity can be established would be more appropriate.
The Analytical Threshold
Title IX administrators should apply the SPOO elements carefully. A single accusation may be severe enough to meet the standard if it is false, sexualized, and results in exclusion from participation. The act of falsely being called a “rapist” in front of peers or in a professional or educational context can be objectively offensive, even without repetition.
False accusations of rape that are widely publicized will likely rise to the level of being pervasive, though a court might also find that exclusion from the club or organization, on its own, has a pervasive effect, or one that effectively denies educational access, even if the label is not widely publicized. This would also cover situations where the false rapist label results in exclusion, even if the person who used the label is not also the person enacting the exclusion (e.g., when a student organization removes a member based on gossip or rumors shared by others).
But if the accusation is made privately, is not disseminated, and results only in interpersonal tension rather than tangible exclusion, it is less likely to be sufficiently pervasive. Each case must be analyzed contextually, including whether the impact is felt within an institutional program. Ostracization from a social group of friends is not the same as excommunication from the chess club, which is an institutionally sponsored education activity. We can’t make students be friends with someone whom they believe to be a rapist, as a Title IX remedy. Severity often weighs more than pervasiveness when the statement is of a grave nature and tied to sexual misconduct. Objectivity must also consider the educational environment (e.g., a high school context may differ from a graduate program in how the reasonable person standard is applied).
Focus on Falsity and Impact
Sex-based derogatory labeling and false sexual accusations are not new, but the evolving regulatory framework continues to challenge Title IX professionals to parse the line between protected speech, unkind speech, and actionable harassment. The key is to focus on falsity and impact: it’s not sexual harassment to accurately describe someone’s founded sexual misconduct, but it is likely sexual harassment to falsely brand them with that label in a way that denies them access to the institution’s programs or benefits.
As always, context is controlling. We encourage practitioners to objectively, and with a steady hand, analyze the totality of the circumstances while balancing fairness and due process.
Our experts address scenarios like this on the ATIXA Member Listserv. Join today to learn from the community or engage our consultants for tailored solutions to complex cases. Contact inquiry@tngconsulting.com to learn more. ATIXA members can also access our ready-to-implement frameworks, including One Policy, Two Procedures (1P2P).