Published on: June 10, 2026
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Brett A. Sokolow, J.D.
Every four years, post-election, many Americans come together to agree that the Electoral College is antiquated and dysfunctional. The losing side moans and groans and demands change, and then forgets about it for the next four years, only to be incensed yet again when it comes back around.
We have a version of that in the higher education world. Every late April or May, Title IX offices receive complaints of sex discrimination or sexual harassment involving an about-to-graduate senior, and college administrators throw their arms up in frustration, knowing that the respondent will graduate before the Title IX process can be completed. Because of the timelines built into the federal regulations, even the most efficient campuses can rarely complete the Title IX process in less than 60-90 days. Every spring, higher education professionals across the field post their frustrations on the ATIXA listserv, with the constant refrain: Is there anything we can do to prevent graduation and the subsequent loss of jurisdiction over the respondent that often results in a dismissal of the Title IX complaint?
We bemoan the regulations every spring, and then forget about them until the next spring, when the listserv posts become fast and furious, yet again. Our Electoral College. A broken system that pains us but does not move us enough to fix. In this week’s Tip of the Week, let’s explore whether we have a different option.
Complainants, parents, and administrators who are less familiar with the nuances of the Title IX regulations often pose a legitimate question: If a student is facing serious Title IX allegations, why not hold their graduation until the resolution of the complaint? They aren’t in good standing and thus have not met the requirements for graduation. This is exactly what happened in Harwood v. Johns Hopkins University. This is a state court opinion that addresses a private university that refused to confer a degree on a student who was facing serious criminal charges (murder) and was involved in the conduct process, but nonetheless completed the requirements of his degree. The court upheld the university’s right to determine that he was not in good standing and, thus, that he was not eligible to receive his degree, even if he met the academic requirements. But that isn’t a Title IX complaint, and this approach would presumably be unlawful under the 2020 Title IX Regulations.
The regulations say that for allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking, colleges and institutions cannot take punitive action against a student respondent without first reaching a finding that the respondent has violated the college’s Title IX policy. Holding a student’s graduation, even if they’re not “in good standing,” is likely to be seen as a punitive action by agencies enforcing Title IX and, presumably, by the courts. Although the courts need not defer to federal regulations anymore, most colleges don’t risk it on something like this, likely for good reason.
This means that complaints made toward the end of the school year often lead to the same problem time and again.
Example:
- April – Complainant reports to the Title IX Coordinator and files a formal complaint for a sexual assault incident at a fraternity formal the weekend prior; Notices of Investigation are sent out; Complainant is interviewed; Respondent and witnesses are interviewed; Additional witnesses are interviewed
- May – Title IX Investigator drafts report and sends it to the parties; Respondent graduates
- June – What options does the Title IX Coordinator have?
In this example, even if the investigation was completed in about 30 days, the required review period means there is no way that the process, including the review periods, live hearing, and appeals, will be finished before the respondent graduates. At this point, Title IX offices are faced with two options:
- The college can discretionarily dismiss the complaint since they now lack jurisdiction over the respondent, or
- The college can continue its resolution process.
If the college continues its resolution process, then, typically, sanctions for a student who has graduated look something like:
- Limitation on alumni activities
- Bars on future enrollment or employment
- Bans from campus
On the one hand, this makes sense. It’s not like you can expel a former student, right? Or can you?
There may be a path to do so, for the courageous. Anyone who has faced a complainant with the news that a respondent may be able to escape accountability fairly easily knows we must do better. Some might even argue there is a moral or ethical imperative to consider this option. Otherwise, people who engage in some of the worst behaviors seen on college campuses can transfer or graduate to escape real consequences. Knowing that may even incentivize April assaults and misconduct. The numbers on campuses don’t lie.
Congress has deemed April to be Sexual Assault Awareness Month in the US, but some of us in the field call it Sexual Assault Perpetration Month. There are a number of causes, but graduation may be one. Consider the moral hazard this may create if it signals to potential perpetrators that if they wish to escape college consequences, all they need to do is commit an offense on the eve of graduation or transfer out right after they do it. Yes, colleges can hold respondents accountable in absentia, but the Title IX grievance process is resource-intensive, and many complainants may not be inclined to move forward knowing that no meaningful sanctions can be imposed post-graduation.
In other circumstances, albeit rare, there is a meaningful sanction that can be imposed post-graduation: the revocation of a degree that has already been conferred.
Degree revocation is not entirely uncommon, but it is reasonably confined—as a practice—to academic violations that result in a degree having been awarded but not actually earned. Cheating, fraudulent admission, and other grounds can lead to a college engaging in post-graduation revocation. If that is an option, why couldn’t it be an option for non-academic misconduct as well? If we open up to the possibility of post-graduation suspensions and expulsions as potential sanctions, then degree revocation can be specified as one potential consequence of post-graduation expulsion. Not all post-graduation findings would result in degree revocation, so this is a very specific instance and application for this practice.
Would this be lawful? Likely. We know from Harwood that courts may look to this as a contractual issue among private colleges. Would such decisions apply to public universities, which are subject to more robust due process obligations than private colleges? We don’t know for sure unless we try, but this approach doesn’t reduce any of the due process protections that are in place before, during, and even after the adjudication of a formal complaint. In fact, there’s an argument that the process outlined below is more in line with due process protections than the facts of Harwood because there would be no penalty, not even the hold on graduation, unless the process concluded and a determination was reached based on the college’s standard of evidence.
So, how would this work? A cogent framework for expulsion post-graduation, leading to degree revocation, would likely have to work something like this:
- A policy must specify that for students who are charged and are facing a formal Title IX complaint, they can graduate (if they have otherwise fulfilled graduation requirements) or transfer, but the college will continue its process unless the complainant specifically requests to withdraw their complaint or other especially compelling reasons persuade a Title IX Coordinator to dismiss.
- Policy must explicitly contemplate post-graduation suspension, expulsion, and degree revocation as potential sanctions.
- The respondent must be given full participation rights in the college’s resolution process, regardless of their enrollment status.
- The policy only applies to conduct that occurred prior to the student’s degree conferral or date of transfer (and is otherwise subject to Title IX jurisdiction), that was reported prior to graduation/transfer or thereafter (set a time limit on post-graduation or transfer reporting, if beneficial).
- The policy authorizes the institution to use its regulations-compliant processes to expel a student as a sanction for a Title IX violation at any time, regardless of whether they are still a student, have graduated, or have transferred.
- A post-transfer expulsion of a student could bar them from returning to campus or college activities for any reason, could result in having their expulsion noted on their transcript, and/or in having notice of their expulsion shared with any college to which they have transferred or applied to transfer (if known).
- The effect of a post-graduation expulsion on a student who has graduated, in addition to any applicable restrictions in the bullet above, is that their degree may be revoked/rescinded by the college, with no opportunity for reinstatement.
- The effect of a retroactive suspension of a graduated student is to prohibit (for the time period of the suspension) the student from holding themselves out as a graduate of the institution, in any way, after which the graduation takes effect without limitation (transcript notation optional).
This approach would seemingly align with the regulations, which do not in any way limit when an expulsion can be imposed, post-finding.
College lawyers and academic affairs administrators will need to wordsmith not just their Title IX policies, but also degree requirement policies, to ensure that a post-graduation revocation of a degree is clearly authorized, and they will likely want to offer a rationale for doing so, in the event of a legal challenge. Your college will need to be well-positioned to argue against Mr. Harwood’s rationale that once a student earns their credits, they are entitled to their degree. Your policy needs to specify that that is only true if they are not expelled post-graduation by the process referenced under Title IX.
A final consideration is that some colleges address sexual misconduct outside of Title IX or other protected class-based discrimination and harassment, as well as addressing Title IX offenses. Without the 2020 regulatory limitations, placing holds on graduation or on the ability to request transcripts (often necessary if a student is looking to transfer), if charges are pending, may be possible. As you redesign your approach, be thoughtful about implications both within and outside of the Title IX regulations, whether you want to use differing approaches depending on which laws apply, or whether a unified post-graduation or post-transfer approach may be more defensible. It also may make sense in some circumstances, but not others, which may tip the scale in favor of providing for the option of both a hold and a post-process revocation.
Some might argue that the policies discussed in this blog are biased against respondents. That is incorrect. The policies presented here do not deprive respondents of due process. Instead, they are biased toward justice and accountability.
If you are interested in innovative policies, challenging the status quo, and doing the right thing, you will find more than 30 like-minded consultants at TNG Consulting. While we can’t overturn the Electoral College, we can help you reform the complexities of graduation and transfer policies. We’re ready to help. Contact inquiry@tngconsulting.com.