Protecting Campus Safety: Exploring Title IX and the Jeanne Clery Act

Abstract

Kimberly Meyers reported a sexual assault at Grapevine University, leading to a Title IX investigation that resulted in the male respondent’s expulsion. The respondent later sued the university for selective enforcement, and the case drew federal attention that triggered a Clery Act review. The Department of Education identified multiple reporting and classification failures, resulting in significant proposed fines. This case illustrates the intersection of Title IX procedures, Clery Act obligations, and institutional accountability. It is designed to help current and future educational leaders analyze how reporting decisions, investigative practices, and regulatory compliance shape campus safety, organizational culture, and legal risk across higher education and PK–12 settings.

Case Narrative

Kimberly Meyers’ Complaint Against Kevin Stevens

Kimberly Meyers was a student at Grapevine University from 2020 to 2023. During that time, she met Kevin Stevens, another student at Grapevine, and the two became friends and would regularly “hang out.” Stevens had a girlfriend during this time, Briana Roberts, a mutual friend of Meyers. On October 31, 2022, Stevens invited Meyers to his fraternity’s “Halloween, Hennessey, and Handcuffs” event at its off-campus house, where dates were handcuffed to one another until a shared bottle of Hennessey was empty. Meyers inquired why Stevens was not taking Roberts, and he shared that he and Roberts had broken up.

Stevens and Meyers participated in the event, which took place in the fraternity house’s living room. About a dozen couples were handcuffed together, drinking, eating pizza, playing Jenga, and socializing over the night. By 10:00, most couples had finished their bottles. Around midnight, Stevens and Meyers still had not finished their bottle of Hennessey, but a fraternity member took off their handcuffs, so that they could use the bathroom. Meyers reported that by this point, she was extremely intoxicated, tired, and repeatedly told Stevens that she wanted to go home. She stated that she felt pressured to stay after Stevens insisted she could sleep on the futon in his room, and she agreed because she was too exhausted to argue.

Meyers reported that she immediately fell asleep once upstairs. She later awoke to Stevens kissing her. She acknowledged briefly kissing him back before he slid his hand under her shirt, at which point she pushed his hand away. Meyers described drifting in and out of consciousness. She later woke to find her shirt and bra removed and Stevens touching her beneath her underwear. She remembered saying “no” and attempting to move his hand away but said she was too intoxicated to resist physically. The last thing she recalled was Stevens getting on top of her after she again said “no.” The next morning, she woke up naked, dressed quickly, and left.

On November 2, Meyers broke down crying in class. Concerned, her professor, Dr. Bryan, met with her afterward, and Meyers recounted what happened. Meyers asked Dr. Bryan to keep the information confidential. Dr. Bryan informed her that she would need to consult her supervisor but showed her the institution’s Title IX webpage. This interaction raised important questions about mandatory reporting, appropriate faculty responses, and the balance between protecting student trust and fulfilling legal obligations.

Later that day, Meyers met with Hannah Smith, a Title IX Investigator, and disclosed the incident. Smith provided interim measures, including academic accommodations and a no-contact order. Smith determined that the situation did not present a “serious or ongoing threat” to the campus community and therefore did not issue a Clery Act Timely Warning or Emergency Notification. Smith also did not forward the information for Clery crime-log purposes because the incident occurred off campus.

Briana Roberts’ Complaint Against Kevin Stevens

On November 4, Roberts went to the Title IX office after hearing rumors that Stevens and Meyers had “hooked up.” She told Smith that she met Stevens at a fraternity–sorority mixer during her first year in 2020. They spent the evening drinking and playing games, and Stevens invited her to a friend’s on-campus apartment the next day. Roberts described becoming intoxicated during a drinking game and later going with Stevens to a bedroom. She reported that she repeatedly told him she did not want to have sex, but he penetrated her anyway. She stayed because she felt too intoxicated to safely leave.

Roberts stated that despite this, she and Stevens began dating shortly thereafter. Initially positive, the relationship became increasingly possessive and coercive. She told Smith that over the next 18 months, Stevens pressured or forced her to have sex when she did not want to. After reviewing her journal, she gave Smith 26 dates on which she said unwanted sexual activity occurred, including incidents in her on-campus apartment, the fraternity house, Stevens’s car, and a nearby public park. She also described stalking-type behavior following her attempts to end the relationship.

Smith again assessed whether Roberts’s report presented a threat requiring a Clery Act Timely Warning. She concluded it did not and did not issue a notification.

Kevin Stevens’ Response to Kimberly Meyers’ Complaint

Stevens provided a markedly different account for both of the complaints. Regarding Meyers, he stated that they socialized and drank together throughout the evening and that Meyers initiated sexual contact after waking him and bringing him to his room. He denied hearing her say “no,” claimed she was “very into it,” and said he could not remember whether intercourse occurred due to his level of intoxication. He also stated that he, too, was unable to consent. In response to Roberts’s report, Stevens said that she initiated sexual contact during their first night together, that she was not significantly intoxicated, and that their subsequent relationship was consensual and primarily driven by her interest and emotional dependence.

Stevens denied coercion or force and described their breakup as contentious, saying that Roberts became upset and damaged his phone. Stevens quoted Meyers as screaming that he was just a “typical guy,” “just interested in sex,” and that she “hated him and all men.” She then grabbed his cell phone and threw it against the wall, breaking it.

Smith’s Title IX Investigation, Resulting Lawsuits, and Department of Education Review

In the investigation report, Smith summarized the complaint, Stevens’s response, 16 witness statements, and the parties’ relevant texts and call records. Applying Grapevine’s preponderance of the evidence standard, that is, more likely than not, Smith found enough evidence to determine that a violation of the University’s sexual misconduct policy occurred. In a subsequent hearing process, a hearing officer found Meyers and Roberts and their stories more credible than Stevens’s and found Stevens responsible for sexually assaulting Meyers on Halloween and for sexually assaulting Roberts on September 19. Stevens was subsequently expelled from Grapevine University.

Stevens sued Grapevine University for selective enforcement under Title IX because it selectively enforced its sexual assault policies against him because of his gender and did not investigate his complaint that he was the victim in each case.

The publicity surrounding the case caught the attention of an investigator from the Department of Education (Department), who investigated alleged violations of the Clery Act. The Department notified the University it would be reviewing the University’s Clery program. Upon conclusion of the review, the University received a Program Review Report with numerous findings of non-compliance, including “Failure To Properly Classify Reported Incidents And Disclose Crime Statistics” for not including in their university-published crime statistics: (a) Roberts’s report of her sexual assault at Steven’s off-campus fraternity house; (b) Roberts’ report of the 23 separate sexual assaults reported to Smith during their interview (the three which occurred off campus in Steven’s car were proper not to count); (c) Roberts’s report of Stevens stalking her after she tried to break up with him; and (d) Stevens’s report of Roberts breaking his phone because she “hated all men,” which should have been counted as a hate crime with destruction/damage/vandalism of property.

The University also received a finding for “Failure to Issue Timely Warnings in accordance with Federal Regulations” by not issuing a campus-wide Clery Timely Warning after Roberts reported she was also sexually assaulted by Stevens while she was intoxicated. The Department found Roberts’ report, which came on the heels of Meyers’s report, demonstrated a pattern of sexual assault and was a continuing threat to the campus. The federal review emphasized that institutions must apply Clery geography, threat-assessment criteria, and crime-classification standards consistently, particularly when multiple related reports indicate a possible pattern of harm.

After the Department issued their report, two more women who did not file Title IX complaints with the University sued the University for deliberate indifference under Title IX and for violating the Clery Act. Both alleged they were sexually assaulted by Stevens while intoxicated after Meyers made her report, and the sexual assaults would not have happened if the University had warned the campus. The Department has proposed to fine the University U.S.$1,860,170 for the 26 violations (each violation of the Clery Act is U.S.$71,545).

Teaching Notes and Legal Analysis

Practicing administrators must have a legal comprehension of the obligations under Title IX and the Jeanne Clery Act (Clery Act), as these areas present a higher likelihood of litigation and the potential for exceptional fines. This case presents three legal issues. The first is selective enforcement under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The second is compliance with correctly classifying reported incidents, disclosing crime statistics, and issuing timely warnings under the Clery Act. The final legal issue is the continuing practicality of the Clery Act.

Title IX

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (§§ 1681). Title IX applies to educational institutions of vocational education, professional education, graduate higher education, and public institutions of undergraduate higher education. It also applies to PK–12 institutions, making it essential for leaders across contexts to understand the statute’s requirements, investigative expectations, and potential liabilities.

Under Title IX, discrimination based on sex includes sexual harassment or sexual violence such as sexual assault, rape, sexual battery, and sexual coercion. Educational institutions must respond promptly and in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent and must take immediate action to eliminate the threat and prevent recurrence (US Department of Education, 2021). Because most employees are mandatory reporters under federal and state law, institutions must ensure faculty and staff understand how to respond to disclosures, when to report, and how to communicate obligations to students.

University Title IX Investigation Process

The Department has established strict guidelines and policy requirements for universities to investigate sexual misconduct allegations (US Department of Education, 2021). University policies must prohibit a variety of wrongdoing, including sexual harassment, sexual violence, domestic and dating violence, and stalking. The investigation begins when one student, referred to as the “respondent,” is accused of committing sexual misconduct against another student, referred to as the “complainant.” Third parties may also submit reports. Title IX and some state laws make employees “mandatory reporters,” meaning they have a legal obligation to report any incidents of sexual misconduct they become aware of. When a faculty or staff member is designated as a mandatory reporter, failure to report a known or suspected Title IX incident can lead to significant institutional legal, professional, and ethical consequences depending on state law, institutional policy, and the severity of the incident.

After receiving the complaint, the investigator obtains additional information by conducting interviews with the parties and witnesses and reviewing related documents provided by the parties, police reports, and any other applicable information. If necessary, the students may receive interim support measures and mutual “no-contact” directives during the investigation. The investigator completes the investigation report, and if the case is not dismissed, the university must hold a live hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the policy has been violated. After the hearing, the hearing officer or panel decides on responsibility for a policy violation and any sanctions. Of course, these decisions carry significant academic and personal consequences, which leads to an increased probability of legal action.

Plaintiff Title IX Causes of Action

Most Title IX lawsuits are initiated by respondents who have been found to have violated their institution’s sexual misconduct policies. Courts have identified two distinct causes of action under Title IX: “deliberate indifference” and “selective enforcement” claims.

Deliberate Indifference Claims

A plaintiff may successfully sue an educational institution in cases of student-on-student harassment, where the institution is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which the institution has actual knowledge, and that harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victim of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the institution. (Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1999). To establish deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must prove that the institution had actual knowledge of the sexual harassment or assault. This means the institution, or its officials, were aware of the misconduct through a formal complaint, a report to a responsible employee, or other credible sources. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the institution’s response to the reported misconduct showed deliberate indifference. This means the response was clearly unreasonable given the circumstances. The complainant must show that the institution’s actions were inadequate, willfully neglectful, or unreasonably ineffective, leading to harm or denying the complainant educational benefits.

In S.C. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee dba Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (2023), S.C. was videorecorded engaging in sexual activity with a male student on school property; however, S.C. did not consent to either the sexual activity or its videorecording. The video was shared on social media and third-party websites, and dissemination of the video led to S.C being harassed by other students. The high school’s executive principal became aware of the video and met with S.C. and her mother. S.C. described what happened, that she was coerced into a classroom to participate in the activity and wanted it to stop but did not have the courage to say “no.” S.C. then met with a detective from the Nashville Police Department. The detective assumed the videorecording was consensual, repeatedly rejected S.C.’s statements, and then suggested that S.C. had criminally participated in creating child pornography. During this time, S.C. continued to receive threats and harassment online from other students. After a follow up meeting S.C. was suspended by the executive principal for 3 days.

S.C.’s experience was part of a broader issue within the high school. The district grappled with a pervasive problem of students sharing sexual pictures and videos among themselves. This practice, known as “exposing,” was widely recognized among students and known to school administration, who were aware of previous instances of such content filmed on school grounds. Female students who were “exposed” faced bullying and ridicule, whereas male students in similar situations gained popularity. S.C. and three other female students sued the high school and alleged the same pattern of events: they were videorecorded while experiencing unwanted sexual contact, the video spread among students via social media, and they faced harassment from fellow students that disrupted their education.

The court found that the executive principal and the high school were aware of the continuing and severe threats made against S.C. and their disruption to her education. Although the students circulating the video of S.C. were quickly disciplined, the school did nothing in response to the bullying and threats against S.C. beyond directing her to the police. Some of the threats were made during school hours or, at a minimum, in connection with the school environment. As a result of the school’s inaction, the threats and harassment continued. The court determined that the school failed to act in accordance with its obligations, and therefor liable under Title IX for its deliberate indifference to the threats made against S.C. and her family.

Selective Enforcement Claims

Selective enforcement claims arise when a respondent asserts that institutional actions were influenced by gender bias or inconsistently applied across similarly situated students. To bring a selective enforcement claim, a plaintiff must allege they were in a “similar situation” as another student but were treated differently than that student because of their sex, or the punishment or the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings was motivated by gender bias. In this case, not only did the two females allege that Stevens sexually assaulted them, but Stevens also alleged that he was similarly incapacitated and that the women both sexually assaulted him instead. In a similar case, John Doe vs. Oberlin College ( 2020 ), the male plaintiff similarly alleged that because he and the female complainant were both intoxicated at the time of the incident, Oberlin should have initiated proceedings under its sexual misconduct policy against both. However, in this case, it failed to do so. The court found that Doe’s complaint of selective enforcement should not be dismissed and that the lawsuit would proceed.

In John Doe v. William March Rice University (2023), Doe engaged in a sexual relationship with a female student (Roe) after discussing their prior sexual histories, including that he had dormant herpes but had not experienced an outbreak since high school. After they engaged in unprotected sex, Roe contracted herpes. Roe filed a Title IX complaint against Doe. Based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the university found Doe responsible for violating the University Code by “fail[ing] to adequately notify Roe of the fact that she was at risk of contracting HSV-1 from [him] if the two of [them] engaged in unprotected sex,” and “Doe’s failure to clearly disclose this information to a sexual partner, and then subsequently engage in unprotected sex, was a reckless action from which mental or bodily harm could result to another person.” The court ruled that the University selectively enforced its policies against Doe by refusing to treat Roe and Doe equally when Doe alleged—in response to Roe’s allegations—that she had also engaged in unprotected sex prior to meeting Doe and was guilty of the same conduct of which he was charged. If, as Doe alleged, Roe likely had herpes before having sex with him, on the University’s reasoning, she should have warned him before they had sex—and she did not. Consequently, a material fact issue remained as to whether the University’s proceedings against Doe were motivated by gender bias.

In Klocke v. University of Texas at Arlington (2019), Watson and Klocke, two male students, were sitting next to each other in class, and Watson alleged that Klocke typed “gays should die” on his computer and showed it to Watson. Watson typed back, “I’m gay.” Klocke verbally called Watson a “faggot.” Watson then told Klocke, “I think you should leave.” Klocke replied, “You should consider killing yourself.” Klocke changed seats about an hour later. Watson filed a complaint with the university. After being notified of the complaint, in a subsequent interview, Klocke denied the interaction occurred as alleged but stated that Watson was hitting on him, and Klocke asked Watson to leave him alone. The University found Klocke responsible for violating its student code of conduct. Reviewing Klocke’s selective enforcement claim, the court ruled in favor of the university as it could statistically demonstrate that it found females and males responsible for threats or harassment at similar rates.

In a case similar to the example, John Doe and Jane Roe were drinking together at a bar, returned to Doe’s room, and engaged in sex while both were intoxicated (Doe v. Rollins College, 2023). Jane filed a complaint against Doe for sexual assault, and after an investigation, the university found Doe responsible for violating its sexual misconduct policy. Doe sued the university under a selective enforcement theory, arguing Roe was treated more favorably even though his conduct was identical: “(a) they both engaged in the same sexual conduct; (b) they both admitted to drinking; and (c) they both claimed the other initiated sexual activity.” The court found in favor of the university and that they were not similarly situated. There was insufficient evidence that the college was aware the respondent was incapacitated and unable to consent but chose not to investigate. The respondent also never claimed he was incapacitated in the statements he submitted.

Clery Act: Classifying Reported Incidents and Disclosing Crime Statistics

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990 requires that universities which participate in Title IV federal student financial aid programs to disclose campus crime statistics and security information. Universities must keep a record of all crimes reported to the campus police or security department and notify the campus community promptly of specific offenses that are reported to the authorities and pose a threat to students and staff (Clery, 2018). The Act only applies to murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, sex offenses, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson, liquor, drug, weapons offenses, and hate crimes. Furthermore, these crimes must be further separated into geographic locations, including on-campus, on-campus student housing, public property within campus bounds, public property immediately adjacent to the campus, and non-campus buildings and property owned or controlled by the organization that are used for educational purposes and frequently used by students but not a part of the core campus, or those owned or controlled by a student organization officially recognized by the institution. Universities must also include dozens of policy statements regarding emergency response and evacuation protocols in their annual security report.

As demonstrated in this case, correctly counting crimes and locations for Clery statistics can be complex and prone to misinterpretations. Unfortunately, these mistakes can be very costly due to the potential extraordinary fines.

Clery Act: Timely Warnings and Emergency Notifications

The Clery Act also requires that, under certain circumstances, universities issue a campus alert to provide campus community members with the information necessary to make informed decisions about their health and safety. There are two kinds of alerts under the Clery Act. Timely warnings are issued for certain crimes that represent a threat to the safety of students or employees. Emergency notifications are issued upon the confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation occurring on campus that involves an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees. There is no precise meaning of “timely” in the Clery Act, but a timely warning aims to empower individuals to protect themselves. Therefore, alerts should be sent out when relevant data become accessible.

In this case, the plaintiffs argue that Grapevine violated the Clery Act by failing to provide a timely warning after Roberts reported she was sexually assaulted. The Clery Act does not provide a private right of action, so a plaintiff cannot sue a university for alleged violations; instead, the Department provides enforcement (Souders v. Mount St. Joseph University, 2016). However, universities may still face liability for issuing a warning or notification under the Clery Act. In Havlick v. Johnson & Wales (2007), a student sued the university for defamation, the first time a federal appellate court interpreted the Clery Act’s notification requirements. The court thoroughly reviewed the history and purpose of the Clery Act and determined that the university had a legal duty under the Clery Act to issue a timely warning. As a result, the Clery Act provided the university with a qualified privilege against the defamation claim. School officials must promptly fulfill their Clery Act duties, and a reasonable belief—though possibly mistaken—is enough for qualified privilege.

Universities also face significant fines for not strictly complying with the Clery Act. Recently, the Department levied a historic and unprecedented $14 million fine against Liberty University, which provides an interesting insight into current efforts to enforce the Clery Act. In a 108-page report, the Department found that Liberty University failed to warn its campus community about safety threats, including from individuals accused of sexual violence, and systematically underreported crime statistics (Svrluga, 2023). While the penalties against Liberty University may be the most severe on record, it is not unusual for universities to be fined when undergoing a Department Clery Act review (Davis, 2020).

Continuing Practicality of the Clery Act

While the Clery Act has promoted transparency and awareness of campus crime, its broadened requirements and complex classifications have created challenges. Leaders must balance compliance tasks with the need to maintain accurate safety communication and effective prevention strategies. Some institutions struggle to differentiate simple assault from aggravated assault or to determine whether off-campus incidents fall within Clery geography. Annual security reports have grown lengthy and difficult for community members to interpret.

For leadership preparation, this case supports critical discussion about whether the current structure of the Clery Act strengthens or limits campus safety, and how institutions can improve compliance without diverting resources from prevention and student support. The scenario illustrates the ongoing tensions educational leaders face when managing Title IX processes, Clery requirements, and campus safety obligations. Its complexity provides a realistic foundation for examining how institutional policies, legal duties, and human experiences converge, and how administrators in higher education and PK–12 contexts must interpret, communicate, and carry out these responsibilities with consistency, transparency, and care.

Classroom Activities and Discussion Questions

Discussion Questions

1. How do you think Grapevine University’s alleged selective enforcement of Title IX policies affects the overall campus climate and culture? What potential consequences might arise from such selective enforcement?

2. Discuss the ethical implications of the university’s decision to issue timely warnings for some incidents related to sexual harassment or assault but not for others. How might this impact the safety and well-being of students?

3. In what ways do you think the Grapevine University’s approach to handling Title IX cases reflects broader societal attitudes toward gender equity and sexual violence? How might these attitudes contribute to the university’s decision-making process?

4. Should the Clery Act’s campus safety and reporting requirements be extended to K–12 schools to improve crime transparency and student protection? Would this enhance safety, or would it impose disproportionate administrative burdens?

5. Explore the potential legal ramifications for the university stemming from its selective enforcement of Title IX policies and issuance of timely warnings. What legal principles or precedents are relevant in evaluating these implications?

6. Reflect on potential strategies for advocacy and activism within the university community to address issues of selective enforcement and timely warnings related to Title IX. How can students, faculty, and staff collaborate to effect meaningful change and promote a safer campus environment?

7. In the cited case S.C. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee dba Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, what specific actions (or inactions) led the court to conclude that the school exhibited deliberate indifference under Title IX? How might the school’s response have differed if staff were better trained on Title IX reporting and digital sexual harassment?

Classroom Activities

1. Debate: policy reform proposals. Organize a debate where students take on roles representing different stakeholders, such as university administrators, student activists, legal experts, and Title IX coordinators. Each group should propose policy reform recommendations to address the issues raised in the case study. Encourage students to consider their proposals’ legal, ethical, and practical implications and engage in constructive dialogue with opposing viewpoints.

2. Community action plan. Task students with developing a community action plan to address issues of selective enforcement and timely warnings related to Title IX on campus. Encourage students to collaborate and brainstorm strategies to raise awareness, advocate for policy changes, and promote a safer and more inclusive campus environment. This activity empowers students to apply their learning to real-world advocacy efforts and fosters civic engagement within the university community.

3. Ask students to review their university’s Clery Act and Title IX web pages to understand their institution’s specific procedures, and to generate clarifying questions regarding matters of uncertainty.

4. Mandatory reporting obligations. Discuss and roleplay—What are Professor Bryan’s obligations under Title IX and applicable state laws in this situation? Did her actions meet the requirements of a mandatory reporter? How can faculty members balance empathy and student trust with their legal and institutional reporting responsibilities?

5. Analyze how a K–12 district might prevent and respond to incidents of sexual harassment and digital exposure consistent with Title IX obligations. Divide into small groups. Each group identifies three key points of institutional failure in the S.C. case. Draft two concrete policies or training recommendations that would have ensured compliance and supported the student. Reconvene and share findings.