As modern gender movements shift our cultural norms, the literature describing Title IX suggests possibly concerning trends in both hiring and policy. Many university administrations and recent legislation have promoted a defensive, legal-minded and objective approach to handling Title IX cases. Since the April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, which delivered a mandated timeframe and eased the burden of evidence, the number of cases the Office for Civil Rights have grown significantly. The number of cases continues growing despite huge increases in labor hours and financial resources being diverted to Title IX enforcement. In contrast, research has demonstrated that education, such as bystander training is a proven deterrence to campus sexual assault. By prioritizing investigation and limiting compliance officers legally acceptable options, we have perhaps shifted officers time away from actions which might lead to more positive outcomes including reducing the overall campus-wide criminal incidence frequency. This qualitative case study was designed to explore how higher education compliance officers learn to manage new requirements in a dynamic regulatory environment. The site for the study included private and public colleges and universities in the northeastern part of the U.S. The primary sources of data were in-depth interviews with nineteen Title IX compliance officers supplemented by an extensive review of relevant documents. Key findings that emerged include: (1) A majority of compliance officers defined the need to interpret new regulations with general counsel before communicating resulting changes to stakeholders. (2) All regulators learn through informal learning means; dialogue and critical reflection were universally reported as the most frequent pathways by which regulators made meaning of new regulations. (3) Most compliance officers described sharing information with peers as most helpful to them in completing regulatory tasks. Trends in Title IX compliance hiring and labor hour allocation appear to not address the growing frequency of OCR investigations. Real changes to campus policy, including budget priorities, training and the use of student activists may allow universities to better optimize the money and personal they invest toward Title IX.

Gender discrimination, such as sexual harassment, sexual assault and inequitable treatment has long been considered a prominent issue on higher education campuses and is regulated under the Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, commonly known as Title IX. Title IX is enforced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) who responds to gender discrimination complaints on campus through investigations resulting in what are called OCR Resolution Letters. These letters define numerous policies and procedures Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) must put in place pertaining to the prevention of gender discrimination. This qualitative study looks specifically at the ways that gender discrimination on campuses of higher education was defined by the OCR from 1997-2011. The study explores the research questions (1) How have the types of conduct determined to be gender discrimination changed over time? (2) How have expectations of IHE responsibilities for gender discrimination issues changed over time? and (3) What gender discrimination issues have surfaced as priorities in the implementation of Title IX, as reflected in OCR resolution letters? Analysis of the letters using a social construction framework demonstrates that while the definitions of specific types of gender discrimination remained constant, the context in which they occur and the types of behaviors determined to be gender discrimination have both expanded in response to societal attitudes. The OCR tends to take the stance of being an ally vs. a punishing body when aiding IHEs in implementing Title IX; however IHE’s required investment in addressing the problem in both response and preventive measures has grown. Finally, OCR Resolution letters demonstrate that student on student interactions have been less common than faculty on student interactions. Implications for IHE practices and future research are discussed.

The purpose of this study is to explore the administrative setting of the Office for Civil Rights, treating especially the functional requisites of agencies: namely, the development of a viable role within its set and the internal necessity of developing among its functionaries a degree of cohesion and sense of common purpose. This case study is designed, moreover, to challenge the naturalistic assumptions of the pluralist model of administrative theory. Chapter I develops the theme of "social engineering agencies" as a distinctively new genre of public agency in the American political setting and adumbrates the theoretical challenges which these organizations present to the conventional pluralist paradigm.