Supreme Court upholds laws banning trans athletes from women’s sports

The 6-3 ruling upholds state laws in Idaho and West Virginia.

The Supreme Court has upheld state laws prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls sports, dealing a major blow to anti-discrimination protections for trans students.

In a ruling Tuesday, the justices upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban trans athletes from women’s sports, saying the federal law against sex discrimination in education, Title IX, allows schools to separate women’s and men’s sports teams by biological sex.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The high court’s majority also rejected claims that such measures violate the constitutional rights of transgender people.

The court’s liberal justices agreed with their conservative colleagues that Title IX doesn’t give transgender athletes the right to compete on teams corresponding to their gender identity. But they said the constitutional question was more complex and required closer examination by lower courts into the impact of trans athletes in particular sports and at particular ages.

Idaho and West Virginia argued that their laws are meant to protect athletes assigned female at birth from physical harm due to biological differences between men and women. They also argue that Title IX applies to “biological sex” and that their laws do not discriminate against transgender women and girls.

“This began in West Virginia, but its impact reaches every corner of the country,” said West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, who oversaw the case when he was state attorney general. “Future generations of female athletes will benefit from the certainty, fairness, and opportunity this decision protects.”

Neither state law has been in effect as the cases worked their way through the courts over the past five years. But more than two dozen states have similar laws on the books.

The U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee have barred trans athletes from competing in women’s sports. And the NCAA, which oversees college sports, already barred transgender athletes from women’s sports in response to an executive order President Donald Trump signed shortly after returning to the White House.

Click here to read the full article in Politico

California track and field championship to be overshadowed by trans drama for second year in a row

Last year’s event saw competing protests, a flyover banner, ejections and an arrest

California’s high school track and field state finals kick off in Clovis on Friday, with an expected protest presence for the second straight year.

The California Interscholastic Federation’s (CIF) state finals will include a prominent transgender athlete competing in the high jump, long jump and triple jump. Last year, the athlete’s presence prompted competing protests, a plane with a flyover banner, ejections from the venue, and a person with a trans flag was even arrested after allegedly assaulting an opposing protester.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Clovis Mayor Pro Tem Dianne Pearce placed the blame for the pending protests on the CIF and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Because the CIF, Governor Newsom, and the state legislature continue to fail and ignore our female athletes there is a distraction that hangs over this weekend’s events for a second year in a row. The abject failure of the adults in control of these policies is outrageous and ridiculous. A survey done in April 2025 by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that over 70% of California’s public school parents support only biological girls competing in girls’ sports divisions,” Pearce told Fox News Digital.

Pearce reflected on the chaos that occurred at last year’s event.

“We saw so many people come out to show their support for the female athletes last year and the only arrest was a trans-activist who assaulted someone who was leaving the area after standing in support of the girls competing. I call on everyone to be respectful of the athletes and their families who have worked so hard and sacrificed for years to reach this level of competition,” Pearce added.

“I know our police department will ensure a safe environment and it is my hope that the female athletes feel the support from this community. But, again, it is unacceptable for CIF, the state legislature, and Governor Newsom to allow another State Championship to come around without having restored the integrity of the girls’ divisions and respecting and protecting our girls’ sports and spaces.”

CALIFORNIA TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIP SEES ARREST AND AERIAL BANNER AMID TRANSGENDER CONTROVERSY

Click here to read the full article at FoxNews

California trans athlete podium controversy ignites outrage among politicians, activists

Trump’s DOJ filed a Title IX lawsuit against California’s education agencies after Hernandez won two state titles last year

A girls’ track and field meet in California became the subject of national controversy for the second week in a row when a trans athlete swept three jumping events. What happened on the medal podium afterward became a point of mockery.

Trans athlete AB Hernandez won first place in the high jump, long jump and triple jump at the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) Southern Section finals on Saturday. So too did the girl who would have finished first, based on a rule enacted last year that awarded any female athlete that finished behind a trans athlete a higher placement.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Photos and video of the three podium ceremonies — one of which showed Hernandez and the top female finisher sharing the podium’s top spot — went viral on social media, prompting backlash against the CIF among politicians including Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-N.C.; and activists including Riley Gaines and Jennifer Sey.

Click here to read the full article at FoxNews

California is fighting a losing battle against Title IX and human biology

When Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment on February 26, 1869, proposing to give the right to vote to Black men but not white women, some of the leaders of the women’s rights movement of the time were volcanic in their anger.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Three months later, the National Woman Suffrage Association was founded. Twenty-one years after that, the NWSA merged with the American Woman Suffrage Association. It was yet another 30 years before the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote.

So there’s a history behind the rage over boys and men winning titles in girls’ and women’s sports.

In 1972, Title IX was signed into law. It stated 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.”

What that means in practice for school sports has been the subject of litigation and court interpretation through the years. It’s the view of the Trump administration that allowing biological males to compete in the same category with biological females violates Title IX.

After an investigation into California’s legal protection of biological males who identify as female competing in the same category with biological females, the federal government informed California that it is in violation of federal law.

But California is openly defying federal authority on this issue, as it is on many others. At this point, we might as well build a bullet train between Sacramento and the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be a busier route than Merced to Bakersfield.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced on June 25 that it had concluded its Title IX investigations into the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation for “allegations of discrimination against women and girls on the basis of sex.” In both cases, the OCR concluded, “CDE and CIF are in clear violation of Title IX.” 

Specifically, California has failed to protect female athletes “from the unfair competition, unsafe situations, and the indignities involved when male athletes compete in athletic competitions designated for girls.” Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal authorities said, “requires schools to ensure equal opportunities for girls, including in athletic activities, but California has actively prevented this equality of opportunity by allowing males in girls’ sports and intimate spaces.”

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent a proposed Resolution Agreement to the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation. It directed the CDE and the CIF to notify all recipients of federal funding that operate interscholastic athletic programs in California that they are required to comply with Title IX, and this means they are forbidden from allowing males to participate in female sports and “occupying female intimate facilities.” It also required the California Department of Education to notify all recipients of federal funding that federal law preempts any state law to the contrary.

On Monday, the California Department of Education “respectfully” told the U.S. Department of Education to pound sand. The California Interscholastic Federation issued a similar response.

“California has just REJECTED our resolution agreement to follow federal law and keep men out of women’s sports,” wrote U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in an online post. 

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Female Athletes Challenge California Law Allowing Boys to Invade Girls Sports

California law facilitates precisely the kind of discrimination that Title IX is meant to prevent

Female athletes at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside are suing to overturn the California law that allows biological males who fancy themselves female to participate in girls sports.

The students are already suing woke school officials who barred them from wearing t-shirts promoting girls sports and replaced one of them on an elite cross country team with an unqualified boy who calls himself a girl.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Now, in a filing late last month, they have amended their lawsuit to challenge the California law that has allowed boys to invade girls sports: AB 1126, which says that California students have the right to “participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

The lawsuit says the state law should be invalidated because it conflicts with the landmark federal Title IX law that prohibits discrimination against women and girls in education that allowing trans identifying males into girls sports amounts to a form of discrimination.

The students and their families are being represented by the Murrieta, California-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom conservative law firm.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom lawyer Julianne Fleischer told the California Globe that the California law  “violates Title IV  because it allows boys to take the spots  of qualified female athletes and use female bathrooms. Title IX is intended to protect those female students from those actions. Federal law always preempts state law.  We are contending it violates protections that Title IX affords to female students in California.”

Fleischer said the California law has never been challenged in court and this is the ideal time to do it now that President Trump has issued executive orders that upend transgender orthodoxy. “This is probably the best time to challenge it in light of the current administration and a number of executive orders. We feel there is a lot of federal backing for this challenge.”

On February 4th, Trump signed an executive order titled “No Men in Women’s Sports” that says federal funds would be withheld from educational institutions that allow males into female sports. The executive order cites the same rationale as the amended lawsuit: that the presence of males in female sports amounts to a form of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX.

In an email to the California Globe Fleischer hailed the executive order. “We commend President Trump and his administration for taking decisive action with this common-sense Executive Order. For years, our female athletes have been pushed out of their own sports and locker rooms in the name of “inclusivity.” The simple fact is that boys do not belong on girls’ teams or in girls’ locker rooms. The United States government has made it clear that any educational program that endangers, humiliates, or silences women and girls, particularly through the imposition of policies that compromise privacy, safety, and fairness, will no longer receive federal funding. This policy is a critical step in the effort to SAVE GIRLS’ SPORTS.”

The amended lawsuit names as defendants California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the Riverside Unified School District and Martin Luther King High School administrators Leann Iacuone and Amanda Chann.

The other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are an unincorporated association called Save Girls Sports, which is run out of Advocates for Faith and Freedom law firm. It consists of families and students throughout California, including many students who have been forced to compete against transgender players.

The amended lawsuit says that the California law facilitates precisely the kind of discrimination that Title IX is meant to prevent. “On its face, AB 1266 permits biological males to compete on teams which Title IX requires to be biologically female. Because Title IX preempts state law, and AB 1266 stands in the way of Title IX’s purposes in providing equal opportunity for women, AB 1266 is preempted. Likewise, it is impossible to both require that there be sex separated teams in certain circumstances and allow transgender individuals to compete in accordance with their gender identity.”

Moreover, “AB 1266 further discriminates against women by taking away a protection granted to them by Title IX. Title IX was created to give biological women a safe space to compete, entirely distinct from males, when women are unable to fairly compete through an integrated team. AB 1266  takes away this protection by allowing biological boys into this space.”

The amended lawsuit also says that “AB 1266 directly conflicts with Title IX protections, as it requires California schools to permit biological males to participate on biological female sports teams and to use biological female spaces, resulting in unfair and unsafe environments for females.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Trump opens Title IX investigation into California high school sports governing body

President Donald Trump’s Department of Education on Wednesday announced that it is opening a Title IX investigation into the California Interscholastic Federation, a statewide governing body that oversees sports at more than 1,500 high schools, for its policy of allowing transgender girls to play female sports.

Title IX is the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and universities that receive federal funds. Acting U.S. Assistant Education Secretary Craig Trainor in a statement accused CIF of engaging in “meaningless virtue-signaling” and said that “history does not look kindly on entities and states that actively opposed the enforcement of federal civil rights laws that protect women and girls from discrimination and harassment.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

CIF spokesperson Rebecca Brutlag in an emailed statement to The Sacramento Bee said: “While the CIF has been notified of the investigation, we do not comment on pending investigations.” In a statement to The Bee before Trump announced the investigation, Brutlag said the organization would continue complying with California law, which protects trans students’ right to play.

“The CIF provides students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete in education-based experiences in compliance with California law … which permits students to participate in school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with the student’s gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the student’s records,” Brutlag wrote.

The Trump administration this week also called on the NCAA and the National Federation of State High School Associations to strip all transgender athletes of their records, titles and awards.

Click here to read the full article in the Sacramento Bee

How New Title IX Rules Could Affect California’s Transgender and Nonbinary Students

It took Xander nearly a decade to try community college again. 

The incoming American River College student first attempted higher education in North Carolina in 2013. But navigating campus as a man who is transgender was a nightmare, said Xander, who’s now 30 and asked to use his first name only because he did not want to publicly reveal that he is trans.

In the classroom, he said, people refused to call him Xander. Classmates misgendered him, deadnamed him — using his former name from before he transitioned —  and told him he was in the wrong bathroom. He never knew when a confrontation might escalate to violence. Eventually, he said, he began living a double life, taking on different personas inside and outside the school walls.

“I was out to my friends, but at school I gave up with letting people deadname me and misgender me, like it wasn’t worth the fight anymore,” Xander said. “And it wasn’t worth the risk.”

Xander’s experiences mirror those of other transgender students in the U.S.; according to an April survey by The Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law, more than a third of transgender people report experiencing bullying or harassment in college.

President Joe Biden’s administration aims to protect students who identify as transgender and nonbinary from discrimination under new rules proposed in June and now making their way through the Education Department’s lengthy rulemaking process. If finalized, the changes to Title IX, the 50-year-old civil rights law, would clarify that its ban on discrimination on the basis of sex extends to sexual orientation and gender identity. 

So what impact will the expanded protections have on college campuses in California, a state that has already passed laws barring discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression? 

Legally, not so much, say civil rights lawyers. But the proposed guidelines will remove ambiguity about what Title IX covers and put more responsibility on schools to address discrimination, they say. Students and college employees who advocate for LGBTQ rights told the CalMatters College Journalism Network that while they applaud the change in federal policy, campuses must go beyond the letter of the law to ensure that they are safe and welcoming places for transgender and nonbinary people to learn. 

“What we see is that queer and trans students generally feel less welcome on their college campuses and more concerned about their physical safety, but also their emotional safety,” said Emilie Mitchell, dean of social and behavioral sciences at Cosumnes River College and  co-organizer of an annual LGBTQ+ summit for the state’s community colleges. “Are they going to be mistreated in a classroom? Is their identity going to be a class topic for debate?” The new rules are reassuring, she said, because they give “a lot less wiggle room to people who might want to behave in really destructive ways towards the queer and trans community.” 

Among other changes, the guidelines require colleges to monitor their campuses for gender discrimination and “take prompt and effective action” to fix it — stronger language than the previous requirement to be “not deliberately indifferent.” And by explicitly writing in protections, they ensure that anti-LGBTQ discrimination can be handled under Title IX instead of being rerouted to other disciplinary processes, said Kel O’Hara, a staff attorney at Equal Rights Advocates, a legal and advocacy organization specializing in gender issues.

The new rules also could lead the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to investigate more gender discrimination complaints against schools, said Carly Mee, a civil rights attorney at Trister, Ross, Schadler & Gold, PLLC. 

“It’s important to have an external mechanism where you can go and file that complaint and say, ‘My school is not protecting my rights,’” she added. “That will be a big deal for trans and nonbinary students.”

The Education Department has already issued informal guidance saying that Title IX protections apply to gender and sexual orientation, but a federal judge in July temporarily blocked the department from enforcing that interpretation in 20 states that sued, saying the advice conflicted with anti-trans laws they’d already passed. Controversy has erupted in a number of states over whether transgender students should be allowed to participate on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity; the Biden administration has said it will issue a separate Title IX rule specifically addressing athletics.

Attorneys with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation argued in a September op-ed in The Hill that the new rules would “pose a severe threat to free speech” by censoring viewpoints such as that of a professor who “declines to use a student’s preferred pronoun because of her religious beliefs.” 

In California, a new law took effect this year requiring public colleges to update records for students who have legally changed their names, including as a result of a gender transition, and allowing graduates to request an updated copy of their diploma for free. Starting with the next academic year, colleges must allow students to self-identify their names on diplomas even without documentation of a legal name change. 

The state’s public university systems say they are reviewing the impact the Title IX changes could have for their respective campuses, with University of California spokesperson Stett Holbrook saying they “represent a great improvement over the regulations issued by the previous administration in 2020, many of which UC opposed.”

UC campuses are also rolling out a gender recognition policy that goes beyond the state law to ensure people are identified by their accurate gender identity and name in all their interactions with the university. Another state law will require the community colleges to do the same, starting next fall.  

Transgender and nonbinary students say policies alone aren’t enough. 

“While on paper, trans students are certainly protected in our schools, we don’t always experience that,” said Eli Erlick, a doctoral student at UC Santa Cruz who co-founded Trans Student Educational Resources, a national organization led by trans youth.

Erlick said it’s crucial to have campus support networks built by and for trans people. 

When she co-founded the organization, she said, “this was the idea: to help people understand their rights, know their choices and opportunities and know what they can do to protect themselves.”

At UC Santa Cruz, Fénix López, a fourth-year undergraduate, has built their own community on campus. Lopez, who identifies as queer and nonbinary, helps run the Lavender Club, a queer undergraduate group, and is a resident assistant for the LGBTQ-themed floor in their college residence hall.

“As a queer person, I feel like I have to make my own spaces,” they said. This year, those spaces include a “Queersgiving” event that the club hosted.

“The point was to kind of celebrate not Thanksgiving but gathering with your friends, having a meal with your found family, because I know that the holidays can be rough for a lot of queer individuals,” López said. 

Universities need to pay more attention to meeting transgender and nonbinary students’ basic needs, López said, which include not just housing and food but “making sure you have a community, that you feel that you have that sense of belonging.”

Despite the protections California transgender and nonbinary students have, campus staff who work with those students say they still regularly hear reports of misgendering and other negative experiences on campus.

delfín bautista, director of the Lionel Cantú Queer Resource Center at UC Santa Cruz, said that while California was more welcoming to transgender and nonbinary students than Florida and Ohio, where they previously lived, “students do feel invisible, and they don’t feel necessarily embraced and affirmed.”

Per California law, all single-stall restrooms on the UC Santa Cruz campus are gender neutral – but they are in short supply, said bautista, who lower-cases their first and last name. And while UC Santa Cruz policy says that athletes can use whatever locker room they identify with, that doesn’t mean they always feel safe doing so, bautista said.

At UC Berkeley, graduate students often tell Em Huang, the campus’s director of LGBTQ+ Advancement and Equity, that the professors they work with misgender them or call them by an incorrect name. It can be easier for that to happen in small labs, Huang said, where there are fewer people around to speak up and the student feels isolated. 

O’Hara, the Equal Rights Advocates attorney, said that when representing students in Title IX proceedings, they have been misgendered by Title IX coordinators and so have their clients. 

“If you’re trying to seek safety and protection and resolution on campus, but the people you’re interacting with barely understand you, that doesn’t feel safe, that doesn’t feel OK,” O’Hara said.

At American River College, where Mitchell used to work, a 2019 survey found that nearly one-third of about 1200 students felt it was necessary to hide their gender identity from fellow students, with an equal number saying they hid it from their professors. 

While the college has a Pride Center, Mitchell estimated that fewer than a dozen of the state’s 115 community college campuses have such a center with at least one paid staff person.

“There are a lot of campuses that rely on unpaid volunteer staff or advocates,” Mitchell said. “When you’re talking about institutional support, right, an institution saying, ‘We’re really interested in providing high-level services to our queer and trans students,’ I don’t know how you do that when you rest all those efforts on the shoulders of the committed but unpaid.”

The state Legislature allocated $10 million last year to the California community colleges to support LGBTQ students; Melissa Villarin, a spokesperson for the Chancellor’s Office, said colleges are using the funds for LGBTQ-focused centers and curriculum, professional development and mental health care, among other services. 

Campus advocates say students often are confused about Title IX and what their rights are under the law. Some said universities should create and publicly post an LGBTQ bill of rights, and that the Department of Education should give schools specific examples of prohibited types of conduct unique to transgender and nonbinary students.

The new Title IX rules, said O’Hara, could also make a difference in cases like California State University’s Maritime Academy, where the Los Angeles Times reported that “claims of widespread sexual misconduct, homophobia, transphobia and racism” have roiled the campus. One cadet filed a Title IX report over messages in a group text chat where cadet leaders mocked LGBTQ classmates, according to the Times, but both the campus and the Cal State chancellor’s office found that the chat, which did not name any person, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 

O’Hara, who is not involved in the case, said that their first question as a Title IX attorney would be, “OK, what else is going on?”

“Because if that’s how your classmates are talking about you in their private messages, chances are they’re doing other things to make you feel uncomfortable in your identity,” O’Hara said. The new rules’ affirmative monitoring requirement would put the responsibility on the school to gather that evidence, O’Hara said.

In addition to the challenges, transgender students also told the CalMatters College Journalism Network about times they felt supported on campus.

Erlick, who received her bachelor’s degree from Pitzer College, said there were a lot more resources there, and later at UC Santa Cruz, than in her hometown of Mendocino County. She found student groups that helped her thrive and learn in an academic environment that also incorporated queer and trans people, she said.

As Xander navigates the enrollment process at American River College, he said staff never mention his former name out loud if it appears in legal documents. Instead, to avoid outing him, they’ll show him the name on a computer screen or say the first initial, he said.

While working to have his name changed in the college’s system, he connected with a staff member who told him, “Oh, I understand. I’m nonbinary. I went through a name change.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Colleges Experiment with Restorative Justice in Sexual Assault Cases

When a sexual assault survivor walks into Alexandra Fulcher’s office at Occidental College, it’s the first step in a process fraught with consequences for both the survivor and the accused. 

If Fulcher, the school’s Title IX director, launches an official investigation, the survivor could be asked to recount their trauma and cross-examined about it in a live hearing. Their alleged assaulter could be expelled.

But for the past year, survivors at Occidental have had another option. They can participate in a restorative justice conference with the person who harmed them, in which that person hears about the impact of their actions, takes responsibility and commits to a plan to help repair the harm — and prevent it from happening again.

The conferences draw on a long tradition of restorative justice, a philosophy that eschews punishment in favor of coming up with collective solutions to address violence and harm within a community.

A handful of California colleges have recently begun using restorative justice in cases of sexual assault and harassment, or are seriously considering it. And Fulcher said it’s a path that an increasing number of survivors at Occidental are choosing.

“This age group, at least at Oxy, is less interested in punitive options,” she said.

One argument for making restorative justice available is that it may encourage more survivors to come forward. An overwhelming majority of survivors of campus sexual violence never file a report, and of those that do, few choose to pursue disciplinary action, said David Karp, director of the Center for Restorative Justice at the University of San Diego.

Title IX rules passed under the Trump administration made the formal complaint process less attractive for sexual assault survivors by requiring that they be cross-examined in live hearings, while at the same time giving schools more flexibility to pursue informal resolutions, Karp said. (The Biden administration has proposed new rules that would give colleges flexibility in whether to require cross-examination.)

Both of those changes helped spur interest in restorative justice, he said – including at his own campus, which is currently in its first year of offering restorative justice for Title IX cases.

“It seems pretty clear that there’s student demand and that Title IX administrators are really dissatisfied with the current options and would like to see the options expand,” he said. “There’s some legitimate worry about bad implementation or retraumatization and reasons why we should be careful.”

sexual harassment scandal at California State University this year that led to the resignation of the university’s chancellor and numerous reports of campus administrators mishandling Title IX cases has focused attention on how California colleges resolve such cases. The federal civil rights law, which turned 50 this year, protects students from sex-based discrimination in schools, including sexual violence. Meanwhile, an influential committee of lawmakers and judges earlier this month recommended that the state give all crime victims the right to participate in restorative justice programs.

Preparing a successful restorative justice conference — also known as a restorative justice circle — can take months, said René Rivera, a facilitator for the Ahimsa Collective, a non-profit that conducts them for Occidental students.

First, both parties must agree to participate. The facilitators meet separately with both parties, making sure they have support systems in place – therapists, friends, family. The survivor decides what they want the outcome of the circle to be, and the person who acknowledges causing harm starts to face up to what they’ve done. The accused is often asked to write a letter to the survivor, which may never be read to them, but can help the accused sort out their own feelings and take accountability before addressing the survivor face-to-face. 

“It can take a long time to get to a place where everyone feels ready to meet each other and listen to each other,” said Rivera. “We as facilitators need to feel confident that there will not be more harm in bringing these two people together.”

The circle, which usually lasts several hours, is not over until the accused has made an apology and the survivor is able to ask any questions of the accused. The person who’s caused the harm then takes the steps the survivor has requested, which could include things like getting therapy, or quitting an extracurricular activity so the survivor doesn’t have to run into them on campus.

Nationally, Rutgers University in New Jersey has been using restorative justice since 2016 — first to treat less-serious incidents such as alcohol violations and later in Title IX cases. Amy Miele, the university’s associate director of student affairs, compliance and Title IX, vividly remembers the first restorative justice conference she organized in a sexual assault case. 

The student who had been assaulted chose restorative justice because “she did not want another man of color with a disciplinary record,” Miele said. “She said, ‘I want healing and justice and to be able to move on from this, I have a lot of questions I want answered, and I don’t feel comfortable going up to him on my own.’ ” 

The parties met in a conference room, Miele said, sitting around a table stocked with water bottles, tissues, drawing paper, pens, and snacks. But within a couple minutes, both students erupted with rage as the accused person grappled with the reality of what he had done, and the harmed person confronted her assaulter for the first time.

Miele and her team took a pause, allowing both students to calm down and giving them stress balls and water bottles to hold for the rest of the conference. Returning to the circle relaxed and prepared, the accused did something no one was expecting — he said, “I’m signing”, apologized and accepted full responsibility for his actions. 

“In that moment when he looked them in the eyes and said, ‘I’m sorry,’ it was as if we could all breathe again, like the fog lifted,” Miele said. The survivor told Miele the process had restored her faith in humanity, Miele said.

Evidence of success

While there’s little data available about the effectiveness of restorative justice in preventing future sexual assaults, some studies of youth convicted of other crimes have shown that those who participate in restorative justice conferences are less likely to be rearrested

In a survey gauging Rutgers’ students’ satisfaction with the restorative justice process, one student accused of assault said, “The explorations of mine and (survivor’s) perspectives was done very well. I was shocked at times to hear things I had never even thought of.”  

The conference “showed me a game plan that I could follow to alleviate the harm done to (Complainant) and to better myself,” another wrote.

Besides having the potential to increase reporting of sexual assaults, restorative justice is also a rejection of a racist criminal justice system in favor of something more equitable, said Domale Dube Keys, a former lecturer at the University of California Los Angeles who wrote a paper recommending that colleges offer restorative justice in Title IX cases. 

“A restorative justice approach really is a way of recognizing that if we keep on this track of, ‘We need to police, we need to do this law and order approach to sexual violence,’ it’s people of color and gender non-conforming people that are going to suffer,” said Keys. “They are going to have less resources to go the legal route, less public support when it comes to believing their stories. It’s a way of recognizing that our system is flawed.”

Some indigenous tribes have been practicing forms of restorative justice for generations. So when professors on Cal Poly Humboldt’s sexual assault prevention committee were considering using restorative justice for sexual misconduct, they took inspiration from the local Yurok tribe, whose members had experience using the practice to heal after domestic violence.

“In our community, the connections between us are so thick, when something bad happens to one of us, we all experience it in some way,” Blythe George, a Yurok tribal member and sociology professor at UC Merced, said in a presentation at Cal Poly Humboldt in April. 

When a tribal member is banished, she said, “their songs go with them, the teachings that their parents and grandparents took the time to teach them… and that’s why it’s so important for us to have this restorative justice component, because we are actively reclaiming our people from a system that has done nothing but try to take us or kill us for the better part of centuries now.” 

Fair to survivors?

But critics of using restorative justice for campus sexual assault cases say that the power dynamics are different. 

“What makes restorative justice work is that it’s addressing a deep systemic and historical prejudice that a lot of wrongdoings happen because of systemic oppression,” said Gabi Jeakle, a student at Loyola Marymount University who has worked to improve the university’s Title IX resources and is herself a survivor. But statistically speaking, she said, much sexual assault happens at the hands of historically privileged people. “It’s oftentimes white men in fraternities harming women. It’s important to look at that context and say that’s not the same argument as someone who has been a victim of the school to prison pipeline.”

Jeakle acknowledged that for the colleges that are trying this, survivors get to choose whether to pursue restorative justice or a traditional investigation. But when you’ve recently undergone trauma, she said, “it can be difficult to know what you need.”

Federal law bars restorative justice in cases where a professor has assaulted or harassed a student. And potential power differentials between survivor and accused have also surfaced as an issue at Cal Poly Humboldt, where Maxwell Schnurer, a communications professor who chairs the university’s sexual assault prevention committee, said he’s concerned that restorative justice could lead to a “survivor being asked to take care of someone who had harmed them.” 

Committee members have received training in restorative justice but said they haven’t yet decided whether it could work on their campus.

At UC Berkeley, restorative justice advocates were developing a separate pathway for handling cases outside the university’s Title IX office, said Julie Shackford-Bradley, director of the university’s Restorative Justice Center. 

But they soon ran into a pitfall: A key tenet of restorative justice conferences is confidentiality. But most university employees – including those who would be running the conferences – are mandatory reporters, meaning that by law, they must tell the Title IX coordinator if they hear of any sexual harassment or assault happening on campus.

The center ended up scrapping the plan, Shackford-Bradley said, at least until the legal issues can be resolved.

Mandatory reporting has not been an issue at Occidental, said Fulcher, since any cases that are referred to the Ahimsa Collective have already been reported to the university’s Title IX office. 

“In terms of the parties’ satisfaction with the (restorative justice) process, it is leaps and bounds more than our typical investigation and hearing process,” Fulcher said – in part because restorative justice gives both survivor and respondent more control over the outcome.

Rivera, the facilitator, said that Occidental’s experiment with restorative justice shows that “there’s an alternative (to punishment) and the alternative is to have a conversation that is actually as healing possible for both parties, and where the person who has caused the harm is gonna be treated as a full human being in that process.” 

“That’s something that personally gives me a lot of hope. If we can do that on college campuses, it feels so much more possible to start to have those kinds of alternatives in other areas.”

Even at California campuses where restorative justice conferences aren’t taking place, advocates for survivors are going beyond traditional Title IX investigations, finding ways to redress harm, involve the community and prevent future assaults.

UC Berkeley offers survivor circles, in which students can share their stories and build community with other sexual assault survivors.

And at Loyola Marymount, Jeakle is getting fraternities to contribute to a fund that supports survivors of sexual assault who need help with travel and medical expenses. 

Click here to read the full article at CalMatters