“ One commenter contended that the inherent electricity imbalance amongst faculty and learners suggests that school may perhaps be seen as much more credible than learners,
and consequently the relevant standard of proof should really not necessarily be
identical. The Department believes that either the preponderance
of the proof typical, or the clear and convincing evidence common, could be applied to allegations of sexual harassment
to achieve fair, reliable results, and consequently
the Department permits recipients to choose possibly of those people expectations of evidence.
The Department does not believe that this Start Printed Page 30379approach topics recipients to
liability below 34 CFR 106.51, due to the fact the Department does not suppose that a recipient that improvements the standard of
evidence made use of in university student instances
to be the same common as the receiver uses beneath personnel CBAs makes
that transform for the function of disadvantaging complainants who allege sexual
harassment the Department believes that a receiver that helps make that selection does
so for the reason that the receiver has decided that the chosen common of proof is the proper typical for resolving sexual harassment allegations.
The Department acknowledges the concerns lifted by some
commenters regarding the problems that could arise from implementing the prerequisite contained in § 106.45(b)(1)(vii) and § 106.45(b)(7)(i) that the same common of evidence be used for grievances towards college students as for issues in opposition to workers and faculty. ”