Conference committee debates campus sexual‑misconduct grievance rules in House File 2431

A Minnesota Legislature conference committee on House File 2431 heard testimony and questions on proposed changes to campus sexual‑misconduct grievance procedures, including whether institutions must offer supportive measures, whether hearings are required, how to define retaliation and sexual misconduct, and the standard of proof to be applied.

The issue matters to all Minnesota postsecondary institutions because the proposals would change how colleges and universities investigate and resolve allegations, affect privacy at small schools, and could influence reporting and campus safety practices statewide.

Melissa Wojcke, Title IX training administrator at the Minnesota Office of Higher Education (OHE), told the committee the Senate draft is “a more robust version” that adds a definition of retaliation and includes supportive‑measures provisions for both reporting and responding parties. Wojcke said the retaliation definition “came from the federal definition in Title 9. It was it was based on that definition.” She also said she serves 77 institutions and that, in her survey, “all but 1 used [the] preponderance of the evidence standard.”

College officials testified about how the proposals would affect small campuses. Patty Kersten, vice president for student affairs, dean of students and Title IX coordinator at Hamline University, said a requirement that every sexual‑misconduct allegation go to a hearing “really creates a chilling effect on our campus, for someone to be able to come forward to seek assistance, to be able to seek the supportive measures that are needed.” Kersten described past campus practice in which many reports were resolved without a hearing and said the institution saw far fewer hearings after federal regulations beginning in 2020 required live hearings: “prior to 2020, we had 39 cases go through our grievance process. After that, since 2020 … we've had 10.”

Carl Crosby Laymon, general counsel at Saint Olaf College, said most complainants seek supportive measures rather than a formal adjudication: “Most individuals who come forward to report to us that they've been a victim of [sexual] assault, they'll say things like, I don't wanna ruin this person's life. … All I want are these supportive measures that were mentioned earlier.” He described informal resolution and facilitated processes that many campuses use instead of hearings.

Committee members pressed for details and clarifications. Representative Rehrig asked why the drafts include new, written definitions for retaliation and for sexual misconduct rather than citing existing statutory language; the committee requested a written comparison to federal definitions and the statutory citation for the sexual‑misconduct definition. Representative Robbins and other members asked for clearer definitions of who may serve as a “decision maker” and whether the house language requires a live hearing or allows alternatives; OHE and counsel described the house text as permitting either a live hearing or questioning by an appointed decision maker and noted that panels or appointed decision makers are contemplated in the house draft.

Wojcke told the committee that the Senate draft explicitly lists supportive measures and that the house draft contains similar language in a different location; she gave examples of supportive measures: “Supportive measures can range from a change in residence to course changes to extensions on assignments.” She also told members that nearly all surveyed institutions use the preponderance standard and that clear‑and‑convincing is used less often.

No formal action or vote was taken by the committee during the session. Members asked OHE and nonpartisan counsel to provide written comparisons of the federal Title IX definitions and the statutory citations for the sexual‑misconduct definition, and to clarify which provisions are located in the house draft versus the senate draft. The committee adjourned with those follow‑ups requested.

The conference committee hearing brought together state officials and campus administrators to weigh how best to balance federal Title IX requirements, campus privacy and resource concerns at small institutions, and survivors’ access to supportive measures and adjudicatory processes. Further staff analysis and written materials were requested before the committee advances any negotiated language.