Twenty-three changes made to Title IX bill after groups voice strong opposition

After a dozen people and organizations went on the record to oppose a change to Title IX procedures, Rebulican lawmakers made almost two dozen edits to the bill.

House Bill 573, sponsored by Rep. Dean Dohrman, R – La Monte, would create an appeal process for either party of a Title IX case to appeal a decision if they disagreed with the finding of the college or university.

“We are here to protect the rights of all citizens,” Dohrman said. “I think we have made this as fair as it possibly can.”

At a public hearing last week, two people testified in favor of the bill while 12 testified in opposition. Rep. David Gregory, R – St. Louis, presented a list of 23 amendments in response to the criticisms at Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, of which he is the chairman.

The substantive changes included: Ensuring that administrative hearings are not open-records, limiting the amount of evidence that can be submitted during an appeal, forbidding an appellant from using a past relationship with the victim as a defense, and protecting victims that submit a complaint from being sued for doing so.

“We do not want to have that type of threat or intimidation against these people from participating,” Gregory said.

Several members of the Judiciary Committee commended Gregory on the changes, saying he effectively responded to concerns voiced at the public hearing. Still, the amended bill passed with a contentious 11-6 vote.

Some lawmakers said the bill inherently is an overreach by the state government.

“The bill is less horrible now, but it’s still, it’s still bad now. It’s still a bad bill fundamentally,” said Rep. Kip Kendrick, D – Columbia.

“We’re giving another path towards lawsuits against colleges and universities by injecting ourselves into an arena that we probably don’t have the constitutional authority to enter into,” said Rep. Mark Ellebracht, D – Liberty.

In a note attached to the bill, officials with the University of Missouri system said that the proposed policy would cost them over half a million dollars annually in additional employees, training and more.

Prior to the amendments being proposed, the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence opposed the idea. They could not be reached for comment on the amended bill.

Matthew Huffman, the public affairs director for the MCADSV, said that Title IX is meant to ensure equity in education at higher education institutions. Adding an appeals process would hamper that purpose.

“We need to take a step back and think about the difference between the Title IX process on campus and the criminal justice process. Those are two separate things that are already well established,” Huffman said. “(Title IX) really was intended for universities to be able to set up their own policies and procedures.”

The bill will be heard next by the House Rules – Administrative Oversight Committee. If passed there, the bill will proceed to the House floor.