Addressing and preventing sex discrimination and sexual harassment on college campuses continues to be one of the most foundational challenges to improving campus climate at higher education institutions in our country.
In the fall of 2021, as the Biden-Harris administration began its reexamination of Title IX, the federal regulation that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education, the Assembly Higher Education Committee also began its own reexamination of California’s policies to address and prevent sex discrimination and sexual harassment in higher education.
Three years later, the Higher Education Committee released a 30-plus page report that revealed we are not doing nearly enough to support our public higher education institutions to create an inclusive and safe campus culture for our students, faculty and staff.
While each public higher education institution does have a nondiscrimination policy in place, it is clear that our campus communities do not trust these institutions to prevent or properly handle sex discrimination and sexual harassment on campus. According to interviews conducted by the committee and various surveys of students and faculty, campus communities feel that current policy focuses on protecting higher education institutions and not survivors of sexual discrimination and harassment.
It is the responsibility of campus leadership to provide our students with a safe and inclusive environment; however, the Legislature also has a responsibility to support our institutions in that mission, and to hold them accountable if they fall short.
My bills, Assembly Bill 2047 and Assembly Bill 2048 are a necessary step that the Legislature must take in order to support California’s higher education institutions and its campus communities.
These two bills are a part of an ambitious, 12-bill legislative package, authored by myself and seven of my legislative colleagues, and predominantly based on recommendations from the committee’s report.
As a whole, the package is imperative in order to foster cultural change, accountability and trust at our higher education institutions. AB 2047 and AB 2048 focus on shifting campus culture and renewing trust.
AB 2047 will establish an independent systemwide Title IX office to assist with monitoring compliance throughout all three of California’s higher education segments, and AB 2048 will establish an independent Title IX office on each California State University and University of California campus, and in each community college district.
Recommended for you
These offices, both on campus and at the systemwide level, will provide supportive measures to survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination and adjudicate cases in a clear and transparent manner. Furthermore, these bills will work in tandem with the overall legislative package to provide reporting measures to ensure the higher education institutions are preventing and addressing cases of sex discrimination.
The importance of creating an identifiable authority that will properly adjudicate cases of sex discrimination and implement preventative measures cannot be minimized. These bills will renew community trust in our public institutions and establish a campus culture primed to detect, prevent and address all forms of sex discrimination and harassment with supportive measures and restorative justice.Â
AB 2047 and AB 2048 will provide substantial change for survivors of sexual harassment, but they will also result in substantial monetary cost from the state’s general fund, possibly costing millions of dollars, in order to establish and staff these offices.
As we are confronted with a significant budget deficit this year, difficult policy decisions will be made, but these bills should be a priority for the Legislature.
Fundamental change is costly, and as we assess the true costs of these bills and the impact they will have on our state, we must also not forget to consider the cost of doing nothing: the human cost of students who do not feel safe at these institutions and may not be able to experience all that higher education has to offer. The cost of those who carry invisible wounds and do not achieve their full educational potential.
I am a firm believer in the power and promise of higher education and its ability to transform lives and communities. No student should be deprived of that power and promise due to sex discrimination or sexual harassment.
We are falling short of our responsibility to these campus communities by further allowing this status quo of handling complaints through costly monetary settlements and lawsuits to remain.
We cannot let this continue.
Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) represents California’s 49th Assembly District and serves as chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. He wrote this for EdSource, an independent nonprofit organization founded in 1977, dedicated to providing analysis on key education issues facing the state and nation. Go to edsource.org to learn more.
Now that Sustainability and DEI programs with expensive staff have lost their luster, here comes a legislator who, with nothing else to do, comes up with a new idea to further soak tuition payers with a frivolous program. If these institutions of higher leaning raised their respective entrance requirement bars, their serious students would not have time for this desperate search for elusive discrimination.
Well-written, MichKosk and Not So Common. I’d also wonder why racial discrimination isn’t being addressed. I hear that instead of merit UCSD has decided to prioritize students based on the status of their parents. Basically making ‘rules’ to give advantages to black and Latino students while discriminating against Asians and whites. Let’s hope parents initiate lawsuits against UCSD (and receive costly monetary settlements) while also slapping down UCSD’s discriminatory policies. Now, will Mike Fong notice and be as fervent about racial discrimination and harassment as he is about sex discrimination and harassment?
Mr. Fong, do you mean you are going to protect women, real women, from guys pretending to be women? Women are an incredible gift from God and and they have overcome barrier after barrier. If you are intending on providing transgenders the same rights as women then this is garbage. If you are intending on protecting women from transgenders, then just define women as women and enforce the current Title IX laws.
More tax payer money spent on a new layer of state bureaucracy? No thank you. And the new Title IX revisions, which thankfully are being challenged in court by many states, gut the due process rights of those accused of sexual assaults on campus. In addition, they pave the way for the decimation of women's sports as "sex" is redefined as including "gender identity", meaning any man who "identifies" as a woman will be allowed to compete in women's college sports and enter women's locker rooms (talk about not "feeling safe"!)
If Assemblyman Fong truly cared about the rights of women and the civl right of all, he would work to reverse these catastrophic changes that will destroy years of progress.
From the article, it appears the proposed legislation is focused on survivors of sexual discrimination and harassment not victims of sexual assault and abuse. Do you read it that way? The numbers don't look good. The word "harassment" is mentioned eight times and "discrimination" twelve times without any quantification of how serious such harassment and discrimination might be. No one wants to see persons affiliated with our higher education communities become victims of harassment and discrimination of any sort, but why are programs already in place not protecting everyone on the 149 UC, state university, and community college campuses in California? Do all these campuses need a new layer of state bureaucracy? Each of those campuses is already managed by well-paid administrators... make 'em earn their keep. The proposed legislation looks like a bait and switch. Unspoken but implied... this proposal is just a way to allow biological males to join women's sports teams.
I can't get much from the article but would like to see examples of the type of "discrimination" he is talking about and why we need millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent to try to combat it and create more endless bureaucracy. And you are correct, under the Title IX revisions a male claiming a female gender identity can now claim sex discrimination if denied access to female spaces (sports teams but also sororities, locker rooms etc.)
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
Now that Sustainability and DEI programs with expensive staff have lost their luster, here comes a legislator who, with nothing else to do, comes up with a new idea to further soak tuition payers with a frivolous program. If these institutions of higher leaning raised their respective entrance requirement bars, their serious students would not have time for this desperate search for elusive discrimination.
Well-written, MichKosk and Not So Common. I’d also wonder why racial discrimination isn’t being addressed. I hear that instead of merit UCSD has decided to prioritize students based on the status of their parents. Basically making ‘rules’ to give advantages to black and Latino students while discriminating against Asians and whites. Let’s hope parents initiate lawsuits against UCSD (and receive costly monetary settlements) while also slapping down UCSD’s discriminatory policies. Now, will Mike Fong notice and be as fervent about racial discrimination and harassment as he is about sex discrimination and harassment?
Mr. Fong, do you mean you are going to protect women, real women, from guys pretending to be women? Women are an incredible gift from God and and they have overcome barrier after barrier. If you are intending on providing transgenders the same rights as women then this is garbage. If you are intending on protecting women from transgenders, then just define women as women and enforce the current Title IX laws.
More tax payer money spent on a new layer of state bureaucracy? No thank you. And the new Title IX revisions, which thankfully are being challenged in court by many states, gut the due process rights of those accused of sexual assaults on campus. In addition, they pave the way for the decimation of women's sports as "sex" is redefined as including "gender identity", meaning any man who "identifies" as a woman will be allowed to compete in women's college sports and enter women's locker rooms (talk about not "feeling safe"!)
If Assemblyman Fong truly cared about the rights of women and the civl right of all, he would work to reverse these catastrophic changes that will destroy years of progress.
Well said, Michelle
From the article, it appears the proposed legislation is focused on survivors of sexual discrimination and harassment not victims of sexual assault and abuse. Do you read it that way? The numbers don't look good. The word "harassment" is mentioned eight times and "discrimination" twelve times without any quantification of how serious such harassment and discrimination might be. No one wants to see persons affiliated with our higher education communities become victims of harassment and discrimination of any sort, but why are programs already in place not protecting everyone on the 149 UC, state university, and community college campuses in California? Do all these campuses need a new layer of state bureaucracy? Each of those campuses is already managed by well-paid administrators... make 'em earn their keep. The proposed legislation looks like a bait and switch. Unspoken but implied... this proposal is just a way to allow biological males to join women's sports teams.
I can't get much from the article but would like to see examples of the type of "discrimination" he is talking about and why we need millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent to try to combat it and create more endless bureaucracy. And you are correct, under the Title IX revisions a male claiming a female gender identity can now claim sex discrimination if denied access to female spaces (sports teams but also sororities, locker rooms etc.)
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.