University drops investigation of student “harassment”

American University administrators Thursday exonerated a law student accused of harassment after disagreeing with pro-life classmates in a group chat, in an incident that reflects the hypersensitive atmosphere on university campuses.

The Washington, D.C., university’s Office of Equity and Title IX conducted a six-week investigation of the messages and concluded that the accused harasser, Daniel Brezina, simply shared a dissenting opinion on the topic of abortion in nonthreatening language. Students were discussing the leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Mississippi, which overruled the court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

The pro-life student who filed the harassment complaint took issue with claims made by pro-abortion students, including Brezina, in online comments. “I was raised to stand up for my values, so baseless claims that abortion bans are ‘class warfare’ is deeply offensive to both me and my Greek Orthodox faith,” the student wrote.

In Thursday’s notice of resolution of the complaint, university officials concluded that the group chat messages by Brezina “did not threaten, intimidate or denigrate [redacted accuser’s name] based on his political affiliation or religious beliefs.”

Brezina gained support from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a national free speech advocacy group. Despite the win, FIRE remains concerned for the future of free speech and due process for students accused of harassment under the Biden Administration’s proposed Title IX amendments.

If finalized, the regulations would nullify 2020 changes made by the Trump administration. Then–Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos added language to the rules ensuring that schools receiving government funding settle all Title IX reports with a live trial, complete with cross-examination and presenting the accused with both charges and evidence against him or her.  Biden’s proposed rules give schools the freedom to choose how best to proceed with allegation investigations, whether that be with an open trial, a single investigator, or some other process.

The proposed amendments also promise an increase in investigations, requiring schools to look into every tip they receive rather than just the official reports that students file. The Department of Education said it proposed such changes to facilitate the reporting process for alleged assault survivors after receiving public feedback characterizing the live trial model as “unnecessarily adversarial, retraumatizing, chilling to students’ willingness to report incidents, and not more effective than other means of determining whether a violation of the school’s prohibition on sexual harassment occurred.”

Others say the effect may be to chill student speech further in a campus environment where students and faculty already walk on eggshells, concerned about unintentionally causing offense and triggering an investigation. Joe Cohn, director of legislation and policy for FIRE, questions whether schools will protect due process and free speech under the proposed regulations. Cohn praised the document for retaining a student’s right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, but said “that’s not much of a consolation when they don’t have a right to a hearing.”

Regulations also expand the definition of sexual harassment to include harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation and “harassment that creates a hostile environment.” On paper, the Education Department states that “Title IX protects individuals from sex discrimination and does not regulate the content of speech as such.” But, with the radical expansion of what qualifies as sexual harassment, paired with vague definitions—like “hostile work environments”—many fear that simple differences of opinion or using incorrect pronouns may elicit Title IX investigations.

“The right to an educational atmosphere free from discrimination and harassment is of critical importance,” wrote FIRE’s Alex Morey in a July 8 letter to American University. “So, too, is justice for students promised the right to speak authentically about controversial legal issues as part of their law school education, yet subject to a formal investigation for doing so.”