Missouri senator dangles threat to Mizzou funding over its Title IX policies
A state senator offered a thinly veiled threat to the University of Missouri’s funding earlier this week after hearing testimony alleging that students accused of sexual assault and harassment are denied due process.
Sen. Bob Onder, R- St. Charles County, made the comment at a Tuesday hearing for a Title IX bill that would shift the balance of power in Missouri farther toward the accused than any other state.
Title IX refers to a provision of the federal Education Amendments of 1972, intended to address discrimination in education on the basis of sex. It has evolved into a system of college courts through which schools police sexual harassment and assault on campus.
Onder grew incensed as a Columbia attorney Chris Slusher, who defends students facing charges at school proceedings, said the current system is slanted unfairly against the accused. Onder was particularly angered when Slusher said that the university may be suppressing exculpatory evidence.
Throughout Slusher’s testimony, Onder asked questions with an increasingly incredulous tone. “That’s the University of Missouri’s policy?” he asked after Slusher said he had five days to prepare a defense in a Title IX case.
When Slusher replied yes, and Onder said: “They might need to be asked that in appropriations hearings, too.”
Sen. Gary Romine, R-Farmington, sponsor of the bill (SB 259) and chairman of the Senate Education Committee that held the hearing, dismissed any idea of linkage between the debate over Title IX and MU’s funding.
“I believe the most important thing that we can do in the legislative process is take each subject matter for what it’s worth. I mean one should not entangle the other,” Romine said.
“That’s what the process is all about,” he said. “One should not have anything to do with the other. I believe it’s very important to take each issue based on its own merits, not leverage one against the other.”
MU spokesman Christian Basi said it would be unusual for a lawmaker to ask for unrelated concessions in return for appropriating money for the university.
“No. We’ve never had that conversation,” he said. Rather, “We’ve had conversations in the past where they have said, ‘Hey, we heard about this and we’re not thrilled about it, or we’d like some more information on this.’”
“We understand this is a very important topic,” Basi said. “If they have questions, if they want to explore more, we’re happy to answer any questions they have.”
Title IX administrators from universities across the state testified against the bill at the Tuesday hearing. They said existing procedures were fair, and that the proposed revisions could make the process harder on victims. They also said confidentiality of victims and the accused could be jeopardized by the proposed law.
MU’s Title IX chief Andy Hayes contested many of Slusher’s claims. She said she was familiar with the cases he was describing and contended that he wasn’t telling the whole story. She said federal law protecting student’s private academic records prevented her from sharing more details.
Onder said on Thursday that he believed the Title IX administrators testimony against the bill two days earlier was not forthcoming and showed “smugness” and “arrogance.”
“I don’t think I was getting full answers to my questions,” he said of the hearing.
Senate Majority Leader Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, a founding member of a new legislative caucus supporting the UM System, said there’s certainly incidences of unfairness for the accused in Title IX proceedings. But he added that it was important to “make sure the pendulum doesn’t swing too far” and “make sure that everyone’s voice is heard in the process.”
Title IX changes are currently pending at the federal level. It would be helpful to know what they will be before proceeding at the state level, Rowden said, but the bill will go to the floor and receive the same amount of attention and focus as any other.
This story was originally published February 22, 2019 at 11:28 AM.