Sexual harassment of students which includes sexual violence and sex discrimination are prohibited by Title IX

Under title ix schools are obligated and required to respond to all forms of sexual harassment, both verbal and nonverbal.

"If a school knows about student-on-student harassment that creates a hostile environment, title ix requires the school to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects" pg. 4
Although multiple members of Columbia University's Staff, including.... Knew about Sulkowicz's protest and the harassment it caused, no one took action to prevent or stop it.
In fact university's staff took reverse action by allowing The protest to continue and rewarding Sulkowicz with class credit.

According to The office for civil rights' 2001 guidance and explanation for title ix, "when a student sexually harasses another student, the harassing conduct creates a hostile environment" (pg. 3) Although Nungesser was not physically sexually harassed, he was harassed by both the alleged rape victim, Sulkowicz and his fellow peers. These acts of gender-based harassment created the same hostile environment that would have been established through sexual harassment, and therefore should be treated as such.

CASE SPECIFICS

Although...."there is no dispute that title ix applies to Columbia"

Although judge Woods dismissed Nungesser's argument on the basis of logical fallacy, Nungesser's claims should have withstood because they were not just assumptions but could have been proven as facts and acts of "sex-based" discrimination. Based merely on the difference of treatment between Nungesser and Sulkowicz at the university, even after he was found not responsible proves that there was a gender discrimination.

Nungesser's claims were not just based on the act of sex, but showed a derivative of gender based discrimination as well, which is the meaning of "sex-based" that is protected until title ix

"In order to be considered gender-based harassment, the harassment conduct must "'support an inference of discrimination on the basis of sex.'" (Pg 10)

Nungesser's claims should also be protected under title VII for his subjection to a hostile environment.

"In evaluating whether actions against a particular plaintiff where discriminatory, 'courts have consistently emphasized that the ultimate issue is the reasons for the individual plaintiff's treatment'" (pg10) this determining factor defines the treatment against Nungesser as discriminatory because his alleged actions of sexual harassment we're never proven and therefore cannot be the reason for his mistreatment.

The intimidation ridicule and mistreatment that Nungesser experienced must have derived from a bias and discriminatory basis because they were not based on fact or actions, because he was found not responsible by the university in all previous sexual harassment cases

Although the courts claim he was only subject to intimidation, ridicule, and mistreatment. "Mistreatment" is vague term to describe the conduct and treatment Nungesser experienced from Columbia, and include the discriminatory actions that the courts fail to acknowledge. (BRING IN SIMILAR HE CASE)

The universities actions were directly suggestive of gender bias.

In conclusion Nungesser's complaints and cited evidence were not consistent with title ix claims and provisions of protection. Although his evidence was not strong/durable enough to withstand the request to dismiss

However that does not and should not deter from that possibility/fact that he did experience sex-based discrimination from the university, which subsequently created a hostile environment.

Support and uphold the judge wood'a decision to dismiss not argue for the supreme court to overrule (should be similar to an argument piece)

***Thesis: the Supreme Court should uphold Judge Wood's decision and rule in favor of the University to dismiss the claim because Nungesser's claim is not based on gender or sex discrimination and therefore not covered/protected by the provisions of title ix.

Support thesis with:

-support and the provision/definitions from the dear colleague letter

-the case study/proceedings (Nungesser v. Columbia)

-claim from previous/similar cases

***Be sure to mention

-the meaning and definition of gender-motivated or gender-based discrimination as it applies to title ix

-the difference between "sex" and "gender" (sex v. gender)=the sexual act versus the fact of being and difference in sex, female/male)

-"gender" is what title ix means by "sex" within the provision of sex-based discrimination in title ix NOT sex acts

-also mention that Nungesser has not claim to hostile environment claims of title vii because his grade and mental stable were not effected

By the end of the paper the following questions should be answered:

-Is this an issue of law? (yes; such as state laws for deformation/tort but NOT title ix or title vii)

-What is the duty of the university in this case? (can be briefly discussed in the conclusion para.)

-should there be a legal response for the harassment Nungesser endured or is that something the university and law cannot control/cover?

Sexual harassment of students which includes sexual violence and se...