As of early 2025, new Title IX regulations are poised to reshape how colleges and universities handle allegations of sexual misconduct, triggering another wave of uncertainty for both students and institutions. These changes come amid ongoing efforts by the federal government to strike a balance between protecting complainants and safeguarding the due process rights of the accused. But critics warn that the latest rules may once again tip the scales, this time in ways that create new vulnerabilities for students navigating disciplinary proceedings.

Since 2020, the Department of Education has rewritten its Title IX rules multiple times, with each administration revising core procedures that govern how schools investigate, adjudicate, and respond to misconduct allegations. Under the current 2025 framework, schools are now permitted to streamline hearings, eliminate live cross-examination in some cases, and apply broader definitions of misconduct. Advocates for survivors have welcomed these shifts, arguing they reduce barriers to reporting and emphasize trauma-informed practices.

However, these regulatory updates also carry significant implications for students accused of misconduct. The relaxation of procedural safeguards, particularly the removal of mandatory live hearings in certain cases, has sparked concern among legal experts who warn that institutions may fall short of ensuring fair and neutral processes.

Joseph Lento, founder of Lento Law Firm and a veteran in defending students in disciplinary matters, has been closely tracking how these regulatory shifts affect due process rights on campus.

Lento states, “When colleges curtail live hearings or cross-examination, they chip away at due process. Every accused student deserves a full and fair hearing, especially when facing life-altering disciplinary consequences. Legal counsel can challenge any process that lacks transparency, balance, or a clear evidentiary record.”

One of the most consequential changes is the redefinition of what qualifies as a Title IX offense. Under the 2025 regulations, schools are no longer required to apply a narrow definition limited to conduct that occurs on campus or during school-sanctioned events. This broader scope now includes off-campus incidents, social media interactions, and conduct that occurs during breaks or in virtual settings, expanding the university’s reach into students’ personal lives in unprecedented ways.

At the same time, the standard of evidence remains a point of contention. Most institutions continue to use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, a lower threshold that requires only that it be more likely than not that the misconduct occurred. Critics argue that without robust procedural protections, this standard can result in life-altering penalties based on ambiguous facts, hearsay, or unclear intent.

For students accused of misconduct, this landscape can be legally treacherous. They often face rushed timelines, limited access to evidence, and adjudicators who may lack formal legal training. While some schools offer advisors or conduct officers to assist, many students find themselves navigating quasi-judicial proceedings without meaningful representation or support.

Lento remarks, “Students facing Title IX investigations must act quickly — request all evidence, demand clarity about procedures, and seek representation. We often find institutions deviating from their own written policies, which can open the door to appeal or legal review. No student should navigate this process alone.”

Compounding the issue is the inconsistent implementation of Title IX policies across institutions. While the federal government issues guidance, each school maintains discretion in crafting its own disciplinary procedures. That means students at neighboring universities can face vastly different processes, and outcomes, for similar allegations. In practice, this creates a patchwork system with uneven protections and outcomes that can vary depending on the school’s resources, training, or internal culture.

As more cases surface under the revised Title IX rules, the courts may ultimately determine whether certain practices violate students’ constitutional or contractual rights. Until then, students remain at the mercy of institutions interpreting these rules in real time, often with high stakes and little room for error. 

Disclaimer and Disclosure: This article is an opinion piece for informational purposes only. High Net Worth Magazine and its affiliates do not take responsibility for the views expressed. Readers should conduct independent research to form their own opinions.