HR-10665-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
What it does
The bill would require each college that receives federal student aid under title IV to designate an independent advocate for sexual assault survivors, chosen for experience in survivor services. The advocate would report to someone outside the office that investigates and decides sexual assault complaints, represent the survivor even when the school's interests conflict, and keep survivor and witness identities confidential unless state law requires otherwise. The Education Secretary would have 180 days to write rules for appointing advocates, and employees who receive a sexual assault report would have to tell the survivor about the advocate. Services such as 24-hour crisis help, medical care, counseling, and legal information would be provided with the survivor's consent, either through agreements with community organizations or on campus. The bill would not change existing Clery Act or Title IX duties.
Who benefits
Students who report sexual assault would gain a confidential guide, 24-hour support referrals, and an advocate at school hearings if they ask. Survivors who fear retaliation would gain protection from being penalized for reporting to the advocate. Community rape crisis centers and legal aid groups could gain funding or partnerships through agreements with schools. Campus health and counseling staff may gain clearer referral paths.
Who is hurt
Colleges and universities, especially small or under-resourced ones, would bear costs for the advocate, round-the-clock services, transportation, training, and awareness campaigns, and the bill does not itself provide funding. School administrators could lose some control over cases, because the advocate would have to act against the institution's interests and keep survivor identities from it. Accused students might face proceedings in which an advocate is present for only one side. The Education Department would take on rulemaking and oversight work.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that survivors often do not report because they distrust school offices that also protect the institution, and that an advocate who is independent and protected from retaliation fills that gap. They contend that confidential, round-the-clock help, including medical exams and legal referrals, would let survivors get care without being forced into a formal process. They also point out that the bill leaves Title IX and Clery Act duties unchanged, so it adds support without removing any existing protection.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a new federal mandate on every aid-receiving college without providing funding, which may be hardest on small and community colleges. They contend that requiring advocates to withhold survivor identities from the school, even where a school has Title IX duties, could complicate investigations and the fair treatment of accused students. They also argue that the matter is better handled by states and schools, which can tailor services to their own campuses.
Constitutional context
Congress would act under the Spending Clause by attaching a condition to title IV aid, which South Dakota v. Dole (1987) allows if the condition is clearly stated, related to the funding's purpose, and not coercive. Because the bill would apply to a broad share of schools' federal aid, some institutions might argue the condition is coercive under NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), and the accused-student and due-process questions may also arise in school proceedings.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts authority to the executive branch, since the Education Secretary would write the appointment rules, while Congress sets the condition on federal aid and courts can review the rules and any funding conditions.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously attached campus safety duties to federal aid, notably the Clery Act's reporting requirements and the Campus SaVE Act amendments of 2013, which added requirements on sexual assault prevention and response.