The Carceral Logic of Title IX

Abstract

Universities in the United States have undertaken the goal of addressing gender-based violence (GBV) on campus. Legal reforms have provided guidance on how this should be done, including the adoption of Title IX and the 2011 Dear Colleague letter. This guidance focuses on limiting liability concerns through mandatory/responsible employee reporting and investigatory practices rather than providing survivors with autonomy and healing. Proponents of Title IX argue that these changes to the law structurally address GBV; however, we argue that efforts to reform the law are surface-level and instead serve the goals of the neoliberal university. Furthermore, the processes in place are emotionally taxing and traumatizing for survivors, also referred to as institutional betrayal. While we are not suggesting that Title IX investigations contribute to the prison industrial complex, we do argue Title IX policies and processes operate with carceral logic in a way that individualizes harm and protects the institution, which we call campus control. We then conclude with recommendations for the field of GBV research and activism to reckon with what a “decarcerated university” may look like and specifically look to prison abolition feminists for guidance on divesting from and dismantling harmful processes and institutions.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

¹ The term prison industrial complex, first used by Angela Davis in 1998, refers to the expansion of the prison system in the United States for the purposes of the production of goods for profit. It is derived from the concept “military industrial complex”.

² We use “liberal feminist” to mean the mainstream feminists whose goal in ending violence is legal reform and recognition, whereas we use “radical feminist” or “radical feminist organizers” to refer to feminists whose politic centers anti-capitalist ideology, -racist, and -sexist ideologies and whose anti-GBV efforts are more focused on structural change rather than legal reforms.

³ For the purposes of this article, the terms “mandatory reporter” and “responsible employee” are interchangeable. We have chosen to include both terms because both terms are used, often interchangeably, on campuses. We recognize that mandatory reporting may contain other connotations (e.g., reporting if a person is a threat to themselves or others, reporting instances of child abuse); however, for the purposes of this article, we are referring to mandatory reporting as equivalent to responsible employee specific to instances of gender-based violence, including harassment, stalking, dating violence, sexual misconduct, on college campuses. We think it is important to highlight that these terms are often used interchangeably to ensure that readers of this understand what may be referred to as “mandatory reporting” on campuses is not necessary regarding children or other more commonly associated issues, but rather may be in reference to individuals on campus who are tasked with reporting instances of gender-based violence, stalking, harassment, dating violence, and sexual misconduct.

⁴ The requirement of responsible employees to report disclosures.