Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified basis, including immigration status, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.

This bill would require, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the Board of Governors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of a public postsecondary educational institutions student code of conduct, as defined. The bill would require the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would authorize a public postsecondary educational institution to use a confidential respondent services coordinator, an agreement with a student-based peer support program, or an agreement with an alumni-based support program to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would require an adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution to be trained by the institution on its adjudication procedures for the alleged violation, as provided. The bill would also require an adviser, with written permission from the student, to receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process and to participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by specified state law and Title IX. By imposing new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified basis, including immigration status, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.

This bill would require, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the Board of Governors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of a public postsecondary educational institutions student code of conduct, as defined. The bill would require the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would authorize a public postsecondary educational institution to use a confidential respondent services coordinator, an agreement with a student-based peer support program, or an agreement with an alumni-based support program to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would require an adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution to be trained by the institution on its adjudication procedures for the alleged violation, as provided. The bill would also require an adviser, with written permission from the student, to receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process and to participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by specified state law and Title IX. By imposing new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified basis, including immigration status, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.

This bill would require, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the Board of Governors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of a public postsecondary educational institutions student code of conduct, as defined. The bill would require the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would authorize a public postsecondary educational institution to use a confidential respondent services coordinator, an agreement with a student-based peer support program, or an agreement with an alumni-based support program to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would require an adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution to be trained by the institution on its adjudication procedures for the alleged violation, as provided. The bill would also require an adviser, with written permission from the student, to receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process and to participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by specified state law and Title IX. By imposing new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified basis, including immigration status, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.

This bill would require, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the Board of Governors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be represented assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of a public postsecondary educational institutions student code of conduct, as defined. The bill would require the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to include a clause informing the student of their right to either select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would authorize a public postsecondary educational institution to use a confidential respondent services coordinator, an agreement with a student-based peer support program, or an agreement with an alumni-based support program to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would require an adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution to be trained by the institution on its adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. violation, as provided. The bill would also require an adviser, with written permission from the student, to receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process and to participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by specified state law and Title IX. By imposing new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified basis, including immigration status, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.

This bill would require, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the above-described public postsecondary governing bodies governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the Board of Governors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be represented by an advisor adviser if the student receives a notification of a disciplinary action pursuant to specified provisions. an alleged violation of a public postsecondary educational institutions student code of conduct, as defined. The bill would require the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to include a clause informing the student of their right to either select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student. The bill would require an advisor to be adviser selected by the student and or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution to be trained by a public postsecondary educational the institution on its adjudication procedures for the disciplinary action. alleged violation. The bill would also require an advisor, adviser, with written permission from the student, to receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process of the disciplinary action and to participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of advisor adviser as authorized by specified state law and Title IX. The bill would authorize a student to select a confidential advocate as an advisor. By imposing new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the California State University under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California under the administration of the Regents of the University of California as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law authorizes each campus of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, and the University of California to establish a campus mental health hotline for students to access mental health services remotely.

This bill would declare the Legislatures intent to enact subsequent legislation relating to student mental health at postsecondary educational institutions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1575

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:August 23, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Authorizes students, who have received a disciplinary notification, the right to have an adviser of their choosing, requires postsecondary education institutions to provide an advisor to the student if requested, and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide trainings for the aforementioned adviser.

Senate Amendments

1. Permits a public postsecondary education institution to fulfill its obligation of providing an advisor to students through a confidential respondent services coordinator, an agreement with a student-based peer support program, or an agreement with an alumni-based support program;
2. Clarifies the training required by the measure may be offered in an online format and encourages campuses within a segment to collaborate to develop the training so it can be used by more than one campus; and,
3. Defines segment of public higher education as the California Community Colleges, the California State University, or the University of California.

COMMENTS

Impetus of the bill. The collegiate soccer world was shaken when a promising female athlete took her own life in March 2022. Days after her death, it was uncovered, the student had received a disciplinary notification stemming from an incident involving a football player and spilled coffee. Catalyzed by the loss, the soccer player’s parents started “Katie Saves” a nationwide initiative to ensure students on college campuses have a trusted adviser to help them advocate and navigate the complicated disciplinary procedures on college campuses that may arise after an alleged student conduct violation. “Kate Saves” provide agency to students during a disciplinary proceeding by providing students with the option to select their own adviser regardless of whether the disciplinary proceeding was due to a Title IX complaint, an academic sanction, or a violation of the student code of conduct.

Existing law at both the state and federal level acknowledge advisers should be made available to students regardless of whether they are the complainant (victim) and respondent (accused) of a federal Title IX complaint or a complaint of sex discrimination as described in the California Sex Equity Act (EDC Section 66281.8). However, these advisers are only made available after a complaint is filed and are not available to advise students, faculty, and staff of the various reporting options (legal, institutional, or criminal) nor can the adviser assist in connecting the student, faculty, and staff with on-and off-campus resources.

The Education Code acknowledges the existence of sexual assault and domestic violence counselors in Section 67385 by requiring them to be separate from the Title IX office. The Section also enables the counselors to provide services to alleged victims of assault regardless of whether they elect to report the incident to the campus or not. However, not every campus has sexual assault and domestic violence counselors nor is it clear whether their services can be provided to students, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary sanctions.

AB 1575 (Irwin) seeks to codify an element of the “Katie Saves” initiative by ensuring that advisers are available to students who face any type of disciplinary procedure on campus.

Advisers on college campuses. Contained within the 2020 Federal Title IX regulations is a requirement for advisers to be provided to complainants and respondents during the adjudication process of a complaint of sexual harassment or sexual violence. These advisers are there to help assist the student in understanding the complex adjudication process required by Federal Regulations. The California Sex Equity Act requires these advisers if they are employees to be trained; however, the law is mute as to whether the adviser if not an employee of the system receives training on the adjudication procedure. The UC system does have respondent coordinators for students, faculty, and staff who are the subject of an alleged misconduct violation. The respondent coordinators are available to anyone who faces a sexual, behavioral, or academic misconduct violation. The purpose of the coordinators is to provide referrals to on-campus or off-campus resources and to help the respondent understand the grievance procedures (adjudication procedures). This measure would help ensure that students can select an adviser they trust who will then receive the proper training necessary to be a source of guidance to the students as they navigate the disciplinary process.

According to the Author

As delineated by the author, “California’s colleges and universities are filled with extremely bright and dedicated students who come from around the world to study, participate in athletics, conduct research, and better their lives. At times their higher education experience presents them with challenges related to violations of academic codes, student codes of conduct, or even with harassment and discrimination. These challenges threaten lasting real-world consequences that many students are not prepared to handle on their own. Our colleges and universities must provide their students facing these institutional proceedings with support and resources, including access to confidential advocates, through a holistic approach that prioritizes their well-being.”

Arguments in Support

The California Faculty Association, which represents over 29,000 CSU faculty support AB 1575. “By allowing students to select a designated advocate to receive specific administrative, academic, health, and disciplinary notices, AB 1575 empowers students and promotes transparency in their support networks. This bill aligns with our mission to ensure the comprehensive well-being of our students. We understand that mental health issues can greatly impact a student's academic performance and overall life quality. A designated advocate will play a crucial role in providing consistent and tailored support to students, enabling them to navigate challenges more effectively.”

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

1. The California State University (CSU) indicates that to create an online learning module to provide training that explains the student conduct process to outside advisors (who are not the already trained confidential advocates employed by the university), there would be General Fund costs of about $10,000 to $15,000 for a 30-45 minute training with moderate interactivity and no video. There could be additional, unknown costs to the extent that existing respondent services coordinators are impacted and whether they would need to assist students in all types of student conduct cases.
2. The University of California (UC) estimates General Fund costs of $3 million each year to provide student advisors. This estimate assumes 2.0 positions at each of the UC’s 10 campuses at a cost of $150,000 each.
3. The Chancellor’s Office estimates Proposition 98 General Fund costs of $1,706 to $4,037 for each community college to develop an advocate designee policy related to student advisors.

VOTES:

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 10-0-1

YES: Mike Fong, Ta, Arambula, Boerner, Chen, Addis, Jackson, Low, Muratsuchi, Quirk-Silva

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-0-4

YES: Holden, Arambula, Wood, Calderon, Connolly, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Lowenthal, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0-3

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Megan Dahle, Vince Fong

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: August 23, 2024

CONSULTANT: Ellen Cesaretti-Monroy / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0004587

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1575

Author: Irwin (D)

Amended: 8/23/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/29/24

AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, Glazer, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Niello, Roth, Stern, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Laird

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 1/29/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: students codes of conduct: advisers

SOURCE: Katie’s Save Foundation

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide training for the aforementioned adviser.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/24 strike a cross-reference relative to a confidential respondent services coordinator, as the cross-reference is for a code section proposed by a bill that was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes Title IX, providing that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
   
2. Provides for various exemptions from these provisions, including for fraternities and sororities, military institutions, traditional male or female institutions, and institutions controlled by religious organizations. (Title 20 of the United States Code, § 1681)
   

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Equity in Higher Education Act (Act) to prohibit a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the statutory definition of hate crimes, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (Education Code (EC) § 66270)
   
2. Requires the governing board of a community college district, the Trustees of the California State University (CSU), the Board of Directors of San Francisco Law School, and the Regents of the University of California (UC) to adopt and implement a written procedure or protocols related to sexual assault or domestic violence, as provided. The protocol shall be reviewed and updated annually in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, students, faculty, and staff representatives. Authorizes that sexual assault and domestic violence counselors at public colleges and universities be independent from the Title IX office and prohibits sexual assault and domestic violence counselors from releasing the identity of the victim without first obtaining specific permission. (EC § 67385)

Campus point of contact

1. Requests the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the governing board of each community college district to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus. Existing law requires, at a minimum, the name and contact information of that designated employee to be published on the website for the respective campus and be included in any printed and Internet-based campus directories. (EC § 66271.2)
   

Title IX Coordinator (not confidential employees)

1. Requires UC, CSU, California Community Colleges (CCCs), private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance, in order to receive state financial assistance, to implement, and at all times comply with, specified requirements at each campus of the institution, including but not limited to:
   
   1. Designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Equity in Higher Education Act. Existing law requires the employee to have adequate training on what constitutes sexual harassment and on trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices, and shall understand how the institution’s grievance procedures operate.
      
   2. Requires the institution, if a complainant requests confidentiality which could preclude a meaningful investigation or potential discipline, to take the request seriously while at the same time considering its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students, including for the complainant. Existing law requires the institution to generally grant the request.
      
   3. Requires the institution, if it determines that it can honor the student’s request for confidentiality, to still take reasonable steps to respond to the complaint, consistent with the request, to limit the effects of the alleged sexual harassment and prevent its recurrence without initiating formal action against the alleged perpetrator or revealing the identity of the complainant.
      
   4. Requires the institution, if it determines that it must disclose the complainant’s identity to the respondent or proceed with an investigation, to inform the complainant prior to making this disclosure or initiating the investigation. Existing law requires the institution, in the event the complainant requests that the institution inform the respondent that the student asked the institution not to investigate or seek discipline, to honor this request. (EC § 66281.8)

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide trainings for the aforementioned adviser. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, and the Regents of the UC, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct.
   
2. Requires the policy to include all of the following:
   
   1. The initial allegation letter that is received by the student shall include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student.
      
   2. The authority for an institution to use any of the following to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student:
      
      1. A confidential respondent services coordinator.
         
      2. An agreement with a student-based peer support program.
         
      3. An agreement with an alumni-based support program.
         
   3. The adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution shall be provided training by the institution on the institution’s adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The training may be provided in an online format, and is not required to, but may, have an in-person or interactive element. To the extent practical, institutions within each segment are encouraged to collaborate to develop a training that can be used by more than one institution in that segment.
      
   4. An adviser, with written permission from the student, shall receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process of the alleged violation of the student code of conduct and shall participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by existing law (Title IX and corresponding state law).
      
3. Deems the provisions of this bill as “Katie Meyer’s Law.”
   
4. Defines the following terms:
   
   1. “Adjudication procedures” means a public postsecondary educational institution’s established process to determine if a student has violated the student code of conduct and the established process to respond when violations are sustained.
      
   2. “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a CCC, a campus of the CSU, a campus of the UC, or the College of the Law, San Francisco.
      
   3. “Segment of public postsecondary education” means the CCCs, CSU, or UC.
      
   4. “Student code of conduct” means any rules or policies adopted by a public postsecondary educational institution on the expectations or standards of student behavior on campus, including but not limited to, standards related to academics, athletics, and sex discrimination.
      

Comments

1. Katie’s Save. Katie Meyer was a goalie for Stanford University’s soccer team. In 2022, Ms. Meyer committed suicide after receiving notice from Stanford University of pending disciplinary action against her. According to news reports and a court filing, Stanford sent Ms. Meyer a letter stating that her degree was going to be placed on hold (within four months of graduation) and that the charge against her could result in removal from Stanford University. A court document explained that computer forensics showed that Ms. Meyer “frantically toggled” between the letter from Stanford and searching for information about how to defend herself against a disciplinary complaint. Ms. Meyer’s parents believe that Stanford’s handling of the disciplinary process led to Ms. Meyer’s suicide.
   
   This bill codifies the “university policy” portion of the Katie’s Save initiative, which calls for university-level policies to offer students an option to have a designated advocate when the student is involved in disciplinary proceedings. https://www.katiessave.org/
2. Recent report on how postsecondary education institutions address sexual discrimination. Throughout 2023, staff from the Assembly Higher Education Committee and this committee hosted fact-finding briefings with representatives from the CCC, CSU, UC, and various California Independent Colleges and Universities to understand how higher education institutions are preventing and addressing sexual discrimination on campuses. The Assembly Higher Education Committee released a report that provides a synopsis of the information gleaned from the briefings and a compilation of legislative proposals for how the State can partner with higher education institutions to prevent and address discrimination in all its forms on college and university campuses throughout California. https://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-02/a-call-to-action-report-2024_0.pdf
   
   As mentioned in this report, existing law at both the state and federal level acknowledges advocates should be made available to students regardless of whether they are the complainant (victim) or respondent (accused) of a federal Title IX complaint or a complaint of sex discrimination, and state law acknowledges the existence of sexual assault and domestic violence counselors by requiring them to be separate from the Title IX office.
   
   However, advocates related to Title IX or sex discrimination complaints are only made available after a complaint is filed and are not available to advise students, faculty, and staff of the various reporting options (legal, institutional, or criminal) nor can the advisor assist in connecting the student, faculty, and staff with on-and off-campus resources. Sexual assault and domestic violence counselors are authorized to provide services to alleged victims of assault regardless of whether they elect to report the incident to the campus or not. However, not every campus has sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, nor is it clear whether their services can be provided to students, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary sanctions.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee (see below).
   
3. Confidential employee. Existing law defines “responsible employee” as an employee who has the authority to take action to redress sexual harassment or provide supportive measures to students, or who has the duty to report sexual harassment to an appropriate school official who has that authority. Responsible employees are expected to report complaints of sexual harassment – information provided to a responsible employee is not confidential. Responsible employees specifically include Title IX coordinators, residential advisors, athletic directors, faculty, and other specified staff. Some staff are specifically excluded from being a responsible employee, such as a therapist including a UC Center for Advocacy, Resources, and Education (CARE) employee or CSU victim advocate.
   
   Existing law requires UC, CSU, CCCs, private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance to designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Sex Equity in Education Act; that employee is designated as a responsible employee and is therefore not a confidential employee.
   
   California does not have a requirement for campuses to employ confidential employees and therefore, each public higher education system is endowed with the authority to employ a confidential advocate as part of the institution’s response to discriminatory events.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The CSU indicates that to create an online learning module to provide training that explains the student conduct process to outside advisors (who are not the already trained confidential advocates employed by the university), there would be General Fund costs of about $10,000 to $15,000 for a 30-45 minute training with moderate interactivity and no video. There could be additional, unknown costs to the extent that existing respondent services coordinators are impacted and whether they would need to assist students in all types of student conduct cases.
   
2. The UC estimates General Fund costs of $3 million each year to provide student advisors. This estimate assumes 2.0 positions at each of the UC’s 10 campuses at a cost of $150,000 each.
   
3. The CCC Chancellor’s Office estimates Proposition 98 General Fund costs of $1,706 to $4,037 for each community college to develop an advocate designee policy related to student advisors.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/24)

Katie's Save Foundation (source)
American Association of University Women - California
Common Sense Media

Generation Up
Jordyn Clark Foundation
Junior Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

1 Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 1/29/24

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Megan Dahle, Vince Fong

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/25/24 12:49:24

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1575

Author: Irwin (D)

Amended: 5/21/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/29/24

AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, Glazer, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Niello, Roth, Stern, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Laird

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 1/29/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: students codes of conduct: advisers

SOURCE: Katie’s Save Foundation

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide training for the aforementioned adviser.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes Title IX, providing that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
   
2. Provides for various exemptions from these provisions, including for fraternities and sororities, military institutions, traditional male or female institutions, and institutions controlled by religious organizations. (Title 20 of the United States Code, § 1681)
   

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Equity in Higher Education Act (Act) to prohibit a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the statutory definition of hate crimes, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (Education Code (EC) § 66270)
   
2. Requires the governing board of a community college district, the Trustees of the California State University (CSU), the Board of Directors of San Francisco Law School, and the Regents of the University of California (UC) to adopt and implement a written procedure or protocols related to sexual assault or domestic violence, as provided. The protocol shall be reviewed and updated annually in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, students, faculty, and staff representatives. Authorizes that sexual assault and domestic violence counselors at public colleges and universities be independent from the Title IX office and prohibits sexual assault and domestic violence counselors from releasing the identity of the victim without first obtaining specific permission. (EC § 67385)

Campus point of contact

1. Requests the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the governing board of each community college district to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus. Existing law requires, at a minimum, the name and contact information of that designated employee to be published on the website for the respective campus and be included in any printed and Internet-based campus directories. (EC § 66271.2)
   

Title IX Coordinator (not confidential employees)

1. Requires UC, CSU, California Community Colleges (CCCs), private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance, in order to receive state financial assistance, to implement, and at all times comply with, specified requirements at each campus of the institution, including but not limited to:
   
   1. Designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Equity in Higher Education Act. Existing law requires the employee to have adequate training on what constitutes sexual harassment and on trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices, and shall understand how the institution’s grievance procedures operate.
      
   2. Requires the institution, if a complainant requests confidentiality which could preclude a meaningful investigation or potential discipline, to take the request seriously while at the same time considering its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students, including for the complainant. Existing law requires the institution to generally grant the request.
      
   3. Requires the institution, if it determines that it can honor the student’s request for confidentiality, to still take reasonable steps to respond to the complaint, consistent with the request, to limit the effects of the alleged sexual harassment and prevent its recurrence without initiating formal action against the alleged perpetrator or revealing the identity of the complainant.
      
   4. Requires the institution, if it determines that it must disclose the complainant’s identity to the respondent or proceed with an investigation, to inform the complainant prior to making this disclosure or initiating the investigation. Existing law requires the institution, in the event the complainant requests that the institution inform the respondent that the student asked the institution not to investigate or seek discipline, to honor this request. (EC § 66281.8)

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide trainings for the aforementioned adviser. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, and the Regents of the UC, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct.
   
2. Requires the policy to include all of the following:
   
   1. The initial allegation letter that is received by the student shall include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student.
      
   2. The authority for an institution to use any of the following to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student:
      
      1. A confidential respondent services coordinator.
         
      2. An agreement with a student-based peer support program.
         
      3. An agreement with an alumni-based support program.
         
   3. The adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution shall be provided training by the institution on the institution’s adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The training may be provided in an online format, and is not required to, but may, have an in-person or interactive element. To the extent practical, institutions within each segment are encouraged to collaborate to develop a training that can be used by more than one institution in that segment.
      
   4. An adviser, with written permission from the student, shall receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process of the alleged violation of the student code of conduct and shall participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by existing law (Title IX and corresponding state law).
      
3. Deems the provisions of this bill as “Katie Meyer’s Law.”
   
4. Defines the following terms:
   
   1. “Adjudication procedures” means a public postsecondary educational institution’s established process to determine if a student has violated the student code of conduct and the established process to respond when violations are sustained.
      
   2. “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a CCC, a campus of the CSU, a campus of the UC, or the College of the Law, San Francisco.
      
   3. “Segment of public postsecondary education” means the CCCs, CSU, or UC.
      
   4. “Student code of conduct” means any rules or policies adopted by a public postsecondary educational institution on the expectations or standards of student behavior on campus, including but not limited to, standards related to academics, athletics, and sex discrimination.
      

Comments

1. Katie’s Save. Katie Meyer was a goalie for Stanford University’s soccer team. In 2022, Ms. Meyer committed suicide after receiving notice from Stanford University of pending disciplinary action against her. According to news reports and a court filing, Stanford sent Ms. Meyer a letter stating that her degree was going to be placed on hold (within four months of graduation) and that the charge against her could result in removal from Stanford University. A court document explained that computer forensics showed that Ms. Meyer “frantically toggled” between the letter from Stanford and searching for information about how to defend herself against a disciplinary complaint. Ms. Meyer’s parents believe that Stanford’s handling of the disciplinary process led to Ms. Meyer’s suicide.
   
   This bill codifies the “university policy” portion of the Katie’s Save initiative, which calls for university-level policies to offer students an option to have a designated advocate when the student is involved in disciplinary proceedings. https://www.katiessave.org/
2. Recent report on how postsecondary education institutions address sexual discrimination. Throughout 2023, staff from the Assembly Higher Education Committee and this committee hosted fact-finding briefings with representatives from the CCC, CSU, UC, and various California Independent Colleges and Universities to understand how higher education institutions are preventing and addressing sexual discrimination on campuses. The Assembly Higher Education Committee released a report that provides a synopsis of the information gleaned from the briefings and a compilation of legislative proposals for how the State can partner with higher education institutions to prevent and address discrimination in all its forms on college and university campuses throughout California. https://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-02/a-call-to-action-report-2024_0.pdf
   
   As mentioned in this report, existing law at both the state and federal level acknowledges advocates should be made available to students regardless of whether they are the complainant (victim) or respondent (accused) of a federal Title IX complaint or a complaint of sex discrimination, and state law acknowledges the existence of sexual assault and domestic violence counselors by requiring them to be separate from the Title IX office.
   
   However, advocates related to Title IX or sex discrimination complaints are only made available after a complaint is filed and are not available to advise students, faculty, and staff of the various reporting options (legal, institutional, or criminal) nor can the advisor assist in connecting the student, faculty, and staff with on-and off-campus resources. Sexual assault and domestic violence counselors are authorized to provide services to alleged victims of assault regardless of whether they elect to report the incident to the campus or not. However, not every campus has sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, nor is it clear whether their services can be provided to students, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary sanctions.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee (see below).
   
3. Confidential employee. Existing law defines “responsible employee” as an employee who has the authority to take action to redress sexual harassment or provide supportive measures to students, or who has the duty to report sexual harassment to an appropriate school official who has that authority. Responsible employees are expected to report complaints of sexual harassment – information provided to a responsible employee is not confidential. Responsible employees specifically include Title IX coordinators, residential advisors, athletic directors, faculty, and other specified staff. Some staff are specifically excluded from being a responsible employee, such as a therapist including a UC Center for Advocacy, Resources, and Education (CARE) employee or CSU victim advocate.
   
   Existing law requires UC, CSU, CCCs, private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance to designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Sex Equity in Education Act; that employee is designated as a responsible employee and is therefore not a confidential employee.
   
   California does not have a requirement for campuses to employ confidential employees and therefore, each public higher education system is endowed with the authority to employ a confidential advocate as part of the institution’s response to discriminatory events.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would impose the following costs:

1. The CSU indicates that to create an online learning module to provide training that explains the student conduct process to outside advisors (who are not the already trained confidential advocates employed by the university), there would be General Fund costs of about $10,000 to $15,000 for a 30-45 minute training with moderate interactivity and no video. There could be additional, unknown costs to the extent that existing respondent services coordinators are impacted and whether they would need to assist students in all types of student conduct cases.
   
2. The UC estimates General Fund costs of $3 million each year to provide student advisors. This estimate assumes 2.0 positions at each of the UC’s 10 campuses at a cost of $150,000 each.
   
3. The CCC Chancellor’s Office estimates Proposition 98 General Fund costs of $1,706 to $4,037 for each community college to develop an advocate designee policy related to student advisors.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/24)

Katie's Save Foundation (source)
American Association of University Women - California
Common Sense Media

Generation Up
Jordyn Clark Foundation
Junior Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

1 Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 1/29/24

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Megan Dahle, Vince Fong

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/21/24 16:25:25

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1575

Author: Irwin (D)

Amended: 5/21/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/29/24

AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, Glazer, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Niello, Roth, Stern, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Laird

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 1/29/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: students codes of conduct: advisers

SOURCE: Katie’s Save Foundation

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide training for the aforementioned adviser.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes Title IX, providing that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
   
2. Provides for various exemptions from these provisions, including for fraternities and sororities, military institutions, traditional male or female institutions, and institutions controlled by religious organizations. (Title 20 of the United States Code, § 1681)
   

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Equity in Higher Education Act (Act) to prohibit a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the statutory definition of hate crimes, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (Education Code (EC) § 66270)
   
2. Requires the governing board of a community college district, the Trustees of the California State University (CSU), the Board of Directors of San Francisco Law School, and the Regents of the University of California (UC) to adopt and implement a written procedure or protocols related to sexual assault or domestic violence, as provided. The protocol shall be reviewed and updated annually in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, students, faculty, and staff representatives. Authorizes that sexual assault and domestic violence counselors at public colleges and universities be independent from the Title IX office and prohibits sexual assault and domestic violence counselors from releasing the identity of the victim without first obtaining specific permission. (EC § 67385)

Campus point of contact

1. Requests the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the governing board of each community college district to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus. Existing law requires, at a minimum, the name and contact information of that designated employee to be published on the website for the respective campus and be included in any printed and Internet-based campus directories. (EC § 66271.2)
   

Title IX Coordinator (not confidential employees)

1. Requires UC, CSU, California Community Colleges (CCCs), private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance, in order to receive state financial assistance, to implement, and at all times comply with, specified requirements at each campus of the institution, including but not limited to:
   
   1. Designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Equity in Higher Education Act. Existing law requires the employee to have adequate training on what constitutes sexual harassment and on trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices, and shall understand how the institution’s grievance procedures operate.
      
   2. Requires the institution, if a complainant requests confidentiality which could preclude a meaningful investigation or potential discipline, to take the request seriously while at the same time considering its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students, including for the complainant. Existing law requires the institution to generally grant the request.
      
   3. Requires the institution, if it determines that it can honor the student’s request for confidentiality, to still take reasonable steps to respond to the complaint, consistent with the request, to limit the effects of the alleged sexual harassment and prevent its recurrence without initiating formal action against the alleged perpetrator or revealing the identity of the complainant.
      
   4. Requires the institution, if it determines that it must disclose the complainant’s identity to the respondent or proceed with an investigation, to inform the complainant prior to making this disclosure or initiating the investigation. Existing law requires the institution, in the event the complainant requests that the institution inform the respondent that the student asked the institution not to investigate or seek discipline, to honor this request. (EC § 66281.8)

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide trainings for the aforementioned adviser. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, and the Regents of the UC, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct.
   
2. Requires the policy to include all of the following:
   
   1. The initial allegation letter that is received by the student shall include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student.
      
   2. The authority for an institution to use any of the following to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student:
      
      1. A confidential respondent services coordinator.
         
      2. An agreement with a student-based peer support program.
         
      3. An agreement with an alumni-based support program.
         
   3. The adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution shall be provided training by the institution on the institution’s adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The training may be provided in an online format, and is not required to, but may, have an in-person or interactive element. To the extent practical, institutions within each segment are encouraged to collaborate to develop a training that can be used by more than one institution in that segment.
      
   4. An adviser, with written permission from the student, shall receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process of the alleged violation of the student code of conduct and shall participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by existing law (Title IX and corresponding state law).
      
3. Deems the provisions of this bill as “Katie Meyer’s Law.”
   
4. Defines the following terms:
   
   1. “Adjudication procedures” means a public postsecondary educational institution’s established process to determine if a student has violated the student code of conduct and the established process to respond when violations are sustained.
      
   2. “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a CCC, a campus of the CSU, a campus of the UC, or the College of the Law, San Francisco.
      
   3. “Segment of public postsecondary education” means the CCCs, CSU, or UC.
      
   4. “Student code of conduct” means any rules or policies adopted by a public postsecondary educational institution on the expectations or standards of student behavior on campus, including but not limited to, standards related to academics, athletics, and sex discrimination.
      

Comments

1. Katie’s Save. Katie Meyer was a goalie for Stanford University’s soccer team. In 2022, Ms. Meyer committed suicide after receiving notice from Stanford University of pending disciplinary action against her. According to news reports and a court filing, Stanford sent Ms. Meyer a letter stating that her degree was going to be placed on hold (within four months of graduation) and that the charge against her could result in removal from Stanford University. A court document explained that computer forensics showed that Ms. Meyer “frantically toggled” between the letter from Stanford and searching for information about how to defend herself against a disciplinary complaint. Ms. Meyer’s parents believe that Stanford’s handling of the disciplinary process led to Ms. Meyer’s suicide.
   
   This bill codifies the “university policy” portion of the Katie’s Save initiative, which calls for university-level policies to offer students an option to have a designated advocate when the student is involved in disciplinary proceedings. https://www.katiessave.org/
2. Recent report on how postsecondary education institutions address sexual discrimination. Throughout 2023, staff from the Assembly Higher Education Committee and this committee hosted fact-finding briefings with representatives from the CCC, CSU, UC, and various California Independent Colleges and Universities to understand how higher education institutions are preventing and addressing sexual discrimination on campuses. The Assembly Higher Education Committee released a report that provides a synopsis of the information gleaned from the briefings and a compilation of legislative proposals for how the State can partner with higher education institutions to prevent and address discrimination in all its forms on college and university campuses throughout California. https://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-02/a-call-to-action-report-2024_0.pdf
   
   As mentioned in this report, existing law at both the state and federal level acknowledges advocates should be made available to students regardless of whether they are the complainant (victim) or respondent (accused) of a federal Title IX complaint or a complaint of sex discrimination, and state law acknowledges the existence of sexual assault and domestic violence counselors by requiring them to be separate from the Title IX office.
   
   However, advocates related to Title IX or sex discrimination complaints are only made available after a complaint is filed and are not available to advise students, faculty, and staff of the various reporting options (legal, institutional, or criminal) nor can the advisor assist in connecting the student, faculty, and staff with on-and off-campus resources. Sexual assault and domestic violence counselors are authorized to provide services to alleged victims of assault regardless of whether they elect to report the incident to the campus or not. However, not every campus has sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, nor is it clear whether their services can be provided to students, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary sanctions.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee (see below).
   
3. Confidential employee. Existing law defines “responsible employee” as an employee who has the authority to take action to redress sexual harassment or provide supportive measures to students, or who has the duty to report sexual harassment to an appropriate school official who has that authority. Responsible employees are expected to report complaints of sexual harassment – information provided to a responsible employee is not confidential. Responsible employees specifically include Title IX coordinators, residential advisors, athletic directors, faculty, and other specified staff. Some staff are specifically excluded from being a responsible employee, such as a therapist including a UC Center for Advocacy, Resources, and Education (CARE) employee or CSU victim advocate.
   
   Existing law requires UC, CSU, CCCs, private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance to designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Sex Equity in Education Act; that employee is designated as a responsible employee and is therefore not a confidential employee.
   
   California does not have a requirement for campuses to employ confidential employees and therefore, each public higher education system is endowed with the authority to employ a confidential advocate as part of the institution’s response to discriminatory events.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would impose the following costs:

1. The CSU indicates that to create an online learning module to provide training that explains the student conduct process to outside advisors (who are not the already trained confidential advocates employed by the university), there would be General Fund costs of about $10,000 to $15,000 for a 30-45 minute training with moderate interactivity and no video. There could be additional, unknown costs to the extent that existing respondent services coordinators are impacted and whether they would need to assist students in all types of student conduct cases.
   
2. The UC estimates General Fund costs of $3 million each year to provide student advisors. This estimate assumes 2.0 positions at each of the UC’s 10 campuses at a cost of $150,000 each.
   
3. The CCC Chancellor’s Office estimates Proposition 98 General Fund costs of $1,706 to $4,037 for each community college to develop an advocate designee policy related to student advisors.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/24)

Katie's Save Foundation (source)
American Association of University Women - California
Generation Up
Jordyn Clark Foundation
Junior Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

1 Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 1/29/24

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Megan Dahle, Vince Fong

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/18/24 8:50:50

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1575 (Irwin) - Public postsecondary education: students codes of conduct: advisers

Bill Summary:

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification to have an advisor of their choosing, and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide training for these advisors, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California State University (CSU) indicates that to create an online learning module to provide training that explains the student conduct process to outside advisors (who are not the already trained confidential advocates employed by the university), there would be General Fund costs of about $10,000 to $15,000 for a 30-45 minute training with moderate interactivity and no video. There could be additional, unknown costs to the extent that existing respondent services coordinators are impacted and whether they would need to assist students in all types of student conduct cases.
• The University of California (UC) estimates General Fund costs of $3 million each year to provide student advisors. This estimate assumes 2.0 positions at each of the UC’s 10 campuses at a cost of $150,000 each.
• The Chancellor’s Office estimates Proposition 98 General Fund costs of $1,706 to $4,037 for each community college to develop an advocate designee policy related to student advisors.

Background:

Existing federal law establishes Title IX, which provides that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX.

Existing state law establishes the Equity in Higher Education Act (Act) which prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the statutory definition of hate crimes, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

Existing law requests the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the governing board of each community college district to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus. Existing law requires, at a minimum, the name and contact information of that designated employee to be published on the website for the respective campus and be included in any printed and Internet-based campus directories.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires, as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, and the Regents of the UC, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct.

This bill requires the policy to include all of the following:

• 1. The initial allegation letter that is received by the student shall include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student.
     
  2. The authority for an institution to use any of the following to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student: a confidential respondent services coordinator; an agreement with a student-based peer support program; or an agreement with an alumni-based support program.
     
  3. The adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution shall be provided training by the institution on the institution’s adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The training may be provided in an online format, and is not required to, but may, have an in-person or interactive element. To the extent practical, institutions within each segment are encouraged to collaborate to develop a training that can be used by more than one institution in that segment.
     
  4. An adviser, with written permission from the student, shall receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process of the alleged violation of the student code of conduct and shall participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by existing law, as specified.
     

Related Legislation:

AB 810 (Friedman, 2024) requests the governing board or body of an independent institution of higher education that receives state financial assistance, as part of the hiring process for specified positions, to require an applicant to disclose any final administrative decision or final judicial decision issued within the last seven years determining that the applicant committed sexual harassment. AB 810 is pending in this Committee.

SB 1166 (Dodd, 2024) expands the scope of a currently-required CSU report containing a summation of the activities undertaken by each campus and by the systemwide Title IX office to also include outcomes of appeals, a list of personnel who are exempt from being a “responsible employee,” and a yet-to-be-developed annual report that compiles campus-based evaluations of how sex discrimination is addressed on campuses. SB 1166 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Staff Comments:

According to the author, “California’s colleges and universities are filled with extremely bright and dedicated students who come from around the world to study, participate in athletics, conduct research, and better their lives. At times, their higher education experience presents them with challenges related to violations of academic codes, student codes of conduct, or even with harassment and discrimination. These challenges threaten lasting real-world consequences that many students are not prepared to handle on their own. Our colleges and universities must provide their students facing these institutional proceedings with support and resources, including access to advisors, through a holistic approach that prioritizes their well-being.”

This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1575 (Author:Irwin)

Version: May 21, 2024

Hearing Date: June 18, 2024

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ME

SUBJECT

Public postsecondary education: students codes of conduct: advisers

DIGEST

This bill enacts Katie Meyer’s Law, a bill that authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification at a University of California (UC) campus, California State University (CSU) campus, or California Community College (CCC) campus, the right to have an adviser of their choosing to help the student through the disciplinary process and requires these postsecondary education institutions to provide trainings for the advisers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

According to the author’s office “the motivation for this bill originated from a student suicide that was precipitated by a notice of a student code of conduct proceeding. This suicide was one of a number of student athlete suicides in 2022 that has identified the need for a new approach that prioritizes the mental health of students.”

This bill requires the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the Board of Governors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of a public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. The initial allegation letter that is must include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public institution to provide an adviser to the student. The bill authorizes an institution to use a confidential respondent services coordinator, an agreement with a student-based peer support program, or an agreement with an alumni-based support program to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student. The institution is required to train the adviser on its adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The bill requires an adviser to receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process, if the student gives written permission, and to participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by specified state law and Title IX.

The bill is sponsored by Katie’s Save and is supported by the American Association of University Women of California, the California Faculty Association, and the Jordyn Clark Foundation, and Valley Industry and Commerce Association. The Committee received no timely opposition to this bill. The bill passed out of the Senate Education Committee with a vote of 7 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes Title IX, providing that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)
2. Provides for various exemptions from these provisions, including for fraternities and sororities, military institutions, traditional male or female institutions, and institutions controlled by religious organizations. (Title 20 of the United States Code, § 1681.)
   

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Equity in Higher Education Act (Act) to prohibit a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the statutory definition of hate crimes, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (Educ. Code § 66270.)
2. Requires the governing board of a community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of San Francisco Law School, and the Regents of the UC to adopt and implement a written procedure or protocols related to sexual assault or domestic violence, as provided. The protocol shall be reviewed and updated annually in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, students, faculty, and staff representatives. Authorizes that sexual assault and domestic violence counselors at public colleges and universities be independent from the Title IX office and prohibits sexual assault and domestic violence counselors from releasing the identity of the victim without first obtaining specific permission. (Educ. Code § 67385.)
3. Requests the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the governing board of each community college district to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus. Existing law requires, at a minimum, the name and contact information of that designated employee to be published on the website for the respective campus and be included in any printed and Internet-based campus directories. (Educ. Code § 66271.2.)
4. Requires UC, CSU, CCCs, private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance, in order to receive state financial assistance, to implement, and at all times comply with, specified requirements at each campus of the institution, including, but not limited to:
   1. Designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Equity in Higher Education Act. Existing law requires the employee to have adequate training on what constitutes sexual harassment and on trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices, and shall understand how the institution’s grievance procedures operate.
      
   2. Requires the institution, if a complainant requests confidentiality which could preclude a meaningful investigation or potential discipline, to take the request seriously while at the same time considering its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students, including for the complainant. Existing law requires the institution to generally grant the request.
      
   3. Requires the institution, if it determines that it can honor the student’s request for confidentiality, to still take reasonable steps to respond to the complaint, consistent with the request, to limit the effects of the alleged sexual harassment and prevent its recurrence without initiating formal action against the alleged perpetrator or revealing the identity of the complainant.
      
   4. Requires the institution, if it determines that it must disclose the complainant’s identity to the respondent or proceed with an investigation, to inform the complainant prior to making this disclosure or initiating the investigation. Existing law requires the institution, in the event the complainant requests that the institution inform the respondent that the student asked the institution not to investigate or seek discipline, to honor this request. (Educ. Code § 66281.8)

This bill:

1. Requires, as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, and the Regents of the UC, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct.
2. Requires the policy to include the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student.
3. Requires the policy to include the authority for an institution to use any of the following to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student: a confidential respondent services coordinator; an agreement with a student-based peer support program; and an agreement with an alumni-based support program.
4. Requires the policy to include the adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution shall be provided training by the institution on the institution’s adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The training may be provided in an online format, and is not required to, but may have an in-person or interactive element. To the extent practical, institutions within each segment are encouraged to collaborate to develop a training that can be used by more than one institution in that segment.
5. Requires the policy to include that an adviser, with written permission from the student, shall receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process of the alleged violation of the student code of conduct and shall participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by existing law (Title IX and corresponding state law).
6. Defines “Adjudication procedures” as a public postsecondary educational institution’s established process to determine if a student has violated the student code of conduct and the established process to respond when violations are sustained.
7. Defines “Public postsecondary educational institution” as a CCC, a campus of the CSU, a campus of the UC, or the College of the Law, San Francisco.
8. Defines “Segment of public postsecondary education” as the CCCs, CSU, or UC.
9. Defines “Student code of conduct” as any rules or policies adopted by a public postsecondary educational institution on the expectations or standards of student behavior on campus, including but not limited to, standards related to academics, athletics, and sex discrimination.
10. Designates that the provisions of this bill be referred to as “Katie Meyer’s Law.”

COMMENTS

1. Author statement

According to the author:

California’s colleges and universities are filled with extremely bright and dedicated students who come from around the world to study, participate in athletics, conduct research, and better their lives. At times their higher education experience presents them with challenges related to violations of academic codes, student codes of conduct, or even with harassment and discrimination. These challenges threaten lasting real-world consequences that many students are not prepared to handle on their own. Our colleges and universities must provide their students facing these institutional proceedings with support and resources, including access to advisers, through a holistic approach that prioritizes their well-being.

2. Bill intends to provide support to higher education students when they are faced with disciplinary proceedings for allegedly violating the campus’ code of conduct

This goal of the bill is to provide support to students who are subject to an adversarial proceeding on campus regarding expectations or standards of student behavior on campus. The bill is sponsored by the family of Stanford University student Katie Meyer, who, according to the author “believe that allowing a student to select an advisor, who may also be a confidential respondent services coordinator, to assist them through a proceeding will provide continued support through what may be the most challenging moment a student has had to face in their life.” According to the Senate Education analysis for this bill:

Katie Meyer was a goalie for Stanford University’s soccer team. In 2022, Ms. Meyer committed suicide after receiving notice from Stanford University of pending disciplinary action against her. According to news reports and a court filing, Stanford sent Ms. Meyer a letter stating that her degree was going to be placed on hold (within four months of graduation) and that the charge against her could result in removal from Stanford University. A court document explained that computer forensics showed that Ms. Meyer “frantically toggled” between the letter from Stanford and searching for information about how to defend herself against a disciplinary complaint. Ms. Meyer’s parents believe that Stanford’s handling of the disciplinary process led to Ms. Meyer’s suicide.

This bill requires the community colleges and state universities to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. The student will be allowed to select a person they trust to serve as the advisor to help them during the disciplinary proceeding process. The author explains that “students often acutely feel isolation when faced with disciplinary proceedings.”

Specifically, this bill requires, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the Board of Governors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of a public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. The bill requires the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student. The bill requires an adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution to be trained by the institution on its adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The bill requires an adviser, with written permission from the student, to receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process and to participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by specified state law and Title IX.

According to the author, “the Meyers have heard extensively from students in the situations contemplated by the bill, and faced by their daughter Katie. These students shared that they strongly feel that having someone ‘in their corner’ would be transformative in how they could begin to navigate their emotions and access mental health resources.” The goal of this bill is to ensure that when students in our public higher education system are in any stage of the process of potential discipline for an alleged violation of the institution’s student code of conduct that the student have a right to select an adviser of their choice to support them through the stressful process.

3. Support

In support of the bill, the California Faculty Association writes:

By allowing students to select a designated advocate to receive specific administrative, academic, health, and disciplinary notices, AB 1575 empowers students and promotes transparency in their support networks. This bill aligns with our mission to ensure the comprehensive wellbeing of our students. We understand that mental health issues can greatly impact a student's academic performance and overall life quality. A designated advocate will play a crucial role in providing consistent and tailored support to students, enabling them to navigate challenges more effectively.

Furthermore, AB 1575's provision allowing students to control which notifications their designated advocate receives respects students' autonomy and privacy. This measure of control is essential for empowering students and fostering trust between students and their advocates.

The American Association of University Women of California write the following in support of AB 1575:

As advocates for fair and equitable educational environments, AAUW California believes it is essential for students' rights to be protected throughout their academic journey. AB 1575 would ensure students are provided access to a qualified adviser during the disciplinary process and alleviate the potential anxieties they may experience when facing such allegations.

The bill would also require the initial allegation letter sent to the student to include information about their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide one to assist them through the investigation and disciplinary process. This provision is critical for allowing students, especially those who have never faced formal disciplinary action, to feel comfortable and supported during what can often be a daunting and overwhelming experience.

AB 1575 will help contribute to an equitable and supportive educational system that values the rights and well-being of all students.

The Jordyn Clark Foundation writes the following in support of the bill:

This crucial piece of legislation aims to provide essential support for student-athletes, ensuring they have the necessary resources to navigate the often-challenging landscape of the collegiate student-athlete experience.

We support this bill because our beloved Jordyn Clark was a talented and passionate athlete whose life was tragically lost due to the immense pressures and difficulties she faced within the collegiate athletics system. Jordyn struggled with the demanding expectations of her coaches and the inflexible structures that often left her feeling isolated and unsupported. Her story is, unfortunately, not unique, as many student-athletes nationwide face similar challenges. She dealt with her struggles in silence and most struggles were found post her passing on January 12^th, 2021. CA Bill 1575 is a vital step toward creating a safer, more supportive environment for these young individuals.

The proposed bill emphasizes the importance of establishing proper support channels for student-athletes, including a designee that can offer guidance when difficult situations are presented such as disciplinary action from the University. These measures are essential to ensure that student-athletes receive the care and guidance they need to thrive both academically and athletically. By passing CA Bill 1575, we can honor Jordyn's memory and work towards a future where no student-athlete has to endure such hardships alone.

SUPPORT

Katie’s Save (sponsor)

American Association of University Women of California

California Faculty Association

Generation Up

Jordyn Clark Foundation

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

SB 1491 (Eggman, 2024) requires the CSU Trustees and the governing board of each community college district, and requests the UC Regents, to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, transgender, gender-nonconforming, intersex and two-spirit faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus. The bill requires the point of contact to be a confidential employee, as specified; requires the CSU Trustees and the governing board of each community college district to adopt and publish policies on harassment, intimidation, and bullying and include these policies within the rules and regulations governing student behavior; and, requires California Student Aid Commission, beginning with the 2026-27 school year, to provide written notice to students who receive state financial aid whether their college or university has a religious school exemption from Title IX. SB 1491 is pending in the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

AB 810 (Friedman, 2024) requires CCCs and CSU, and requests UC and private postsecondary education institutions, to implement a policy of requiring potential employees for academic, athletic, and administrative positions to disclose whether they have been the subject of a finding of sexual harassment and to permit the institution to contact past employers to inquire whether the applicant had any substantiated allegations of misconduct. AB 810 is pending in this Committee.

AB 2047 (Mike Fong, 2024) requires the CCC, CSU, and UC to establish a systemwide Office of Civil Rights and establish the position of systemwide Title IX coordinator. AB 2047 is pending in the Senate Education Committee.

AB 2326 (Alvarez, 2024) establishes which entities who are responsible for ensuring campus programs are free from discrimination and who has the authority to oversee and monitor compliance with state and federal laws; requires the chair of the CCC Board of Governors, the President of UC, and the Chancellor of CSU to present to the Legislature annually on the state of the system in preventing discrimination on campus; and, requires the systemwide governing boards to review the system’s nondiscrimination policies and to update them if necessary. AB 2326 is pending in the Senate Education Committee.

AB 2492 (Irwin, 2024) requires each public postsecondary education institution to establish specified positions and designate at least one person to fulfill each position, including a confidential student advocate, a confidential staff and faculty advocate, and a confidential respondent services coordinator. AB 2492 is pending in the Senate Education Committee.

Prior Legislation: None known.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Education Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

Assembly Higher Education Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: May 29, 2024

Subject: .

NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Judiciary. A "do pass" motion should include referral to the Committee on Judiciary.

SUMMARY

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide training for the aforementioned adviser.

BACKGROUND

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes Title IX, providing that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
   
2. Provides for various exemptions from these provisions, including for fraternities and sororities, military institutions, traditional male or female institutions, and institutions controlled by religious organizations. (Title 20 of the United States Code, § 1681)
   

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Equity in Higher Education Act (Act) to prohibit a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the statutory definition of hate crimes, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (Education Code (EC) § 66270)
   
2. Requires the governing board of a community college district, the Trustees of the California State University (CSU), the Board of Directors of San Francisco Law School, and the Regents of the University of California (UC) to adopt and implement a written procedure or protocols related to sexual assault or domestic violence, as provided. The protocol shall be reviewed and updated annually in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, students, faculty, and staff representatives. Authorizes that sexual assault and domestic violence counselors at public colleges and universities be independent from the Title IX office and prohibits sexual assault and domestic violence counselors from releasing the identity of the victim without first obtaining specific permission. (EC § 67385)

Campus point of contact

1. Requests the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the governing board of each community college district to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus. Existing law requires, at a minimum, the name and contact information of that designated employee to be published on the website for the respective campus and be included in any printed and Internet-based campus directories. (EC § 66271.2)
   

Title IX Coordinator (not confidential employees)

1. Requires UC, CSU, California Community Colleges (CCCs), private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance, in order to receive state financial assistance, to implement, and at all times comply with, specified requirements at each campus of the institution, including but not limited to:
   
   1. Designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Equity in Higher Education Act. Existing law requires the employee to have adequate training on what constitutes sexual harassment and on trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices, and shall understand how the institution’s grievance procedures operate.
      
   2. Requires the institution, if a complainant requests confidentiality which could preclude a meaningful investigation or potential discipline, to take the request seriously while at the same time considering its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students, including for the complainant. Existing law requires the institution to generally grant the request.
      
   3. Requires the institution, if it determines that it can honor the student’s request for confidentiality, to still take reasonable steps to respond to the complaint, consistent with the request, to limit the effects of the alleged sexual harassment and prevent its recurrence without initiating formal action against the alleged perpetrator or revealing the identity of the complainant.
      
   4. Requires the institution, if it determines that it must disclose the complainant’s identity to the respondent or proceed with an investigation, to inform the complainant prior to making this disclosure or initiating the investigation. Existing law requires the institution, in the event the complainant requests that the institution inform the respondent that the student asked the institution not to investigate or seek discipline, to honor this request. (EC § 66281.8)

ANALYSIS

This bill authorizes students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide trainings for the aforementioned adviser. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of the College of the Law, San Francisco, and the Regents of the UC, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct.
   
2. Requires the policy to include all of the following:
   
   1. The initial allegation letter that is received by the student shall include a clause informing the student of their right to select an adviser of their choice or to request the public postsecondary educational institution to provide an adviser to the student.
      
   2. The authority for an institution to use any of the following to fulfill its obligation to provide an adviser to the student:
      
      1. A confidential respondent services coordinator.
         
      2. An agreement with a student-based peer support program.
         
      3. An agreement with an alumni-based support program.
         
   3. The adviser selected by the student or provided by the public postsecondary educational institution shall be provided training by the institution on the institution’s adjudication procedures for the alleged violation. The training may be provided in an online format, and is not required to, but may, have an in-person or interactive element. To the extent practical, institutions within each segment are encouraged to collaborate to develop a training that can be used by more than one institution in that segment.
      
   4. An adviser, with written permission from the student, shall receive updates along with the student during the adjudication process of the alleged violation of the student code of conduct and shall participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authorized by existing law (Title IX and corresponding state law).
      
3. Deems the provisions of this bill as “Katie Meyer’s Law.”
   
4. Defines the following terms:
   
   1. “Adjudication procedures” means a public postsecondary educational institution’s established process to determine if a student has violated the student code of conduct and the established process to respond when violations are sustained.
      
   2. “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a CCC, a campus of the CSU, a campus of the UC, or the College of the Law, San Francisco.
      
   3. “Segment of public postsecondary education” means the CCCs, CSU, or UC.
      
   4. “Student code of conduct” means any rules or policies adopted by a public postsecondary educational institution on the expectations or standards of student behavior on campus, including but not limited to, standards related to academics, athletics, and sex discrimination.
      

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “California’s colleges and universities are filled with extremely bright and dedicated students who come from around the world to study, participate in athletics, conduct research, and better their lives. At times, their higher education experience presents them with challenges related to violations of academic codes, student codes of conduct, or even with harassment and discrimination. These challenges threaten lasting real-world consequences that many students are not prepared to handle on their own. Our colleges and universities must provide their students facing these institutional proceedings with support and resources, including access to advisors, through a holistic approach that prioritizes their well-being.”
   
2. Katie’s Save. Katie Meyer was a goalie for Stanford University’s soccer team. In 2022, Ms. Meyer committed suicide after receiving notice from Stanford University of pending disciplinary action against her. According to news reports and a court filing, Stanford sent Ms. Meyer a letter stating that her degree was going to be placed on hold (within four months of graduation) and that the charge against her could result in removal from Stanford University. A court document explained that computer forensics showed that Ms. Meyer “frantically toggled” between the letter from Stanford and searching for information about how to defend herself against a disciplinary complaint. Ms. Meyer’s parents believe that Stanford’s handling of the disciplinary process led to Ms. Meyer’s suicide.
   
   This bill codifies the “university policy” portion of the Katie’s Save initiative, which calls for university-level policies to offer students an option to have a designated advocate when the student is involved in disciplinary proceedings. https://www.katiessave.org/
3. Recent report on how postsecondary education institutions address sexual discrimination. Throughout 2023, staff from the Assembly Higher Education Committee and this committee hosted fact-finding briefings with representatives from the CCC, CSU, UC, and various California Independent Colleges and Universities to understand how higher education institutions are preventing and addressing sexual discrimination on campuses. The Assembly Higher Education Committee released a report that provides a synopsis of the information gleaned from the briefings and a compilation of legislative proposals for how the State can partner with higher education institutions to prevent and address discrimination in all its forms on college and university campuses throughout California. https://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-02/a-call-to-action-report-2024_0.pdf
   
   As mentioned in this report, existing law at both the state and federal level acknowledges advocates should be made available to students regardless of whether they are the complainant (victim) or respondent (accused) of a federal Title IX complaint or a complaint of sex discrimination, and state law acknowledges the existence of sexual assault and domestic violence counselors by requiring them to be separate from the Title IX office.
   
   However, advocates related to Title IX or sex discrimination complaints are only made available after a complaint is filed and are not available to advise students, faculty, and staff of the various reporting options (legal, institutional, or criminal) nor can the advisor assist in connecting the student, faculty, and staff with on-and off-campus resources. Sexual assault and domestic violence counselors are authorized to provide services to alleged victims of assault regardless of whether they elect to report the incident to the campus or not. However, not every campus has sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, nor is it clear whether their services can be provided to students, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary sanctions.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee (see below).
   
4. Confidential employee. Existing law defines “responsible employee” as an employee who has the authority to take action to redress sexual harassment or provide supportive measures to students, or who has the duty to report sexual harassment to an appropriate school official who has that authority. Responsible employees are expected to report complaints of sexual harassment – information provided to a responsible employee is not confidential. Responsible employees specifically include Title IX coordinators, residential advisors, athletic directors, faculty, and other specified staff. Some staff are specifically excluded from being a responsible employee, such as a therapist including a UC Center for Advocacy, Resources, and Education (CARE) employee or CSU victim advocate.
   
   Existing law requires UC, CSU, CCCs, private postsecondary educational institutions, and independent institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance to designate at least one employee of the institution to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under California’s Sex Equity in Education Act; that employee is designated as a responsible employee and is therefore not a confidential employee.
   
   California does not have a requirement for campuses to employ confidential employees and therefore, each public higher education system is endowed with the authority to employ a confidential advocate as part of the institution’s response to discriminatory events.
   
   This bill requires public postsecondary educational institutions to allow students to be assisted by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the public postsecondary educational institution’s student code of conduct. This bill allows but does not require the adviser to be a confidential employee.
   
5. Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would impose the following costs:
   1. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund or General Fund costs to CCC, CSU, and UC campuses, likely between $10,000 and $15,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on campus disciplinary actions and to require notice of advisor option to students who receive certain disciplinary notifications.
      
   2. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund or General Fund costs, of an unknown amount, to CCC, CSU, and UC campuses to provide an advisor, if a student requests one.
6. Related legislation.
   
   AB 2492 (Irwin, 2024) requires each public postsecondary education institution to establish specified positions and designate at least one person to fulfill each position, including a confidential student advocate, a confidential staff and faculty advocate, and a confidential respondent services coordinator. AB 2492 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   SB 1166 (Dodd, 2024) (1) expands the scope of a currently-required CSU report containing a summation of the activities undertaken by each campus and by the systemwide Title IX office to also include outcomes of appeals, a list of personnel who are exempt from being a “responsible employee,” and a yet-to-be-developed annual report that compiles campus-based evaluations of how sex discrimination is addressed on campuses; and, (2) requests the UC and requires each community college district to also submit this report. SB 1166 is pending referral in the Assembly.
   
   SB 1491 (Eggman, 2024) (1) requires the CSU Trustees and the governing board of each community college district to designate an employee at each of their respective campuses as a point of contact for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, transgender, gender-nonconforming, intersex and two-spirit faculty, staff, and students at the respective campus; (2) requires the point of contact to be a confidential employee, as specified; (3) requires the CSU Trustees and the governing board of each community college district to adopt and publish policies on harassment, intimidation, and bullying and include these policies within the rules and regulations governing student behavior; (4) requires California Student Aid Commission (CSAC), beginning with the 2026-27 school year, to provide written notice to students who receive state financial aid whether their college or university has a religious school exemption from Title IX; and, (5) requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to conduct an assessment of the CCCs, CSU, and UC systems with respect to the quality of life at those campuses for lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, transgender, gender-nonconforming, intersex, and two-spirit faculty, staff, and students at the campuses of each of those institutions. SB 1491 is pending referral in the Assembly.
   
   AB 810 (Friedman, 2024) (1) requests the governing board or body of an independent institution of higher education that receives state financial assistance, as part of the hiring process for specified positions, to require an applicant to disclose any final administrative decision or final judicial decision issued within the last seven years determining that the applicant committed sexual harassment; (2) requires the governing board of community college districts and the Trustees of the CSU (and requests the Regents of the UC), to require an applicant for an academic, athletic, or administrative position to sign a release form that authorizes the release of information by previous employers concerning any substantiated allegations of misconduct and, (3) requires the UC, CSU, CCC, independent institutions of higher education, and private postsecondary educational institutions, during the process to authorize a volunteer in an athletic department, to contact the current or former employer to determine if the applicant violated any employment policies. AB 810 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Education Committee on May 29, 2024.
   
   AB 2608 (Gabriel, 2024) expands currently required training for students on sexual violence and sexual harassment to include information regarding drug- and alcohol-facilitated sexual assault and information related to confidential support and care resources. AB 2608 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   AB 2326 (Alvarez, 2024) establishes which entities who are responsible for ensuring campus programs are free from discrimination and who has the authority to oversee and monitor compliance with state and federal laws; requires the Chancellor of the CCC, the President of UC, and the Chancellor of CSU to present to the Legislature annually on the state of the system in preventing discrimination on campus; and, requires the systemwide governing boards to review the system’s nondiscrimination policies and to update them if necessary. AB 2326 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   AB 1790 (Connelly, 2024) requires the CSU to take specified actions to implement the recommendations provided by the State Auditor’s report from 2022 titled “California State University: It Did Not Adequately or Consistently Address Some Allegations of Sexual Harassment.” AB 1790 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   AB 2407 (Hart, 2024) requires the State Auditor to report the results of an audit every three years of the CCC, CSU, and UC on their ability to address and prevent sexual harassment on campus. AB 2407 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   AB 1905 (Addis, 2024) prohibits an employee of a public postsecondary educational institution from being eligible for retreat rights and from receiving a letter of recommendation if the employee is the respondent in a sexual harassment complaint where a final determination has been made, the employee resigned, or the employee enters into a settlement with the institution. AB 1905 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   AB 2047 (Mike Fong, 2024) requires each campus of the CSU and UC to establish, by July 1, 2026, a Title IX office in a private space, and be under the administration of a Title IX coordinator, and specifies the duties of the coordinator. AB 2047 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   AB 2048 (Mike Fong, 2024) requires the Chancellor of the CCCs to convene a community college sexual harassment and Title IX working group to review policies and procedures, determine if existing district policies and procedures are adequate, determine to what extent a systemwide model of compliance would best assist community colleges, and review and determine if the CCC Chancellor’s Office is effective in its duty to monitor community colleges for their compliance with state and federal laws pertaining to sexual harassment. AB 2048 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
   AB 2987 (Ortega, 2024) requires each campus of the CSU and CCCs, and requests each campus of the UC, to provide (upon request of the complainant or respondent) status updates on complaints of sex discrimination to complainants and respondents, to the extent permissible under state and federal law; and, requires/requests that notice of a disciplinary action to the respondent and complainant be provided to the respondent within three schooldays of a decision. AB 2987 is pending referral in the Senate.

SUPPORT

Jordyn Clark Foundation

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1575

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:January 22, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Authorizes students, who receive a disciplinary notification, the right to have an adviser of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to provide trainings for the aforementioned adviser.

Major Provisions

1. Establishes Katie Meyer's law in code.
2. Conditions the receipt of state financial aid to California Community Colleges (CCC), the California State University (CSU), and the University of California (UC) upon the institution adopting a policy of permitting a student to be represented by an adviser if the student receives a notification of an alleged violation of the postsecondary education institution's student code of conduct. The policy will include the following:
   1. A requirement for the initial allegation letter that is received by the student to contain information about the student's right to select an adviser or to request one to be provided by the institution;
   2. A requirement for the adviser to receive training from the postsecondary education institution on the adjudication procedures for the alleged violation; and,
   3. The adviser may receive written permission from the student to receive updates, along with the student, during the process and can participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authored in the California Sex Equity Act and Federal Title IX regulations.
3. Defines as follows:
   1. "Public postsecondary educational institution" means a community college, a campus of the California State University, a campus of the University of California, or the College of the Law, San Francisco;
   2. "Adjudication procedures" mean a public postsecondary education institution's established process to determine if a student has violated the student code of conduct and the established process to respond when violations are sustained; and,
   3. "Student code of conduct" means any rules or policies adopted by a public postsecondary education instruction on the expectations or standard of student behavior on campus, including, but not limited to standards related to academic, athletic, and sex discrimination.

COMMENTS

Impetus of the bill. The collegiate soccer world was shaken when a promising female athlete took her own life in March 2022. Days after her death, it was uncovered, the student had received a disciplinary notification stemming from an incident involving a football player and spilled coffee. Catalyzed by the loss, the soccer player's parents started "Katie Saves" a nationwide initiative to ensure students on college campuses have a trusted adviser to help them advocate and navigate the complicated disciplinary procedures on college campuses that may arise after an alleged student conduct violation. "Kate Saves" provide agency to students during a disciplinary proceeding by providing students with the option to select their own adviser regardless of whether the disciplinary proceeding was due to a Title IX complaint, an academic sanction, or a violation of the student code of conduct.

Existing law at both the state and federal level acknowledge advisers should be made available to students regardless of whether they are the complainant (victim) and respondent (accused) of a federal Title IX complaint or a complaint of sex discrimination as described in the California Sex Equity Act (EDC Section 66281.8). However, these advisers are only made available after a complaint is filed and are not available to advise students, faculty, and staff of the various reporting options (legal, institutional, or criminal) nor can the adviser assist in connecting the student, faculty, and staff with on-and off-campus resources.

The Education Code acknowledges the existence of sexual assault and domestic violence counselors in Section 67385 by requiring them to be separate from the Title IX office. The Section also enables the counselors to provide services to alleged victims of assault regardless of whether they elect to report the incident to the campus or not. However, not every campus has sexual assault and domestic violence counselors nor is it clear whether their services can be provided to students, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary sanctions.

This bill seeks to codify an element of the "Katie Saves" initiative by ensuring that advisers are available to students who face any type of disciplinary procedure on campus.

Advisers on college campuses. Contained within the 2020 Federal Title IX regulations is a requirement for advisers to be provided to complainants and respondents during the adjudication process of a complaint of sexual harassment or sexual violence. These advisers are there to help assist the student in understanding the complex adjudication process required by Federal Regulations. The California Sex Equity Act requires these advisers if they are employees to be trained; however, the law is mute as to whether the adviser if not an employee of the system receives training on the adjudication procedure. The UC system does have respondent coordinators for students, faculty, and staff who are the subject of an alleged misconduct violation. The respondent coordinators are available to anyone who faces a sexual, behavioral, or academic misconduct violation. The purpose of the coordinators is to provide referrals to on-campus or off-campus resources and to help the respondent understand the grievance procedures (adjudication procedures). This measure would help ensure that students can select an adviser they trust who will then receive the proper training necessary to be a source of guidance to the students as they navigate the disciplinary process.

According to the Author

As delineated by the author, "California's colleges and universities are filled with extremely bright and dedicated students who come from around the world to study, participate in athletics, conduct research, and better their lives. At times their higher education experience presents them with challenges related to violations of academic codes, student codes of conduct, or even with harassment and discrimination. These challenges threaten lasting real-world consequences that many students are not prepared to handle on their own. Our colleges and universities must provide their students facing these institutional proceedings with support and resources, including access to confidential advocates, through a holistic approach that prioritizes their well-being."

Arguments in Support

The California Faculty Association, which represents over 29,000 CSU faculty support AB 1575. "By allowing students to select a designated advocate to receive specific administrative, academic, health, and disciplinary notices, AB 1575 empowers students and promotes transparency in their support networks. This bill aligns with our mission to ensure the comprehensive well-being of our students. We understand that mental health issues can greatly impact a student's academic performance and overall life quality. A designated advocate will play a crucial role in providing consistent and tailored support to students, enabling them to navigate challenges more effectively."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund or General Fund costs to CCC, CSU, and UC campuses, likely between $10,000 and $15,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on campus disciplinary actions and to require notice of advisor option to students who receive certain disciplinary notifications.
2. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund or General Fund costs, of an unknown amount, to CCC, CSU, and UC campuses to provide an advisor, if a student requests one.

The state would need to reimburse these costs to CCC, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.

VOTES

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 10-0-1

YES: Mike Fong, Ta, Arambula, Boerner, Chen, Addis, Jackson, Low, Muratsuchi, Quirk-Silva

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-0-4

YES: Holden, Arambula, Wood, Calderon, Connolly, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Lowenthal, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: January 22, 2024

CONSULTANT: Ellen Cesaretti-Monroy / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0002609

Date of Hearing: January 18, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1575

Author:(Irwin) – As Amended Ver:January 3, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires each campus of the California Community Colleges (CCC), the California State University (CSU), and the University of California (UC) to either employ or contract out for at least two confidential advocates to assist in response to acts of discrimination. The bill also requires each campus of the CCC, CSU, and UC to adopt a policy permitting a student who has received a disciplinary notification to be represented by an advisor, as a condition of receiving state financial aid for its students.

Specifically, each campus is to either employ or contract out for at least two confidential advocates. If a campus contracts out, it must enter into a memorandum of understanding with a local victim advocacy organization. The advocates must hold campus office house and provide services at no charge. The advocates are to provide confidential services to students, staff, and faculty, whether they are the victim or accused of an alleged act of discrimination, and may attend an adjudication proceeding with a victim or accused person as a support person or an advisor, among other duties. The advocates are to be trained on Title IX, the policies of the public postsecondary educational institution relating to sexual harassment and sexual violence, and trauma-informed response. The advocates are also to be independent from the campus Title IX office.

In addition, a student may select an advisor and the advisor is to be provided with training by the campus on its procedures for disciplinary action. The advisor may also receive permission from the student to receive updates on the action and participate as an advocate for the student.

FISCAL EFFECT:

CCC

1. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs to CCC campuses totaling between $6 million and $15 million for two confidential advocates at each CCC campus. Costs would be lower to contract out services rather than hire two advocates. CCC has 115 campuses.
2. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to CCC campuses, potentially between $10,000 and $20,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on Title IX, the policies of the public postsecondary educational institution relating to sexual harassment and sexual violence, and trauma-informed response. Per campus costs would be lower to the extent campuses share the online training.

The state would need to reimburse these costs to CCC if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.

1. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to CCC campuses, of about $3,000 per campus, to develop a policy related to student advisors.
2. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to CCC campuses, likely between $10,000 and $15,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on campus disciplinary actions. Per-campus costs would be lower to the extent campuses share the online training.

CSU

1. Ongoing General Fund costs to CSU campuses totaling as much as $2.3 million annually for two confidential advocates at each CSU campus. This estimate assumes campuses hire advocates. CSU indicates that many campuses already have confidential advocates, and that 19 more advocates would need to be hired. CSU has 23 campuses.
2. One-time General Fund costs to CSU campuses, potentially between $10,000 and $20,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on Title IX, the policies of the public postsecondary educational institution relating to sexual harassment and sexual violence, and trauma-informed response. Per campus costs would be lower to the extent campuses share the online training.
3. One-time General Fund costs to CSU campuses, of about $3,000 per campus, to develop a policy related to student advisors.
4. One-time General Fund costs to CSU campuses, likely between $10,000 and $15,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on campus disciplinary actions. Per-campus costs would be lower to the extent campuses share the online training.

UC

1. Unknown, though potentially significant, ongoing General Fund costs to UC for two confidential advocates at each UC campus. UC did not respond regarding its anticipated fiscal impact of this bill, but if each campus hired two confidential advocates at a salary of $67,000 per advocate, costs would be $1.2 million annually. Costs would be lower to the extent UC contracted out for these positions.
2. One-time General Fund costs to UC campuses, potentially between $10,000 and $20,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on Title IX, the policies of the public postsecondary educational institution relating to sexual harassment and sexual violence, and trauma-informed response. Per-campus costs would be lower to the extent campuses share the online training.
3. One-time General Fund costs to UC campuses, of about $3,000 per campus, to develop a policy related to student advisors.
4. One-time General Fund costs to UC campuses, likely between $10,000 and $15,000 per campus, to develop an online training for student advisors to complete on campus disciplinary actions. Per-campus costs would be lower to the extent campuses share the online training.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

California’s colleges and universities are filled with extremely bright and dedicated students...At times their higher education experience presents them with challenges related to violations of academic codes, student codes of conduct, or even with harassment and discrimination. These challenges threaten lasting real-world consequences that many students are not prepared to handle on their own. Our colleges and universities must provide their students facing these institutional proceedings with support and resources, including access to confidential advocates, through a holistic approach that prioritizes their well-being.

1. Background. Federal law requires campuses of higher education to designate an individual on each campus to serve as a Title IX coordinator. In addition, some campuses have sexual assault and domestic violence counselors students may access. If a campus offer these counselors, current law requires the counselors to be independent from the campus’s Title IX offices. Current law also requires the counselors to hold a certificate showing completion of a training program in the counseling of sexual assault or domestic violence victims and to have fulfilled other education and training requirements (Evidence Code Sections 1035.2 and 1037.1).

This bill requires each campus to either employ or contract out for at least two confidential advocates to assist in response to acts of discrimination, including discrimination based on disability, gender, religion, or other characteristics. The advocates are to hold certification and training as sexual assault or domestic violence counselors as in current law. In addition, the advocates are to receive training on the requirements of Title IX, the policies of the public postsecondary educational institution relating to sexual harassment and sexual violence, and trauma-informed response.

Current law requires institutions of higher education, as a condition of financial aid, to adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for prompt and equitable resolution of sexual harassment complaints filed by a student against an employee or another student. As part of these procedures, the campus is to afford both student parties the opportunity to each have a support person or adviser accompany the student party during any stage of the process.

This bill requires a campus, as a condition of financial aid, to adopt a policy permitting a student to be represented by an adviser if they receive a notification of disciplinary action. The actions include not only sexual harassment complaints, but also violations of a campus’s rules and regulations governing student behavior. Examples of violations of rules and regulations governing student behavior a campus may adopt include academic professionalism, such as plagiarism, damage to university property, and disorderly conduct, among other violations. A campus is to train advisors on campus procedures for disciplinary action.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: January 9, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Mike Fong, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1575 (

Author:Irwin) – As Amended Ver:January 3, 2024

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: sexual harassment, sexual violence, and discrimination: disciplinary actions: confidential advocates and advisors

SUMMARY: Authorizes students, who receive a disciplinary notification, the right to have an advisor of their choosing and requires postsecondary education institutions to employee at least two confidential advocates per campus, as defined. Specifically, this bill:

1. Conditions the receipt of state financial aid to California Community Colleges (CCC), the California State University (CSU), and the University of California (UC) upon the institution adopting a policy of permitting a student to be represented by an advisor if the student receives a notification of a disciplinary action, as defined. The advisor may be a confidential advocate as established by the measure. The policy will include the following:
   1. The advisor is selected by the student and will be provided training by the public postsecondary, as defined, on its procedures for the disciplinary action; and,
   2. The advisor may receive written permission from the student to receive updates, along with the student, during the process and can participate in the process as an advocate for the student or in the role of adviser as authored in the California Sex Equity Act and Federal Title IX regulations.
2. Requires public postsecondary education institutions, in order to provide equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions, to employ at a minimum two confidential advocates to assist in the institution’s response to acts of discrimination.
3. Permits a public postsecondary education institution an exception from (2) above, if the institution has a memorandum of understanding with a local victim advocacy organization to provide advocates on campus and the memorandum includes that the confidential advocate will keep campus office hours and students, faculty, and staff will not be charged for the services of the confidential advocate. Prohibits the increase of campus fees to pay for the services of the confidential advocate.
4. Authorizes confidential advocates to be independent from the Title IX office on campus and requires them to meet the minimum qualifications of a sexual assault counselor and a domestic violence counselor, as defined. Requires a confidential advocate to be trained in trauma-informed responses, Title IX procedures, and the institution’s polices relating to sexual harassment and sexual violence.
5. Clarifies all confidential advocates will do all of the following while in the service of an institution:
   1. Notify all students, staff, and faculty of their rights and responsibilities as delineated in the policies and procedures for student safety, student code of conduct, sexual harassment and sexual violence;
   2. Provide confidential services for students, staff, and faculty, regardless of whether the individual is the victim or the accused of an alleged act of sexual harassment, sexual violence or discrimination. Services will be provided regardless of whether or not the individual decides to report the incident to the Title IX office or law enforcement;
   3. Provide written notice to all staff and faculty who are involved in providing and enforcing supportive measures or accommodations of their duties;
   4. Assist in helping connect the student, staff, or faculty member with campus police or local law enforcement to make a report, but only if directed by the individual;
   5. Notify students, staff, and faculty of their rights and responsibilities regarding protection orders, no-contact orders, and any other lawful order issues by either the institution or a court of law; and,
   6. Coordinate with campus resources and any community-based organizations to help connect students, faculty, or staff to the resources that respond to sexual harassment and sexual violence incidents.
6. Permits a confidential advocate to act as an advisor for a student, staff, or faculty advisor during any administrative or institutional based adjudication proceeding, if requested by the student, staff, or faculty.
7. Prohibits a confidential advisor from disclosing confidential information, as defined, unless written consent was provided by the person who provided the information to the advocate prior to the disclosure of the information. Specific permission must be obtained from the victim of an alleged act of sexual harassment, sexual violence, or discrimination before disclosing their identity to the public postsecondary education institution or any other authority including law enforcement, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. Clarifies this subdivision is intended to maintain confidentiality, preserve any applicable privileges including those described in Article 8.5 and Article 8.7 of the Evidence Code and to protect the privacy of students, staff, and faculty requiring the assistance of confidential advocates.
8. Prohibits the same confidential advocates to provide services to both the victim and the accused of the same alleged act of sexual harassment, sexual violence, or discrimination.
9. Clarifies that a confidential advocate is not required to report an alleged act of sexual harassment, sexual violence, or discrimination to the public postsecondary education institution nor to law enforcement unless otherwise required by applicable state or federal laws.
10. Clarifies that the confidential advocate may be cross-examined in a court of law or civil court if the confidential advocate testifies after written consent from the victim or the accused has been provided.
11. Clarifies that the notification of an alleged act of sexual harassment, sexual violence, or discrimination to a confidential advocate, or the rendering of services by a confidential advocate, is not considered an actual notice or constructive notice to the public higher education institution of the alleged act.
12. Deletes previous mentions of sexual assault or domestic violence counselors from the Education Code and replaces the references of sexual assault or domestic violence counselors with confidential advocates. The sections of code which are deleted from Education Code (EDC) Section 67385 are added to new section of code referencing confidential advocates.
13. Defines as follows:
    1. “Public postsecondary educational institution” means a community college, a campus of the California State University, or a campus of the University of California;
    2. “Sexual Harassment” and “Sexual Violence” has the same meaning as the term in Education Code Section 66262.5; and,
    3. “Specific Permission” has the same meaning as the following:
       1. The permission is limited to disclosure to particular people, for a particular circumstance, or for a particular purpose for which the permission was given;
       2. The permission is limited to confidential advocate to whom it was given; and,
       3. The permission may be withdrawn.
       4. Clarifies unlimited or general permission for disclosure is not specific permission.
14. Makes clarifying and conforming changes.

EXISTING LAW: Federal law.

1. Stipulates that no person in the United States will, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance except for specified circumstances including membership of fraternities and sororities (United States Code Title 20, Chapter 38, Section 1681).
2. Outlines the required response pursuant to Title IX, of a postsecondary higher education institution when the institution is made aware of an alleged sexual harassment incident on campus. The regulations include a requirement for a formal complaint, a grievance procedure for an investigation into whether the incident based on a standard of evidence occurred, and a method of appealing the outcome of the grievance process. Permits complainants and respondents to have advisors throughout the grievance process (Federal Code of Regulations Title 34, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subpart D, Section 106.45).
3. Defines sexual harassment as conduct on the basis of sex that satisfies at least one of the following:
   1. An employee of the postsecondary education institution conditions aid, benefit, or services to a recipient on the individual’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct;
   2. Unwelcome conduct determined by a reasonable person to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity; and,
   3. Sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking, as defined in the United States Code (Federal Code of Regulations, Title 34, Subpart D, Section 106.30).

State law.

1. Defines “Sexual Harassment” as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the work or educational setting under the following conditions: quid pro quo, as defined, and hostile workplace, as defined. Further defines “Sexual Harassment” as sexual violence, sexual battery, and sexual exploitation, as defined (EDC Section 66262.5 and 212.5).
2. Requires the governing board of a community college district, the Trustees of the CSU, the Board of Directors of San Francisco Law School, and the Regents of the University of California to adopt and implement a written procedure or protocols related to sexual assault or domestic violence, as provided. The protocol shall be reviewed and updated annually in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic violence counselors, and student, faculty, and staff representatives. Authorizes that sexual assault and domestic violence counselors at public colleges and universities be independent from the Title IX office and prohibits sexual assault and domestic violence counselors from releasing the identity of the victim without first obtaining specific permission (EDC Section 67385).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Impetus of the bill. The collegiate soccer world was shaken when a promising female athlete took her own life in March 2022. Days after her death, it was uncovered, the student had received a disciplinary notification stemming from an incident involving a football player and spilled coffee. Catalyzed by the loss, the soccer player’s parents started “Katie Saves” a nationwide initiative to ensure students on college campuses have a trusted advisor to help them advocate and navigate the complicated disciplinary procedures on college campuses that may arise after an alleged student conduct violation. “Kate Saves” provide agency to students during a disciplinary proceeding by providing students with the option to select their own advisor regardless of whether the disciplinary proceeding was due to a Title IX complaint, an academic sanction, or a violation of the student code of conduct.

Existing law at both the state and federal level acknowledge advisors should be made available to students regardless of whether they are the complainant (victim) and respondent (accused) of a federal Title IX complaint or a complaint of sex discrimination as described in the California Sex Equity Act (EDC Section 66281.8). However, these advisors are only made available after a complaint is filed and are not available to advise students, faculty, and staff of the various reporting options (legal, institutional, or criminal) nor can the advisor assist in connecting the student, faculty, and staff with on-and off-campus resources.

The Education Code acknowledges the existence of sexual assault and domestic violence counselors in Section 67385 by requiring them to be separate from the Title IX office. The Section also enables the counselors to provide services to alleged victims of assault regardless of whether they elect to report the incident to the campus or not. However, not every campus has sexual assault and domestic violence counselors nor is it clear whether their services can be provided to students, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary sanctions.

AB 1575 (Irwin) seeks to codify elements of the “Katie Saves” initiative to ensure that (1) advisors are available to students who face any type of disciplinary procedure on campus and (2) to require confidential advocates to be present on campus to assist faculty, staff, and students in understanding their rights under the law and to assist in connecting both alleged victims and the accused with support services.

Need for the measure. As delineated by the author, “California’s colleges and universities are filled with extremely bright and dedicated students who come from around the world to study, participate in athletics, conduct research, and better their lives. At times their higher education experience presents them with challenges related to violations of academic codes, student codes of conduct, or even with harassment and discrimination. These challenges threaten lasting real-world consequences that many students are not prepared to handle on their own. Our colleges and universities must provide their students facing these institutional proceedings with support and resources, including access to confidential advocates, through a holistic approach that prioritizes their well-being.”

Confidential advocates. Confidential advocates provide a continuum of care for survivors and play an integral role in restoring educational equity after a discriminatory event. Confidential advocates act as the following:

1. Educational Resource – informing students, faculty, and staff of their rights to report a discriminatory event and the potential outcomes of reporting.
2. Intermediary – connecting students, faculty, and staff with support services such as mental health counseling, medical services, and academic support.
3. Counselor – providing emotional support during the adjudication process or disciplinary procedure should the individual decide to provide a formal report to the higher education institution or law enforcement.

On some campuses confidential advocates are synonymous with domestic violence and sexual assault counselors. Confidential advocates are the key architect in building a blueprint for a survivor’s recovery as they are responsible for connecting the survivor with supportive resources and helping the survivor understand the various pathways for reporting (whether it be to the police or the institution) and the potential outcomes of reporting an incident.

A report published by Center for Changing Our Campus Culture, specifies that confidential advocates as the first line of action when it comes to helping survivors determine next steps after a discriminatory incident. In addition to connecting survivors to comprehensive care service, confidential advocates assist survivors in navigating the difficult choices of reporting and help victims feel empowered to choose what is best for them. Furthermore, confidential advocates provide trauma-informed, inclusive, emotional support by helping survivors connect with services such as mental health counseling, medical care, academic supports, and basic needs assistance. Ideally, confidential advocates would act as an intermediator assisting both the accused and victims access to the comprehensive care they need for everyone to receive restorative justice after a discriminatory event.

The 2014 White House Taskforce to Protect Student’s from Sexual Assault report, Not Alone, determined every college and university campus should have confidential advocates who can provide emergency and ongoing support to a survivor of a sexual assault. Building upon the taskforce report, Texas and Oregon have both passed state legislation requiring their higher education institutions to employ confidential advocates. AB 1575 (Irwin) seeks to build upon the work of Texas and Oregon and codify a requirement for all public higher education institutions in California to have confidential advocates as part of the institutions response to incidents of discrimination.

Confidential advocates and public postsecondary education institutions. Unlike other states as previously mentioned, California does not have a requirement for campuses to employ confidential advocates and therefore, each public higher education system is endowed with the authority to employ a confidential advocate as part of the institution’s response to discriminatory events.

The CCC does not have a systemwide policy on whether community colleges must have confidential advocates; therefore, each district is left to determine whether confidential advocates are necessary to respond to discrimination on campus. Research conducted by the Assembly Higher Education Committee found very few community colleges employ full-time confidential advocates. In discussing confidential advocates with community college faculty, Committee Staff learned that faculty do not have access to advocates nor advisors during the disciplinary procedures such as the adjudication of sexual harassment complaints. Union representatives are not allowed to assist faculty during a sexual harassment complaint investigations and often faculty are left to hire a lawyer to understand their rights during the process. Committee Staff note advisors are supposed to be provided to students during the grievance process (EDC Section 66281.8); however, the advisors are not confidential advocates and what is disclosed to an advisor can be shared during the investigation process.

According to the 2023 Title IX and Discrimination Harassment and Retaliation Assessment Systemwide Report by Cozen O’Connor, every CSU campus except Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has at least one or two confidential advocates (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has four). The role of the confidential advocate on a CSU campus is to assist the complainant in understanding their rights, the grievance process, and what support services are available to them.

Each UC campus has a “Center for Advocacy, Resources, & Education” (CARE). Each center employs confidential advocates who are there to provide emotional support to students and employees who have experienced sexual violence or harassment. The advocates employ trauma-informed practices to help provide support through access to services, mental health counseling, and advice regardless of whether the survivor wishes to report the incident or simply receive supportive services. In addition to advocates for survivors of sexual violence and sexual harassment, each UC campus has respondent service coordinators. The role of the respondent coordinator is to help subjects of a Title IX complaint to understand their rights and the adjudication process. The respondent service coordinators are trained to help the respondent access campus and community resources, understand their rights, and navigate the grievance process. Unlike the confidential advocates, the respondent service coordinators are not confidential.

AB 1575 (Irwin) would set a state standard for all public higher education institutions by clarifying that confidential advocates are to be available to assist staff, faculty, and students understand their rights, receive supportive services, and to Staff of the Assembly Higher Education Committee was given a directive to examine how the State could best assist postsecondary education institutions in California adhere to state and federal law pertaining to the prevention of sex discrimination on campus. Over the last two years, Assembly Higher Education Committee in collaboration with the Senate Education Committee spent over 400 hours participating in trainings, researching, reading reports and dissertations, and listening to experts, students, staff, and faculty from the CCC, the CSU, the UC, and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (AICCU). At this time of the publication of this analysis, the report as drafted by the two committees has not yet been made public; however, the report will contain recommendations on how the State can best address sexual harassment and sexual violence on college and university campuses.

The author has agreed to amend the bill to align with the recommendations of the report should the report address confidential advocates and advisors in a manner different than AB 1575 (Irwin).

Arguments in support. The California Faculty Association, which represents over 29,000 CSU faculty support AB 1575. “By allowing students to select a designated advocate to receive specific administrative, academic, health, and disciplinary notices, AB 1575 empowers students and promotes transparency in their support networks. This bill aligns with our mission to ensure the comprehensive wellbeing of our students. We understand that mental health issues can greatly impact a student's academic performance and overall life quality. A designated advocate will play a crucial role in providing consistent and tailored support to students, enabling them to navigate challenges more effectively.”

Committee comments. AB 1575 removes language from the EDC pertaining to domestic violence and sexual assault counselors as Committee Staff understand these terms are interchangeable with confidential advocates. The language of EDC Section 67385 is included in the new language of AB 1575 (Irwin) and therefore it is reasonable to conclude the confidential advocates and the domestic violence and sexual assault counselors fulfill the same role.

However, to avoid any confusion and to build upon the work of AB 1467 (Cervantes), Chapter 556, Statues of 2022, moving forward the author may wish to define the term “confidential advocates” to include limited to domestic violence and sexual assault counselors on campus as defined by EDC Section 67385.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Faculty Association

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Ellen Cesaretti-Monroy / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960