Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq., and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. In compliance with this federal policy, Warner Pacific University does not discriminate on the basis of sex in its education programs.

Advisor
All persons who are a Complainant or a Respondent are permitted to bring an Advisor of their own choosing to any meeting or interview to provide support. The Advisor may be any person, including a family member or an attorney. The Advisor may accompany the student party to any and all portions of the student conduct process. The Advisor may not participate directly in, represent, or interfere with the investigation. Although reasonable attempts will be made to schedule proceedings consistent with an Advisor’s availability, the process will not be delayed to schedule the proceedings at the convenience of the Advisor. The Title IX Coordinator has the discretion to remove the Advisor from investigation and hearing proceedings if the Advisor interferes with the proceedings.

Appeals Officer
A trained and impartial person or persons designated by the University to carry out the Student Conduct Appeals Process.

Complainant
An individual who is the victim of, or alleged to be the victim of, conduct that may constitute Prohibited Conduct as defined in this policy.

Conduct Committee
A trained and impartial group convened to carry out the Student Conduct process when the Conduct Officer determines the nature and circumstances of the alleged violation are best resolved by a committee. The committee consists of up to five current faculty, staff, and students and includes at least one representative from each group.

Conduct Officer
A trained and impartial person or persons designated by the University to oversee and carry out the Student Conduct Process.

Days
Any reference to days within this Policy shall be counted as University business days unless otherwise specified.

Decision-maker
A trained and impartial person or persons designated by the University to conduct the Live Hearing, make a decision regarding the alleged violations based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and impose sanctions, if applicable.

Discriminatory Harassment: Unwelcome conduct directed at individual(s) on the basis of protected characteristic(s) as defined in this policy, state and federal law, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it interferes with work, academics, or participation in any university program or activity, because it creates a hostile working or university environment for the individual who is the subject of such conduct, and the conduct would have such an effect on a reasonable person who is similarly situated.

Explicit Consent
A free and willing agreement to engage in a sexual act, provided without force or coercion, between individuals who are of sufficient age and are not mentally incapable, mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. Consent is a clear and unambiguous agreement, expressed outwardly through mutually understandable words or actions, to engage in a particular activity. The person initiating a specific sexual activity is responsible for obtaining consent for that activity. Consent is not to be inferred from silence, or a lack of resistance. Consent is not to be inferred from an existing or previous dating or sexual relationship. Consent to engage in one sexual activity at one time is not consent to engage in a different sexual activity or to engage in the same sexual activity on a later the occasion. Consent can be withdrawn by any party at any point. Once consent is withdrawn, the sexual activity must cease immediately. For purposes of this Policy, in evaluating whether consent was freely sought and given, the issue is whether the Respondent knew, or reasonably should have known, that the activity in question was not consensual or that the Complainant was unable to consent due to incapacitation.

Incapacitation
A state where an individual cannot make an informed and rational decision to engage in sexual activity because of a lack of conscious understanding of the fact, nature, or extent of the act (e.g., to understand the who, what, when, where, why, or how of the sexual interaction) and/or is physically helpless. An individual asleep or unconscious is considered to be incapacitated and unable to consent to sexual activity. An individual will also be considered incapacitated if the person cannot understand the nature of the activity or communicate due to a mental or physical condition. Incapacitation may result from the use of alcohol, drugs, or other medication. Consumption of alcohol or other drugs alone is insufficient to establish incapacitation.

The impact of alcohol and drugs varies from person to person, and evaluating incapacitation requires an assessment of how the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs impacts an individual’s: (A) decision-making ability; (B) awareness of consequences; (C) ability to make informed judgments; or (D) capacity to appreciate the nature and the quality of the act.

It shall not be a valid excuse that the Respondent believed that the Complainant consented to the sexual activity if the Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the Complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances: (a) the Complainant was asleep or unconscious; (b) the Complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the Complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity; (c) the Complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

Whether the Respondent reasonably should have known that the Reporting Party was incapacitated will be evaluated using an objective reasonable person standard. The fact that the Respondent was actually unaware of the Complainant’s incapacity is irrelevant to this analysis, particularly where the Respondent’s failure to appreciate the Complainant’s incapacitation resulted from the Respondent’s failure to take reasonable steps to determine the Complainant’s incapacitation or where the Respondent’s own incapacitation (from alcohol or drugs) caused the Respondent to misjudge the Complainant’s incapacity.

It is the responsibility of the individual initiating the sexual activity to be aware of the intoxication level of the other party before engaging in sexual activity. In general, sexual activity while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs poses a risk to all parties. If there is any doubt as to the level or extent of the other individual’s intoxication, it is safest to forgo or cease any sexual contact or activity.

Investigator
A trained and impartial person designated by the University to investigate allegations of student conduct code violations (e.g. gather relevant information and conduct interviews).

Live Hearing
A live hearing, held in person or virtually, that provides each party with the opportunity in real time to respond to the Investigation Report, ask questions of the other party, witnesses and the Decision-maker.

Non-Title IX Sexual Harassment: Conduct on the basis of sex committed by any person upon any other person, regardless of the sex, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity of those involved which is one of the following:

When a University employee conditions the provision of an educational benefit or service on an individual’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct (quid pro quo); and/or

Unwelcome conduct[1] of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature where such conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it has the effect, intended or unintended, of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or academic performance or it has created an intimidating, hostile of offensive environment and would have such an effect on a reasonable person.

Party
A Complainant or Respondent in a case.

Preponderance of Evidence
Means “more likely than not.” It is the standard of evidence used during the investigation to determine whether the alleged conduct the occurred and/or this policy was violated.

Prohibited Conduct
The University acknowledges the importance of vibrant and robust expression of ideas, including those that may be controversial or unpopular.  Nothing in this policy is intended to conflict with those ideals.

Protected Activity
Exercising any right or privilege under this policy. Examples of protected activities include reporting (internally or externally) a complaint of Prohibited Conduct in good faith, assisting others in making such a report, participating in a grievance process, acting in good faith to oppose conduct that constitutes a violation of this Policy, honestly participating as an Investigator, witness, decision maker, or otherwise assisting in, an investigation or proceeding related to an alleged violation of this Policy.

Relevance
Evidence that tends to prove or disprove a fact at issue or an element of the policy at issue in the investigation. Questions asked during the Hearing phase must be determined to be relevant before answered by a party or Witness, that is the question must relate to proving or disproving a facts related to the allegation(s).

Respondent
An individual who is reported to have engaged in Prohibited Conduct.

Standard of Evidence
The decision regarding a Respondent’s responsibility will be determined by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning “more likely than not.”

Third-Party Reporter
A person other than the Complainant who reports an incident or allegation of Prohibited Conduct.

Title IX Sexual Harassment: In order to constitute Title IX Sexual Harassment, the conduct must have occurred in an education program or activity of the University and must have occurred against a person in the United States.

Sexual harassment under Section 106.30 of the new Title IX Rule (found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 106) means conduct on the basis of sex in an education setting that satisfies one or more of the following:

An employee of the recipient conditioning the provision of an aid, benefit, or service of the recipient on an individual’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct;

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; or

“Sexual assault” as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(6)(A)(v), “dating violence” as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(10), “domestic violence” as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(8), or “stalking” as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(30).

Sexual Assault, Includes any of the Following:

Sexual Offenses, Forcible

Any sexual act directed against another person without the consent of the Complainant, including instances in which the Complainant is incapable of giving consent:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the Complainant.

Oral or anal sexual intercourse with another person, without the consent of the Complainant, including instances in which the Complainant is incapable of giving consent because of age or because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

The use of an object or instrument to penetrate, however slightly, the genital or anal opening of the body of another person, forcibly, and/or against that person’s will (non-consensually) or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances in which the Complainant is incapable of giving consent because of age or because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

The touching of the private body parts of another person (buttocks, groin, breasts), for the purpose of sexual gratification, forcibly, and/or against that person’s will (non-consensually), or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances in which the Complainant is incapable of giving consent because of age or because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

Sex Offenses, Non-forcible, Includes Any of the Following:

Incest
Non-forcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other, within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.

Statutory Rape
Non-forcible sexual intercourse, with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.

Dating Violence
Violence committed by a person, who is in or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the Complainant. The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following facts: the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.

Domestic Violence
Violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the complainant, by a person with whom the complainant shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the complainant as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the complainant under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth complainant who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.

Stalking Based on Sex
Engaging in a course of conduct on the basis of sex directed at a specific person, that would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person’s safety, or the safety of others, or suffer substantial emotional distress. This policy covers instances of stalking based on sex, including stalking that occurs online or through messaging platforms, commonly known as cyber-stalking, when it occurs in the school’s education program or activity.

[1] Unwelcomeness is subjective and determined by the Complainant (except when the Complainant is below the age of consent). Severity, pervasiveness, and objective offensiveness are evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances (“in the shoes of the Complainant”), including the context in which the alleged incident the occurred and any similar, previous patterns that may be evidenced.