However, the Department does not consider that is necessary or realistic to attract distinctions among complainants alleging Title IX sexual harassment based on the status of the respondent as a "student" compared to an "employee." Furthermore, a escalating development in just postsecondary institutions is for graduate students to unionize, and such a development blurs the lines between categories of college students and personnel, with regard to collective bargaining electrical power. Some recipients cooperatively labored with their worker unions and renegotiated their CBAs in reaction to the Department's withdrawn 2011 Dear Colleague Letter so that the recipient would use the preponderance of the proof common with regard to worker situations, and pupil cases. Whether or not a receiver is expected to use a particular conventional of proof below Federal polices governing non-sexual misconduct violations (for occasion, exploration misconduct by faculty or graduate pupils), the Department's issue in these last polices is making certain that a recipient takes advantage of a one, selected regular of proof for Title IX sexual harassment cases so that complainants alleging sexual harassment confront a predictable grievance approach irrespective of irrespective of whether the complainant has alleged sexual harassment by a pupil, worker, or college member. The Department believes that complainants in a recipient's educational community must confront the exact procedure, which include the exact common of proof, in a Title IX grievance approach no matter of irrespective of whether the respondent who allegedly sexually harassed the complainant is a college student, staff, or college member.
