Tag:Department of Education
What the “Big Beautiful Bill” Means for Student Loans
On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed into law The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), or what legislators and the public have deemed as the “Big Beautiful Bill.” OBBBA is a budget reconciliation bill; a bill which utilizes a special process for approval. Instead of the 60 vote supermajority usually required for a bill to pass through the Senate, this process allows for the bill to pass with a simple majority. While the process makes it significantly easier for legislation to pass through Congress, it can only be used for policies that would affect the spending and revenue of the federal government. After months of deliberation, this process allowed OBBBA to pass through the Senate with a 51-50 vote. Days later the bill passed through the House of Representatives, and the following day was signed into law by President Trump. While the president has paraded the spending and revenue bill as “arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed,” some have proposed that its true effects will financially harm Americans and further limit people’s ability to transcend economic classes through higher education.
Resetting Online Education: ED’s New Online Education Reporting Rule
In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) released a final rule including provisions on reporting requirements for online and distance education. Supporters of the rule argue its implementation will enhance transparency and accountability for institutions of higher education. Conversely, critics of the rule raise concerns about the financial burdens associated with implementing the reporting requirements. Nevertheless, the ED claims the goal of the regulation is to collect the data necessary to assess the quality and effectiveness of distance education.
The Supreme Court Striked Affirmative Action: Now What?
Following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, higher education institutions face challenging decisions in their admissions process. Although this may be a frightening time for many, California and Michigan have eliminated affirmative action years prior. These states may provide some insight as to how universities may maintain diversity. We may not see the implications of this decision until years to come. However, universities have the opportunity to collectively work together in order to maintain diverse student bodies and better represent the diverse individuals who help compose the United States of America.
Students In Illinois Believe That Title IX Offices Are Failing Them, But Why?
Where Title IX offices exist, controversy follows. While certain students attending four year higher education institutions (HEIs) may feel empowered or supported by their Title IX offices, in my experience, many more feel mistrust, pain, and neglect. In my time as a student at three different HEIs, I was constantly surrounded by women and queer people in pain. Sometimes, this pain came in the form of a friend stating they did not want to engage with the Title IX office because they wholeheartedly believed nothing substantive would come of reporting. Other times, the pain came in the form of large groups of students making it known that they felt betrayed by their school’s Title IX office, unsupported and ill-equipped to advocate for themselves and their friends.
A recent article in the Loyola Phoenix, pointedly entitled, They Just Didn’t Make It Very Easy For Us’: Three Loyola Students Voice Frustrations with Loyola’s Sexual Assault Investigation Process, named only some of the many critiques students have of Title IX offices. The voices of these students are valid. Change can, should, and must be made. Any response which does not acknowledge these two realities ignores the pain so many young people are clearly feeling. Refusal to diligently, and in good faith, work on improving protections for survivors throughout HEI campuses is a failure, in every sense of the term.
Current Status Pending: Title IX, Deliberate Indifference, & Non-Student Offenders
With the Biden administrations new proposed Title IX regulations set to be published in April of this year, attorneys and advocates alike have been left to speculate as to what changes the Department of Education (ED) will propose. Among this speculation, is a narrower question: will ED, in their proposed Title IX regulations, finally state directly that universities can be held liable for deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment perpetrated by a non-student guest? At this point, any answer to this threshold inquiry would be speculative, but there are a few indicators that suggest the answer may be yes.
Title IX Changes & Timelines: What Can We Do When a Final Rule Will Take Too Long?
On September 13, more than thirty members of Congress sent a letter to the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, urging the Biden Administration to continue to build on the steps the administration has taken thus far to protect survivor-complaints from sexual misconduct. The letter emphasized President Biden’s clear interest in Title IX reform, celebrating many of the changes he has made since coming into office. However, alongside this praise, came the enumeration of several remaining concerns born out of the Trump Administrations widely criticized May 2020 Title IX regulations.
Administration Matters: The Evolution of Cross-Examination Requirements under Title IX
On August 24, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), released guidance clarifying that, effective immediately, it will stop the enforcement of 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)(6)(i). With this new guidance, a decision-maker at a post-secondary school may now consider outside information submitted by a survivor-complainant during the Title IX grievance process, even if the survivor-complainant does not partake in cross-examination.
Objectively Subjective? What the Newly Published Title IX Q&A Tell us About Sexual Harassment and the Recently Emphasized Reasonable Person Standard
In May of last year, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Final Rule, amending the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. With this guidance came a plethora of changes to how recipients of Federal financial assistance covered by Title IX must respond to allegations of sex-based discrimination. Amongst the most notable changes to these regulations, was the clarification that a reasonable person standard applies to certain elements which are, at times, necessary to prove sexual harassment under Title IX.
Income Share Agreements; a Solution to Increasing Educational Debt in America or Just Another Student Loan?
In times of economic recession, Americans historically have sought additional education to mitigate minimal employment prospects and retrain for an evolving job market. Coding bootcamps may be especially attractive in the era of COVID as they provide vocational training in a growing field and many programs are offered remotely by design. These programs may become even more enticing because of a new financing instrument called an income share agreement (“ISA”).
New Title IX Rules for Schools
On May 19, 2020, the Department of Education published a final Title IX regulation that changes the rights and responsibilities for schools, complainants, and respondents. In summary, these regulations respond to the need to provide a prompt and just response to individuals who have suffered sexual harassment and provide due process for an alleged perpetrator. These changes create a standard grievance process, define conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, outline conditions that activate a school’s obligation to respond, impose a minimum standard of school response, and establish procedural due process protections.