In recent years, the use of the term “rapist” on campus has sparked significant legal debate in Title IX higher education cases. Two notable cases, Nungesser v. Columbia University and the more recently decided Doe v. University of Maryland, provide contrasting judicial perspectives on this issue. In this legal update, we examine these cases, focusing on their legal reasoning, outcomes, and implications for educational institutions.

Recent violent incidents on campuses, including the fatal shooting of a controversial speaker, have underscored the urgent need for colleges and universities to assess their approaches to campus safety and free speech ahead of and during high-profile events.

Reductions in force (RIFs), also referred to as layoffs, downsizing, or restructuring, remain one of the most challenging workforce management decisions college and university employers face. Beyond the operational and financial considerations, RIFs carry significant legal, reputational, and strategic risks and considerations. Institutions must carefully navigate federal, state, and local laws, as well as policies and procedures unique to higher education such as tenure and faculty handbooks, while also ensuring that their actions are fair, transparent, and sensitive to affected staff and faculty.

Universities serve as both learning environments and workplaces, placing them at the intersection of student rights and employee protections. This dual role brings unique obligations when it comes to providing disability accommodations. While both students and faculty are entitled to reasonable accommodations under the law, the processes, points of contact, and implementation differ significantly. Understanding these distinctions is essential for compliance, equity, and building a truly inclusive campus culture.

As civil rights compliance becomes increasingly complex and federal scrutiny continues, colleges and universities should consider reevaluating having separate approaches to handling complaints of Title IX (sex discrimination and harassment) and Title VI (race, color, national origin, and shared ancestry discrimination and harassment).

On August 14, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Maryland vacated the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). Hunton previously provided an overview of the implications of the February 14 DCL for colleges and universities in client alerts published in February and March 2025.

Just in time for back to school, Title IX Coordinators have one more item to add to their “to-do” list: updating their Title IX policies to reflect required definitions of certain sex offenses. Luckily, this is a relatively quick fix that may even slightly simplify your Title IX policies.

On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum titled “Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions” along with a related fact sheet. According to the memorandum, the Supreme Court has “definitively held that consideration of race in higher education admissions violates students rights” but a “persistent lack of available data” combined with “overt and hidden racial proxies” caused further “concerns about whether race is actually used in process.” The memorandum indicated that the government has not been able to collect sufficient data to “expos[e] unlawful practices[,]” and directed the Secretary of Education to makes changes to the federal collection and publication of admissions data for U.S. institutions of higher education.

The House v. NCAA settlement, effective July 1, 2025, marks a new era in college sports compensation that allows for payments to student-athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) from their colleges or universities. Despite these advancements, receiving NIL payments will create a unique challenge for international student-athletes, the vast majority of whom are studying in the U.S. on student visas that limit their ability to work. 

The landscape of college athletics is undergoing a seismic shift with the rise of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. As student-athletes gain the ability to monetize their personal brands, a new era of opportunity—and liability—is expanding far beyond the athletes. In addition to the student-athletes, NIL stakeholders include universities, athletic conferences and organizations, sponsors, and the athletes’ families, among others. Whether the goal is to guard against emerging liabilities or protect the NIL revenue stream itself, stakeholders should consider both traditional and specialty lines of insurance. Here’s what you need to know.