After what felt like a torrential downpour of Title IX-related developments, practitioners may be enjoying a brief reprieve. But the landscape is anything but calm. The Department of Education’s functions are being distributed to other federal entities, including the Department of the Treasury. This raises a key question: what does this fragmentation mean for enforcement?

For some, states are filling the gaps. Following New York’s lead in enacting a law requiring a Title VI coordinator and other mandates, states like Georgia, Missouri, and Colorado are introducing similar legislation. This signals a shift toward state-driven civil rights enforcement. Ongoing litigation, such as the federal government suing Harvard, California suing the federal government, and continued legal battles in Maine, continues to complicate the push-and-pull over authority.

Against this backdrop, we turn to a lively ATIXA listserv debate: should victim advocates serve as advisors in the Title IX grievance process? Under the 2020 regulations, parties have the right to choose an advisor of their choice. On one hand, advocates bring trust, familiarity, and a strong understanding of institutional processes. At the same time, the advisor role can become adversarial, raising concerns about confidentiality, dual roles, and how advocacy support is perceived. The conversation explores three main schools of thought and lands, unsurprisingly, somewhere in the middle.

If you have ever wondered whether an advocate can step into the advisor role without creating confusion, conflict, or unintended harm, we are more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

In this episode of More Likely Than Not, Kayleigh and Joe welcome Dr. Mikiba Morehead of TNG Consulting, and Adam Dodge, J.D., founder of endtab.org, an organization dedicated to ending technology-facilitated abuse. Together, they explore the rapidly evolving landscape of sexual misconduct in online spaces, from non-consensual intimate image (NCII) sharing and sextortion to AI-generated “undressing” apps and synthetic nudes.

They underscore a critical point: the harm is real, even when the images are not.

Though the tools have changed, the behaviors of coercion, humiliation, stalking, harassment, and abuse persist. Adam and Mikiba examine Title IX implications, jurisdiction challenges when conduct occurs off campus or on personal devices, and how to evaluate escalation in digital contexts. They also share practical prevention strategies centered on bodily autonomy, digital consent, and institutional preparedness, reminding practitioners that you do not need to be a tech expert to respond effectively.

If you have ever wondered whether you are overreacting or not reacting quickly enough, we are more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Winter temperatures and news headlines set the tone as Kayleigh and Joe discuss current events affecting K-12 and higher education, with a familiar sense that chaos and uncertainty may be sticking around for a few more weeks this season.

They also dig into a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report examining the financial impact of the Department of Education’s efforts to reduce staffing at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), along with recent developments in DEI program litigation and the Trump administration’s ongoing, high-profile conflict with Harvard University.

Kayleigh and Joe break down two recent appellate court decisions with potential implications for practitioners, including a First Circuit case examining what constitutes “actual knowledge” under Title IX in a K-12 setting and a Fourth Circuit case addressing First Amendment and religious accommodation challenges related to pronoun and gender identity policies in schools.

On Overheard on the Listserv, they discuss the risks and requirements of practitioners possessing explicit material, particularly when minors may be involved, and practical ways to manage evidence while minimizing exposure and unintended consequences, including the use of written descriptions and tightly controlled access.

If you’ve ever read a listserv question and thought, “I really hope this never happens to me,” we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

In this episode of More Likely Than Not, hosts Kayleigh and Joe break down recent U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., two cases challenging state laws that restrict transgender girls from participating in girls’ and women’s athletics across both higher education and K-12 settings.

TNG Consulting colleagues Kim Pacelli, J.D., M.Ed., and Dan Fotoples, J.D., M.A., join the team to talk through the high-level legal questions at the center of both cases, including an Equal Protection Clause analysis and the “what level of scrutiny applies” debate. For B.P.J., they also explore the additional question of how Title IX athletics regulations may factor into the Court’s approach.

Oral arguments generate headlines, speculation, and anxiety, but they rarely provide reliable answers about what the Court will ultimately do. The attorneys and even several justices appear to be signaling interest in a narrow ruling, and the safest move for practitioners is to stay steady, stay informed, and avoid reacting to guesses disguised as certainty.

If you’re looking for clarity while waiting for the Court’s decision, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

In the first episode of 2026, More Likely Than Not returns with a candid look at the familiar chaos facing compliance professionals. Kayleigh and Joe set the tone for a year where adaptability, judgment, and institutional awareness are expected to be essential to maintaining a steady compliance program.

They start by digging into early indicators of federal enforcement priorities. Recent comments from U.S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon signal a potential pivot from higher education to elementary and secondary education, which could reshape how institutions across sectors approach risk.

Kayleigh and Joe emphasize that Title VI compliance and infrastructure remain key priorities. They discuss proposed federal legislation from U.S. Representative Jerry Nadler and others that would require a Title VI coordinator on every college campus, and a recent California case addressing whether schools can restrict teachers from informing parents when a student is transgender.

The hosts offer three New Year’s resolutions for practitioners: spend 30 minutes daily on the ATIXA Listserv, build relationships with key school stakeholders, and reread the 2020 Title IX regulations and preamble to reconnect with their guiding principles.

If you’re trying to stay grounded while enforcement priorities and legal signals shift, then we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Saundra discusses why institutions should continue to offer modifications and support for pregnant and parenting students, sharing best practices from the now-rescinded 2024 rule. She explains how pregnancy-related needs differ from disability accommodations and why she doesn’t expect significant federal changes soon. Even so, Saundra notes a major update from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding support animals in shared living spaces.

If you are wondering what compliance looks like in 2026, we are more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It's not legal advice and shouldn't be relied on as such. If you're navigating a specific issue, always consult with your institution's general counsel or a qualified attorney familiar with Title IX and applicable state laws.

During Overheard on the Listserv, they address a member’s question about ATIXA’s One Policy, Two Procedures (1P2P) model. They explain why 1P2P includes two additional appeal grounds beyond the three required by Title IX regulations and how these additions set a best-practice standard.

If you’re wondering whether you imagined a third Title IX vacatur, it’s real, and we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

They also explore whether esports should fall under Title IX, and the complexities of harassment in male-dominated online spaces. Scott and the hosts discuss the debate over equitable NIL payments for male and female athletes, raising important questions about balancing market-based compensation with Title IX’s equity standards that could affect scholarships, travel, and resources. The conversation also touches on the potential for emerging sports like competitive cheer and dance to be recognized under Title IX.

If you’re wondering how pending court decisions will impact athletic programs or how to ensure policy and training compliance, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

This week on More Likely Than Not, Kayleigh and Joe continue their discussion with Brett A. Sokolow, J.D., ATIXA founder and TNG chair, for part two of a series on antisemitism in education. Brett offers compliance guidance and best practices under Title VI, from policy development to nondiscrimination response. Together, they explore how schools can distinguish between protected speech and discriminatory conduct, discussing denial of access and the value of proactive communication with protest organizers.

If you’re wondering about policy and procedure best practices for addressing various phobias and “isms” in schools, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

This week on More Likely Than Not, Kayleigh and Joe sit down with Brett A. Sokolow, J.D., ATIXA founder and TNG chair, for the first of a two-part series on antisemitism in education. They explore why it’s so difficult to define, how federal politics put schools on the spot, and what’s at stake as campuses and K-12 institutions face rising tensions. From the IHRA definition to ATIXA’s model policies, they ask whether definitions should serve as guiding principles or enforceable standards.

Brett shares personal stories of antisemitism in his own life, and the conversation explores the tension of being perceived as both privileged and marginalized. This discussion examines the fine line between protected speech and discriminatory conduct, and the near-impossible federal expectation that schools “eradicate” antisemitism.

If you’re wondering what schools can realistically do to address antisemitism, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Relevant News:

Bondi faces criticism for saying DOJ will 'target' anyone who engages in 'hate speech'

ATIXA’s Title VI Consulting Resources: Navigating Sectarian and Racial Tensions

They also examine a University of Pennsylvania law professor’s unsuccessful free speech lawsuit and OCR’s findings against Denver Public Schools over all-gender restrooms, raising questions about federal authority, local pushback, and the future of directed investigations.

In Overheard on the Listserv, they address a critical question: Where should Title IX coordinators sit within an institution? From legal counsel to HR to student affairs, they weigh the trade-offs and stress why independence and trust matter most.

If you’re wondering how federal rulings, institutional politics, and reporting structures intersect in Title IX, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Hear why recent high-profile OCR investigations involving schools like Harvard, Columbia, and George Mason may not be as unusual as they seem, and explore how modern political dynamics are shifting OCR’s focus from expanding rights to restricting them, leaving schools uncertain of their legal obligations and students bearing the consequences.

If you’re curious whether OCR can ever be more of a guide than an adversary, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

They also respond to a timely Listserv question: Can AI be used for incident reports? Weighing the benefits of accessibility, efficiency, and administrative support against concerns around accuracy, privacy, and confidentiality, they remind practitioners to avoid assuming AI-assisted reports are inherently unreliable. Reports should always be assessed according to policy and evidence, regardless of who—or what—helped draft them.

If you’re asking whether your m dash makes your Title IX report sound like a bot, or whether the era of the compliance silo is truly over, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Relevant News:

Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp.

Groff v. DeJoy (2023, U.S. Supreme Court)

Arana v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999, U.S. Supreme Court)

Stephen F. Austin State University Athletics Case

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

In this episode, Dr. Lowery offers advice on managing uncertainty and distinguishing genuine policy change from political theater. For example, myth or mandate: the Department of Justice’s recent memo on “unlawful discrimination,” which appears to contradict the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions by asserting that any consideration of race, even in personal essays, is impermissible.

Kayleigh and Joe sit down with Dr. Lowery to discuss how schools and campuses can build proactive cultures of free expression that encourage education, dialogue, and mutual understanding before conflicts arise, rather than invoking the First Amendment only in the aftermath of offensive speech.

If you’re asking what’s real, what’s theater, and what’s next for education, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Mark your calendar for Dr. Lowery’s Opening Keynote at the ATIXA and NABITA Joint Annual Conference on Tuesday, October 14, from 6:00-7:30 pm ET. Early bird registration is open through August 22, 2025.

Relevant News: 

ATIXA & NABITA Annual Conference: https://www.atixa.org/conferences/annual-conference/

Dr Lowery's ATIXA blog, The Future of Education Amid Executive Orders, Regulations, and Investigations: https://www.atixa.org/blog/the-future-of-education-amid-executive-orders-regulations-and-investigations/

2023 Fair Admissions Decision: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/

Columbia/Brown agreements: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/04/17/columbia-and-brown-enter-title-vi-resolution-agreements

IPEDS: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2025/08/07/trump-orders-colleges-supply-data-race-admissions

DOJ's Unlawful Discrimination memo: https://natlawreview.com/article/best-practices-enforcement-decoding-dojs-july-29-anti-discrimination-guidance

U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights Case Processing Manual https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ocr-case-processing-manual-us-department-of-education-office-civil-rights-33891.pdf

They explore how civil rights compliance in education is shifting from fragmented practices to a more integrated approach, as federal enforcement intensifies on issues related to race, religion, national origin, and shared ancestry (Title VI), and sex (Title IX). This shift means institutions must quickly align their policies, procedures, and data-sharing efforts.

Kayleigh and Joe also unpack the implications of Columbia University’s $221 million settlement, including the unfreezing of $400 million in federal research funding and the imposition of external oversight for admissions and hiring. They examine how this settlement could serve as a blueprint for future enforcement, particularly on DEI-related campus protests, institutional accountability, and the risks of non-compliance.

Whether you're a Title IX Coordinator, Investigator, Advisor, or simply striving to understand the latest developments in civil rights enforcement, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Relevant news:

In Extraordinary Deal With Trump, Columbia U. Agrees to Pay $200 Million to Restore Funds

Kayleigh and Joe unpack how this moment might force the Court to finally address a long-avoided question: does “sex” under Title IX include gender identity? With lower courts divided and prior rulings like Bostock setting new precedent, the stakes are high for schools, compliance professionals, and civil rights advocates alike. If you’re in Title IX—or advising someone who is—this is a must-listen.

But this episode isn’t just legal theory. The hosts highlight how the ATIXA listserv continues to surface the most pressing and nuanced questions from the field. It offers a real-time look at what Title IX professionals are up against, and how they are adapting. In this first episode, our scenario includes a university caught between a Title IX hearing requirement and a court-issued stay-away order. Through that lens, Kayleigh and Joe explore practical solutions, the role of legal counsel, and how to avoid becoming the “mechanism” that causes legal conflict.

Whether you're wrestling with policy updates, preparing for courtroom fallout, or just trying to stay ahead, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Relevant news:

Supreme Court will decide whether states can ban transgender girls from girls’ sports (Politico, July 3, 2025)

Why Roberts and Gorsuch may decide the Supreme Court’s blockbuster transgender sports case (CNN, July 5, 2025)

How is ‘certiorari’ pronounced? Even Supreme Court justices disagree

In this teaser, Kayleigh and Joe share the vision for the podcast: a practical, conversational space to explore legal developments, real-world scenarios from the ATIXA Listserv, and best practices in Title IX, Title VI, and broader civil rights compliance work. Whether you’re brand new to your role or a veteran in the field, this podcast aims to help you think through the gray areas, respond to emerging trends, and find clarity in complexity.