If you’re reading this article, something serious has probably already happened.
You or your child may have received an email from a university administrator. It might say there has been a Title IX complaint, a student conduct investigation, or a requirement that you not contact another student. The message is often short, vague, and unsettling.
At that point, most people do exactly what you’re doing now: they start searching.
- What happens if I’m accused under Title IX?
- Can a university expel me without proof?
- Do I need a lawyer for a Title IX investigation?
Those questions are not paranoid. They’re practical.
A recent federal lawsuit filed against Marshall University illustrates why these questions matter—and why students who wait too long to understand the Title IX process often lose control of their situation before they realize what is happening. In Doe v. Marshall University Board of Governors (No. 3:25-cv-00743 (S.D.W. Va. filed Dec. 18, 2025)), the plaintiff alleges that the university subjected the student to multiple Title IX investigations handled by the same institutional officials, relied heavily on subjective credibility assessments, and considered prior allegations when evaluating responsibility. According to the complaint, these procedural choices limited the student’s ability to meaningfully respond to the allegations and resulted in disciplinary outcomes reached without the safeguards students often expect. The issues raised in that lawsuit mirror the same structural features present in many Title IX investigations today and provide a framework for understanding the practical risks, common mistakes, and early decisions this article addresses.
What a Title IX Investigation Really Is (and What It Is Not)
Many students believe a Title IX investigation is an informal school process meant to “hear both sides.” That belief is one of the most damaging misconceptions in higher education today.
A Title IX investigation is nota criminal proceeding. It is also nota neutral fact-finding exercise in the way courts operate. It is an administrative enforcement process run entirely by the university.
That means the school controls:
- The investigator
- The scope of evidence
- The credibility standards
- The timeline
- The decision-makers
Most Title IX cases use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. In plain terms, that means the university only needs to decide that one version of events is slightly more likely than the other.
There is no jury. There are limited procedural safeguards. And there is rarely meaningful cross-examination in the way people expect from courtrooms.
Universities are under enormous pressure—from federal regulators, media scrutiny, and public perception—to demonstrate that they “take complaints seriously.” That pressure often translates into speed and outcomes, not careful balance.
Students typically make three dangerous assumptions:
- “If I tell the truth, everything will work out.”
- “This is informal—I can explain later.”
- “I don’t need help unless it becomes serious.”
By the time it feels serious, the record is usually already set.
Why the Marshall University Lawsuit Matters
The Marshall University lawsuit matters not because it is unique, but because it is representative.
According to the complaint, one student faced multiple Title IX allegations, investigated by the same university official and reviewed by the same institutional decision-makers. The case alleges that prior conduct, some of it years old, was considered in evaluating responsibility, even when that conduct had not been fully tested in a formal adversarial process.
Whether the allegations were true or false is not the point here.
The point is this:
Once a narrative forms inside a Title IX system, it is extremely difficult to reverse.
The lawsuit highlights risks that exist at many colleges and universities:
- Reuse of the same investigator across related cases
- Panels exposed repeatedly to the same respondent
- Heavy reliance on subjective credibility determinations
- Consideration of “prior conduct” to establish patterns
- Limited opportunities to meaningfully challenge evidence
These are not rare glitches. They are features of modern campus disciplinary systems.
And they lead to the most important question students should ask early:
What should I do the moment I learn I’m under investigation?
What to Do Immediately If You Are Accused Under Title IX
This section is the part students most often say they wish they had read sooner.
1. Do Not Give a Statement Right Away
Universities often present early interviews as an opportunity to “share your side of the story.” In reality, early statements are frequently:
- Taken before you have full access to evidence
- Given without understanding the exact policy violations alleged
- Used later to point out inconsistencies or omissions
Investigators are trained to document, not to protect you.
In most cases, you are not required to give an immediate statement. Taking time to understand the process is not avoidance—it is prudence.
2. Preserve Evidence Immediately
Universities do notpreserve evidence for respondents.
You should act quickly to secure:
- Text messages and direct messages
- Social media communications
- Emails
- Photos or videos
- Location data and calendars
- Names and contact information for potential witnesses
Many cases are decided not on what happened, but on what can still be proven months later.
Lost evidence is rarely recoverable.
3. Understand the Policies That Actually Apply
The email you receive is usually a summary. The real rules are buried in institutional policies.
Depending on the situation, this may include:
- Title IX procedures
- The student code of conduct
- Off-campus conduct rules
- Interim measures and restrictions
Many students are surprised to learn that off-campus behavior—including conduct that occurred away from school property—can still result in discipline. Universities often assert broad authority in this area.
(See: Off-Campus Conduct)
You cannot defend yourself effectively until you understand what you are actually accused of violating.
4. Take No-Contact Orders Seriously—Even If You Disagree
No-contact orders are one of the most common ways students unintentionally make their situation worse.
Students often assume:
- “It’s mutual.”
- “It’s temporary.”
- “A harmless message won’t matter.”
In practice, violating a no-contact order—even accidentally—can become a separate disciplinary charge. Intent often does not matter.
If you are subject to a no-contact directive, learn exactly how it works and how easily violations occur.
(See: No-Contact Orders)
5. Do Not Rely on Appeals to Fix a Bad Record
Appeals are limited. They are not second hearings.
Most university appeals only address:
- Procedural errors
- Newly discovered evidence (rare)
- Demonstrable bias
If the original record is weak or poorly managed, appeals rarely succeed.
Understanding the appeals process early changes how the initial case must be handled.
(See: Student Appeals)
Common Myths That Hurt Accused Students
Myth #1: “Only Guilty People Get Help”
Reality: Prepared people seek guidance. Unprepared people rely on hope.
Myth #2: “This Will Stay on Campus”
Reality: Disciplinary findings can affect:
- Graduate school admissions
- Professional licensing
- Employment opportunities
- Background checks
Myth #3: “The Investigator Is Neutral”
Reality: Investigators are employees enforcing university policy, not independent judges.
Myth #4: “I Can Explain Everything Later”
Reality: Early statements shape every later decision.
When a Title IX Case Becomes a Legal Emergency
Some cases resolve quietly. Others escalate.
A Title IX matter becomes a legal emergency when:
- Suspension or expulsion is possible
- Multiple complaints are consolidated
- Prior conduct is introduced
- You are removed from housing or classes
- The process shows signs of bias or irregularity
Federal lawsuits like the Marshall University case do not begin because students want to sue. They begin because internal processes fail to provide basic fairness.
Once the damage is done, courts are often the only remedy left.
Why Early Guidance Changes Outcomes
Guidance in Title IX matters is not about “fighting the school.” It is about protecting the record and avoiding irreversible mistakes.
Early, informed strategy helps students:
- Understand leverage
- Avoid over-disclosure
- Preserve evidence properly
- Anticipate how decisions will be reviewed later
Students who seek structured support early often avoid the compounding errors that turn manageable cases into permanent setbacks.
If you are navigating a Title IX investigation or related disciplinary matter, working with experienced Title IX advisors can help clarify options before critical decisions are made.
(See: Title IX Advisors)
Related Conduct Investigations Often Travel Together
It is also important to understand that Title IX cases frequently overlap with code of conduct investigations, even when sexual misconduct is not the only issue alleged.
Universities may pursue parallel or alternative charges that carry separate penalties and standards.
(See: Code of Conduct Violations)
Treating these as “less serious” is a mistake.
Final Takeaway: What the Marshall Case Should Teach Every Student
The Marshall University lawsuit is not an anomaly. It is a warning.
Title IX investigations are high-stakes administrative proceedings, not informal conversations. Universities face institutional pressures that do not always align with individual fairness. Once a finding is entered, reversing it is extraordinarily difficult.
If you or your child is facing a Title IX complaint, a code of conduct allegation, off-campus conduct scrutiny, or related disciplinary action, the most important decision is what you do first.
Silence without strategy is not protection.
Speed without understanding is not safety.
Getting informed early is the only real advantage students have.
