More Likely Than Not: An ATIXA Podcast

A BIT More Connected (with Tim Cason, M.Ed., and Makenzie Schiemann, Ph.D., M.S.)

More Likely Than Not, an ATIXA podcast, is for general information, educational, and discussion purposes only. It’s not legal advice. If you’re dealing with a specific issue, consult your institution’s general counsel or a qualified attorney familiar with Title IX and applicable state laws. Facts, policies, and jurisdiction matter. Safety and well-being are shared institutional responsibilities, and Title IX and Behavioral Intervention Teams (BITs) work best when they communicate rather than operate in silos. In this episode, TNG Consulting and NABITA colleagues Tim Cason, M.Ed., and Makenzie Schiemann, Ph.D., M.S., join Kayleigh and Joe to explore how campuses can coordinate across Title IX and BIT/CARE teams to assess risk, support students, and respond more holistically to complex situations. The conversation examines when Title IX Coordinators should loop in the BIT/CARE team, how institutions can share information appropriately without compromising privacy, and why early coordination matters. Tim and Makenzie also discuss the risks of isolated decision-making, the role of FERPA in information sharing, and how campuses can build stronger systems of support before concerns escalate. If you have ever wondered how institutions can balance compliance, care, and campus safety responsibilities effectively, we are more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Can Advocates Serve as Advisors?

More Likely Than Not, an ATIXA podcast, is for general information, educational, and discussion purposes only. It’s not legal advice. If you are navigating a specific issue, always consult with your institution’s general counsel or a qualified attorney familiar with Title IX and applicable state laws. Your specific facts, policy, context, and, of course, state laws matter. 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.

Brink of Horror: Navigating Tech-Facilitated Sexual Abuse (with Mikiba Morehead, Ed.D., M.A., and Adam Dodge, J.D.)

More Likely Than Not, an ATIXA podcast, is for general information, educational, and discussion purposes only. It’s not legal advice. If you are navigating a specific issue, always consult with your institution’s general counsel or a qualified attorney familiar with Title IX and applicable state laws. Your specific facts, policy, context, and, of course, state laws matter. 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.

“Please Do Not Download That”

More Likely Than Not, an ATIXA podcast, is for general information, educational, and discussion purposes only. It’s not legal advice. If you are navigating a specific issue, always consult with your institution’s general counsel or a qualified attorney familiar with Title IX and applicable state laws. Your specific facts, policy, context, and, of course, state laws matter. 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.

Listening to Oral Arguments Is Less Reliable Than Reading Tea Leaves (with Kim Pacelli, J.D., M.Ed., and Dan Fotoples, J.D., M.A.)

More Likely Than Not, an ATIXA podcast, is for general information, educational, and discussion purposes only. It’s not legal advice. If you are navigating a specific issue, always consult with your institution’s general counsel or a qualified attorney familiar with Title IX and applicable state laws. Your specific facts, policy, context, and, of course, state laws matter. 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.