Additionally, recipients have traditionally employed either the preponderance of the proof typical or the apparent and convincing proof regular for a range of student and personnel misconduct proceedings, underneath a wide variety of rationales for deciding on 1 or the other. Start Printed Page 30383 many recipients have historically employed clear and convincing evidence as an evidentiary normal for numerous sorts of student or employee misconduct. Comments: A number of commenters asserted that the preponderance of the proof regular will increase the total precision of the technique due to the fact it is an mistake-minimizing standard and argued that the distinct and convincing evidence common would boost bogus detrimental glitches to a higher extent than it cuts down false optimistic faults, consequently lessening the accuracy of Title IX outcomes. For the motives defined above the Department thinks that either the preponderance of the proof normal, or the clear and convincing evidence common, is an acceptable typical in Title IX grievance procedures, which differs from civil litigation. Discussion: The Department acknowledges the arguments raised by several commenters that the Department should mandate a preponderance of the proof regular in Title IX proceedings for causes together with fairness, consistency with civil litigation, and regularity with other civil rights regulations like Title VI and Title VII.
