Title IX hearings are not civil or criminal proceedings, and are not designed to mimic formal trial proceedings. Per the Department of Education, institutions may provide for reasonable rules of order and decorum, which may be enforced through the removal of an advisor who refuses to comply with the rules. These Rules of Decorum require that all parties, advisors of choice, and UB staff treat others who are engaged in the process with respect.

The rules and standards apply equally to all parties and their advisors regardless of sex, gender, or other protected class, and regardless of whether they are in the role of complainant or respondent.

If a hearing is held under the Title IX Grievance Procedure for Student Respondents or Title IX Grievance Procedure for Employee Respondents, advisors are allowed to ask questions directly to the other party and witnesses. 

The following Rules of Decorum are to be observed in a hearing and applied equally to all parties (meaning the complainant and respondent) and advisors:

1. Questions must be conveyed in a neutral tone.
2. Parties and advisors will refer to other parties, witnesses, advisors, and institutional staff using the name and gender used by the person and shall not intentionally mis-name or mis-gender that person in communication or questioning.
3. No party may act abusively or disrespectfully during the hearing toward any other party or to witnesses, advisors, or decision-makers.
4. While an advisor may be an attorney, no duty of zealous advocacy should be inferred or enforced within this forum.
5. The advisor may not yell at, scream at, or badger a party or witness.
6. The advisor may not use profanity or make irrelevant ad hominem attacks upon a party or witness. Questions are meant to be interrogative statements used to test knowledge or understand a fact; they may not include accusations within the text of the question.
7. The advisor may not ask repetitive questions. This includes questions that have already been asked by the board/administrative hearing officer or the advisor in cross-examination. When the board chair/administrative hearing officer determines a question has been “asked and answered” or is otherwise not relevant, the advisor must move on.
8. Parties and advisors may take no action at the hearing that a reasonable person in the shoes of the affected party would view as intended to intimidate that person (whether party, witness, or official) into not participating in the process or meaningfully modifying their participation in the process.

The administrative hearing officer shall have sole discretion to determine if the Rules of Decorum have been violated. The administrative hearing officer will notify the offending person of any violation of the Rules.

Upon a second or further violation of the Rules, the administrative hearing officer shall have discretion to remove the offending person or allow them to continue participating in the hearing or other part of the process.

Where the administrative hearing officer removes a party’s advisor, the party may select a different advisor of their choice, or accept an advisor provided by UB for the limited purpose of cross-examination at the hearing. Reasonable delays, including the temporary adjournment of the hearing, may be anticipated should an advisor be removed. In a hearing under the Title IX Grievance Procedures, a party cannot serve as their own advisor.

The administrative hearing officer shall document any decision to remove an advisor in the written determination regarding responsibility.

For flagrant, multiple, or continual violations of this Rule, in one or more proceedings, advisors may be prohibited from participating in future proceedings at the institution in the advisor role on a temporary or permanent basis. Evidence of violation(s) of this agreement will be gathered by the Title IX Coordinator, Director of Student Conduct, or a designee of either, and presented to the Vice President for Student Life or designee for cases involving students, and Vice President for Finance and Administration or designee for cases involving employees.

The advisor accused may provide an explanation or alternative evidence, in writing, for consideration by the Vice President for Student Life or designee, or Vice President for Finance and Administration or designee, as applicable. Such evidence or explanation is due within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of a notice of a charge of violation of Rules of Decorum. There shall be no right to a live hearing, oral testimony, or cross-examination. The Vice President for Student Life or designee or Vice President for Finance and Administration or designee, as applicable, shall consider the evidence under a preponderance of the evidence standard and issue a finding in writing and, if the finding is “Responsible,” shall include a sanction.

The finding shall be issued in writing to all parties and advisors (if there is a current case pending) within thirty (30) days, unless extended for good cause. There is no appeal of this finding.

Where an advisor asks a relevant question in a manner that violates the Rules, such as yelling, screaming, or badgering, the question may not be deemed irrelevant by the decision-maker simply because of the manner it was delivered. Under that circumstance, the decision-maker will notify the advisor of the violation of the Rules, and, if the question is relevant, will allow the question to be re-asked in a respectful, non-abusive manner by the advisor (or by a replacement advisor, should the advisor be removed for violation of the Rules).