In this year-end episode, Kayleigh and Joe welcome TNG Partner and ATIXA President Saundra K. Schuster, J.D., M.S., whose decades of expertise have shaped the Title IX field’s approach to pregnancy protections. Together, they visit the ghost of regulations past, examining the original 1975 Title IX framework and its foundational protections for pregnant students.

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continue to offer modifications and support for pregnant and parenting students, sharing best practices from the now-rescinded 2024 rule.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.

This week on More Likely Than Not, Kayleigh and Joe explore the ripple effects of the federal government shutdown. At the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), investigations are paused, updates to resolution agreements have stalled, and technical assistance is all but nonexistent. Title IX practitioners are left navigating compliance in the dark, literally, after OCR’s website went offline for nearly a day.

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.

This week on More Likely Than Not, Kayleigh and Joe welcome colleague W. Scott Lewis, J.D., Managing Partner at TNG and Chair of the NABITA Advisory Board. They discuss how Title IX compliance and equity are moving targets, with Little v. Hecox and BPJ v. West Virginia poised to shape national policy on transgender athletes.

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.

Before listeners download Part 2 of this series, we want to offer a content warning. This discussion centers on antisemitism and related issues of discrimination, bias, and hate speech. Some of the examples and language referenced may be difficult to hear. Our intention in sharing this conversation is educational, to provide context, raise awareness, and help Title VI practitioners navigate these complex challenges. Please listen with care, and know that some listeners may prefer to step away or skip this episode if the subject matter feels too heavy.

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.

Before listeners download Part 1 of this series, we want to offer a content warning. This discussion centers on antisemitism and related issues of discrimination, bias, and hate speech. Some of the examples and language referenced may be difficult to hear. Our intention in sharing this conversation is educational, to provide context, raise awareness, and help Title VI practitioners navigate these complex challenges. Please listen with care, and know that some listeners may prefer to step away or skip this episode if the subject matter feels too heavy.

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

This week on More Likely Than Not, Kayleigh and Joe unpack recent cases testing how schools handle harassment, including a Fourth Circuit ruling that emphasizes the need for remedies to be “reasonably calculated” to stop misconduct. They ask: What might have changed if Title IX coordinators had been involved?

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.

Hosts Kayleigh Baker, J.D., and Joe Vincent, M.L.S., sit down with Beth Gellman-Beer, J.D., former Regional Director at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Gellman-Beer offers a rare glimpse into how OCR transformed from a low-profile administrative office to a highly visible, politically charged agency after the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.

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.

Joe and Kayleigh break down three recent court decisions shaping education and civil rights compliance: a Title VII case testing the Supreme Court’s stricter “substantial hardship” standard, a Seventh Circuit decision that a single sexual assault incident meets the “SPOO” criteria (severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive), and a ruling against a university that cut women’s sports teams, upholding Title IX's long-standing compliance standards despite the rollback of Chevron deference.

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)