Less than an hour after I posted about our public record issues with the University of West Florida, the UWF Office of General Counsel sent us over 100 written comments from diverse stakeholders, including students, alumni, faculty, staff, parents, local residents, and advocacy organizations. An overwhelming majority opposed the changes.
Background: On Aug. 20, UWF published a Notice of Proposed Amendment to Regulation 3.010, which would significantly alter the university’s definition of sexual harassment. The changes include:
Previous Definition: Unwelcome conduct based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity that is sufficiently severe or pervasive so that it alters the terms and conditions of the Complainant’s employment or educational environment.
Proposed Definition: Unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex, as defined and prohibited by applicable federal and state law, that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive so that it unreasonably denies the Complainant equal access to the University’s education program or activity.
Who Spoke Up
Commenters included:
- Current UWF students expressing fear for their safety
- Alumni from classes spanning decades (2005-2025)
- Faculty and staff members
- Parents and prospective students
- Local business owners and community members
- Equality Florida, the state’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization
Key Themes of Opposition
- Removal of LGBTQ+ Protections
The most consistent concern centered on removing explicit protections based on “gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” Numerous commenters argued this sends a message that LGBTQ+ students are no longer entitled to protection from harassment.
- Alumni Laynie Gibson wrote: “LGBTQ+ students deserve explicit protection from harassment, not the message that the university will only provide the bare minimum protection required by law.”
- Unreasonably High Threshold
Many commenters objected to requiring harassment to be “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive” that it “unreasonably denies” access to education. Multiple people questioned what constitutes “reasonable” harassment.
- Student Stephanie Scarano asked: “There should be no ‘reasonable’ amount of sexual harassment… Who decides which harassment is acceptable and which is not?”
- Vague and Problematic Language
The terms “objectively offensive” and “unreasonably” drew particular criticism. Commenters argued these create ambiguity rather than clarity, potentially making it harder for victims to report or prove their cases.
- Lack of Transparency
A significant procedural concern emerged around the cancellation of a Student Affairs Committee meeting scheduled for August 14, where these changes were to be discussed publicly. The meeting was cancelled on August 13, and amended regulations were posted on August 20 with a comment deadline of September 3—immediately following Labor Day weekend.
- Many commenters described this process as “underhanded,” “undemocratic,” and lacking in transparency.
- Institutional and Legal Risks
Several commenters with legal or higher education backgrounds warned that the changes could increase the university’s legal liability by creating frameworks demonstrating deliberate indifference to student safety.
- Impact on Reporting
Multiple commenters cited research showing that victims already underreport sexual harassment due to doubts about being taken seriously. They argued the higher threshold would further discourage reporting.
Detailed Concerns
Some commenters raised specific issues:
- Consent definitions: Removing “intimidation” and “manipulation” as factors that invalidate consent was seen as dangerous, particularly given power dynamics in faculty-student relationships
- Enforcement challenges: Questions about who determines what is “objectively offensive” or constitutes “unreasonable” denial of access
- Campus culture: Concerns that weakened protections would embolden harassment and create a hostile environment
- Recruitment and retention: Warnings that these changes would deter prospective students and damage the university’s reputation
Student Luca Fess asked pointed questions: “What qualifies as REASONABLE impact from being sexually assaulted or harassed? Will perpetrators receive no consequences if the harassment is deemed to not have reasonable impact?”
- Graduate student Carter Hyde provided extensive analysis, questioning how the changes protect free speech: “There is no such thing as ‘reasonabl[e] deni[al]’ of equal access.”
The comments that UWF released contained email addresses and phone numbers, which may be a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. We have redacted that all emails and phone numbers of those making comments – written comments (1).
Town Hall Tonight
The Student Government Association and the Dean of Students Office are hosting a Town Hall meeting on the proposed changes from 5 to 6:30 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 29, in the UWF Conference Center (Building 22) ballroom A/B. The meeting is open to students, faculty, staff, alumni and the public.
If you like our reporting, consider buying us a cup of coffee – here. Your donation will help broaden our reporting. Thank you.