This vital question has not been examined fully by the courts with regard to the duty to bargain the terms and conditions of employment in light of the Title IX interim guidance set forth in September 2017. As institutions now enjoy the right under the interim guidance to choose between preponderance of the evidence and the heightened clear and convincing evidence to determine a campus sexual assault violation, the question now turns to whether campus labor unions have a seat at the table when institutions make this decision. Which standard of review is applicable if a unionized campus employee is alleged to have violated campus Title IX policy? Campus labor unions may, in fact, argue that agreed upon collective bargaining agreement controls (many of which require the clear and convincing evidence standard), while the campus administration may well rely upon the potentially lower standard (preponderance). Thus, a term and condition of employment. The following document analyzes this issue under the 2011 DCL, and remains heavily applicable and relevant to the upcoming 2018 Title IX Guidance. Title IX, Labor Unions and the Duty to Collectively Bargain.