Title IX is a federal law that protects students at educational institutions receiving federal funding from discrimination on the basis of sex. The Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education, through formal rule making, issues guidance on processes schools must use when handling sexual misconduct in order to be considered compliant with the law. These requirements tend to differ based on the political ideologies of the current administration regarding government intervention in issues of sex-based discrimination in higher educational institutions. Currently, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is proposing prescriptive changes to the way sexual misconduct is handled under Title IX in an effort to make the proceedings more similar to the criminal justice system and the due process it affords accused parties. In this thesis, I argue that the statements and comments of university presidents for or against the current DeVos Title IX regulations are important to look at in order to understand how higher educational institutions accept, reject, or ignore sex-based discrimination. From my sample of 130 schools, I found five public statements and eighteen public comments on the proposed rule. These responses indicate much opposition from a diverse array of universities to the DeVos guidelines on Title IX. Schools argue against many of the provisions of the rule they see as detrimental to their students’ wellbeing, such as direct cross-examination between the parties, but more predominantly they argue against government intervention in their student conduct processes. These findings illuminate higher education institutions’ desire for independence above all else (at least under this current administration) in sex-based discrimination policymaking. This is important for policymakers, legislators, advocates, and students to know as they develop, navigate, and campaign for rights under Title IX.