The Office of Equity has jurisdiction over reports of stalking. In addition, regarding online harassment the Office of Equity has jurisdiction if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

• Either behavior had been instigated due to sex-based harassment, including on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
• Either behavior had been instigated on the basis of discriminating against an individual belonging to a protected class. 

If the behavior does not meet either criteria listed above that does NOT mean the behavior is not harmful, may be against University Policy, or prevent it from being considered illegal against the law. If the following behavior is out of the Office's jurisdiction, the Office of Equity may refer the report to an appropriate CU department. This includes:

• CU Denver Dean of Students Office
• CU Anschutz Medical Campus Office of Student Affairs
• CU Denver Human Resources
• CU Anschutz Medical Campus Human Resources  

The Office of Equity encourages all CU Denver and CU Anschutz Medical Campus community members to report concerning behavior, regardless of potential jurisdiction conflict, to ensure a safe learning and working environment.

There are multiple recognized benefits and risks to pursuing either course of action when deciding how to handle a potential stalker.

Benefits of Not Blocking

If the stalker is someone that the University has jurisdiction over or you would like to report to local law enforcement (LEA), it may be in your best interest to not block the individual. This option allows the University or LEAs to document all instances of stalking and potentially pursue disciplinary action against the individual. It may also serve as a way to monitor the stalker and report any escalation in behavior. Depending on the stalker, blocking may aggravate the individual and prompt more direct action against you, such as creating other profiles to stalk, making it harder to track them down. In this scenario, it may be best to ignore the stalker's contact requests and seek support in documenting the behavior.

Benefits of Blocking

Stalking and online harassment can be extremely traumatic to an individual, requiring considerable trauma-informed support in order to prevent additional negative impact on a person's mental health (Storey et al., 2023). For some, creating barriers between themselves and those enacting the harmful behavior may provide relief and stability. Depending on the stalker, it may inversely dissuade them from contacting you or attempting more direct action. In this scenario, blocking may be a de-escalatory strategy and communicate a clear boundary, although it is impossible to know exactly how a stalker may react.

Storey, J. E., Pina, A., Williams, C. S. (2023). The Impact of Stalking and Its Predictors: Characterizing the Needs of Stalking Victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(21-22), 11569-11594. doi: 10.1177/08862605231185303

Stalking is prohibited and illegal in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and all U.S territories. In addition, under the Federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), stalking that takes place across states may be considered and prosecuted as a federal crime. This means on top of reporting the behavior to your local law enforcement agency you can report the behavior to the corresponding state where the perpetrator of stalking resides. 

If you feel like your personal safety or wellbeing is in immediate danger, please call 911 as soon as possible. 

Yes, it is generally understood that under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution individuals have a right to free speech. This may include words and/or actions that someone may disagree with or even consider offensive. However, this protection is not absolute and as an educational institute there are instances where the institution may regulate or prohibit certain types of speech. What is NOT classified as on-campus free speech:

• Substantially disrupts or interferes with normal school operations. 
• Lewd, obscene, or offense to community standards*.
• Encourage illegal activities.
• Encourage harm or specifically threaten an individual or group.

For example: A university could investigate a student's social media post on Facebook advertising the sale of prescription stimulants during finals season as a "study supplement".

As our collective understanding of Title IX and free speech law has evolved over time, several court cases have established precedents that educational institutions may follow when addressing harassment, including stalking, even if the behavior was conducted off-campus. These are, but not limited to: 

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)* 

In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a school district had violated the plaintiff's 1st Amendment rights for suspending them from the school’s cheerleading team due to the nature of their speech did not create a substantial disruption or clearly infringe on the rights of others.  

The plaintiff was a student of Mahanoy Area High School (MAHS) who had failed to make their high school’s varsity cheerleading team and only made the junior varsity team. The plaintiff subsequently posted a Snapchat photo with the caption quote, “F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything.” The photo had been visible to students attending (MAHS) and, after learning of the photo’s existence and hearing student concern, suspended the plaintiff from the junior varsity team.  

The Supreme Court had affirmed a higher standard that school districts must meet when regulating off-campus speech, however, the decision also recognized that a school’s interest in potentially regulating student speech do not disappear when they are off campus. 

Chen v. Albany Unified School District (2022)

Question: What criteria would cause an educational institution to investigate a student's free speech, even when it takes place off campus?

In this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a district court rejecting the plaintiffs claim that the defendant, the school district, had violated their 1st Amendment right by subjecting the plaintiffs to disciplinary action.  

The plaintiffs were two high school students who had been a part of a private Instagram group that had posted a variety of racist, disturbing, and hateful comments and memes targeted at several of their classmates. This included content depicting a Black student belonging to the school’s basketball team and their coach, who is also Black, with nooses around their necks. Content from this private Instagram group was leaked to the wider school public, resulting in class disruption and even a student withdrawal. The school’s administration investigated the matter and subsequently suspended both students with recommendations to expulsion on the basis of race-based harassment.  

The Court had found that the Instagram activity, due to its nature and the substantial disruption caused, was not covered under the 1st Amendment. It affirmed that in certain instances a government entity may prevent harm if the speech, even off-campus, had created a “substantial disruption” or clearly infringed upon the rights of others impacting their ability to learn. 

If you want to learn more about how educational institutions determine whether they may regulate free speech, the following court cases are generally understood to have laid the general understanding for those rare instances. 

Tinker v. Des Moines ISD (1969)

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? 

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly? 

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 

Does a principal's deletion of newspaper articles violate a students' rights under the First Amendment?

Morse v. Frederick (2007) 

1. Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?
2. Does a school official have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when, in accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event?

* = The standards applied regarding the interpretation of content (e.g., is it offensive to the student body) are different between K12 and Universities. However, universities apply the same principles in determining whether speech is within their jurisdiction.  

Yes, the Office of Equity can still provide supportive and safety measures if, for any reason, you do not want to report the behavior to law enforcement. If the person enacting the stalking and/or online harassment is within our jurisdiction (i.e., a student, employee, or faculty member at CU Denver and CU Anschutz, the Office of Equity can still investigate the matter and potentially issue disciplinary action if the person enacting the harm is found responsible for violating University policy.