Second, a court would look to if Ludlum’s actions were permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. It is clear that Ludlum singled out Nathan because he was an effeminate-looking man. She referred to him as “Adam Lambert,” because she felt he shared a similar physical build to the homosexual singer. The same problems occurred in Mina; in that case, the student was targeted “for her resemblance to Hilton” (Mina, 748) and was continually referred to as “Paris,” because of that likeness. Moreover, Ludlum’s comments ridiculed Nathan – his “male-whore” comments were on a written exam distributed to the whole class, which caused some of his classmates to ridicule him.

Finally, a court would look to if Ludlum’s comments were pervasive and severe enough that they altered his educational environment. The court in Mina explained that pervasive comments are “more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted” (Mina, 745). In this case, Ludlum’s comments were certainly pervasive – Nathan explained that she has made offensive remarks “just about every day since the year began.” These comments were also severe as they “transcended the bounds of propriety and decency, let alone harmless humor, and become actionable harassment based on . . . sex” (Mina, 729). To refer to a student as a male-whore “who is actively taking an inventory of the other men in the classroom” is hardly a harmless joke. These comments definitely altered Nathan’s educational environment at RhodeCali’s. He “can’t walk into that classroom anymore” and failed several of his final exams as a result of the stress. The same result happened in Mina – the student testified she that “because of her treatment, she was unable to concentrate on her studies.” (Mina, 748)

III: RHODECALI IS LIABLE BECAUSE THEIR ACTIONS CONSTITUTED DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO DISCRIMINATION

The courts have created challenging hurdles for a plaintiff who wants to sue a school over an instructor’s sexual harassment. In Clovis-Morrison, the school was not liable for the English teacher’s actions because the principal – who had been alerted about the teacher’s offensive comments – was not given enough information to see the “possibility that [the teacher] was involved in a sexual relationship with a student” (Clovis-Morrison, 291). Likewise, “the failure to promulgate a grievance procedure does not itself constitute ‘discrimination’ under Title IX” (Clovis-Morrison, 286). However, Nathan’s case is different. She did not wait until the next semester to file a complaint like in Mina (Mina, 741), nor were administrators only told a partial story, as in Clovis-Morrison. Nathan complained to Ludlum and her guidance counselor during the semester, but the latter insisted Ludlum was just joking. The guidance counselor had actual knowledge of Ludlum’s actions and had the power to stop them – she could have taken the complaints to school administrators or to Ludlum directly. Doing so likely would have initiated a formal inquiry as in Mina and the actions probably would have stopped. Instead, the counselor failed to act and Ludlum’s offensive conduct continued. Such inaction constitutes deliberate indifference to discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Nathan Drake’s experiences at RhodeCali’s State University reflect the unfortunate pattern of unwanted sexual conduct between teachers and their students. Professor Ludlum’s conduct constitutes sexual harassment – not only did she isolate Nathan from his peers and cause him deliberate anxiety, Nathan’s academic problems directly stem from Ludlum’s actions. Finally, the counselor’s attempt to ignore the problem – perhaps to the eff