Michigan House Bill HB4124

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/22/23
• Refer: 2/22/23
• Report Pass: 4/19/23
• Engrossed: 5/24/23
• Refer: 5/25/23
• Report Pass: 6/14/23
• Refer: 6/14/23
• Enrolled: 6/14/23
• Chaptered: 7/18/23
• Passed: 7/18/23

Caption

Crimes: other; preventing reporting of certain alleged crimes to title IX coordinator by use of position of authority; prohibit. Amends 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.1 - 750.568) by adding sec. 478b.

Impact

If enacted, this law significantly highlights the importance of reporting mechanisms within educational institutions, notably those governed by Title IX. By creating a legal deterrent against interference in reporting processes, the law seeks to create a safer environment for students by encouraging victims and witnesses to come forward without fear of retaliation or suppression. The criminal penalties outlined could potentially result in increased accountability among faculty and staff at colleges and universities.

Summary

House Bill 4124 amends the existing Michigan Penal Code to establish penalties for individuals in positions of authority at postsecondary educational institutions who attempt to prevent others from reporting violations related to Title IX. Specifically, it makes it a misdemeanor to use one's authority to hinder the reporting of alleged violations of certain sexual misconduct statutes. The bill aims to strengthen protections for reporting individuals by penalizing those who misuse their positions to maintain silence regarding misconduct.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 4124 is predominantly supportive, particularly among advocacy groups focused on campus safety and student rights. Proponents argue that the bill is a crucial step toward creating a campus culture that prioritizes transparency and accountability regarding sexual assault and harassment. However, there may be concerns expressed by some who question the practical enforcement of such laws and whether they could inadvertently lead to misuse or overreach.

Contention

Notable points of contention include concerns about how the language of the bill will be interpreted in practice, especially in ambiguous situations regarding authority and reporting obligations. Critics warn about the potential for increased bureaucratic complications within institutions as they navigate the implications of the new law. There may also be fears that the penalties could dissuade open dialogue about misconduct among staff and students, rather than facilitate it.