SOS Campus Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a new federal mandate for colleges and universities to provide independent, confidential, and comprehensive support to sexual assault survivors, aiming to enhance survivor autonomy and access to resources.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to mandate that all institutions of higher education receiving federal financial assistance under Title IV designate an independent advocate for campus sexual assault prevention and response. This Advocate would be responsible for ensuring survivors receive comprehensive support services, guiding them through various processes, maintaining strict confidentiality, and conducting public awareness campaigns on campus.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for empowering sexual assault survivors by providing them with an independent advocate whose sole responsibility is to represent their interests, free from institutional conflicts. They contend that this will ensure survivors receive timely, confidential, and comprehensive support, including medical, legal, and counseling services, which is often lacking or perceived as biased within existing institutional structures.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly some higher education institutions, may argue that this bill imposes a significant unfunded mandate, creating substantial administrative and financial burdens. They might also raise concerns about potential conflicts with existing federal reporting requirements like the Clery Act, given the Advocate's strict confidentiality mandate, and question whether it duplicates services already provided.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2, adding new Section 124(a)(1) to HEA
Requirement for Independent Advocate Designation
This provision mandates that every institution of higher education receiving federal financial aid must designate an 'Independent Advocate for Campus Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.' This Advocate must be appointed based on experience in providing sexual assault survivor services. Institutions are required to notify survivors of the Advocate's existence and services, and the Secretary of Education must prescribe regulations for these appointments within 180 days.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this designation ensures a consistent, experienced, and dedicated resource for survivors, separate from institutional disciplinary processes, which can foster greater trust and more effective support.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this adds an unfunded mandate and administrative complexity for institutions, potentially duplicating existing services or creating jurisdictional confusion with current campus resources.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances institutional autonomy in managing campus affairs with the critical need for independent, specialized support for sexual assault survivors, potentially increasing administrative costs for institutions.
Section 2, adding new Section 124(a)(2) to HEA
Advocate's Independent Representation and Reporting
This section clarifies that the Advocate must represent the interests of the student survivor, even if those interests conflict with the institution's. It explicitly prohibits institutions from disciplining or retaliating against the Advocate for this representation. Furthermore, the Advocate must report to an individual outside the institution's sexual assault investigation and adjudication body and submit an annual report summarizing resource use and the number of male and female survivors assisted.
Section 2, adding new Section 124(c)(1) to HEA
Comprehensive Survivor Assistance Services
The Advocate is tasked with ensuring survivors receive 24-hour access to critical services, including information on reporting to law enforcement, emergency medical care, and forensic examinations. Additionally, they must ensure access to crisis intervention, ongoing counseling, information on survivor rights, and referrals to legal services. These services can be provided through memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with community-based organizations (including transportation) or directly on campus in consultation with such organizations. Survivors cannot be disciplined for reporting to the Advocate.
Section 2, adding new Section 124(c)(2), (3), (4) to HEA
Survivor Guidance, Adjudication Support, and Confidentiality
The Advocate is responsible for guiding survivors through various processes, including reporting, counseling, administrative, medical, academic accommodations, and legal avenues. At the survivor's request, the Advocate may attend any administrative or institution-based adjudication proceeding related to the assault. A key component is the Advocate's mandate to maintain strict privacy and confidentiality of the survivor and any witnesses, explicitly prohibiting notification of the institution or other authorities of identities or circumstances, unless required by state law.
Section 2, adding new Section 124(c)(5) to HEA
Public Awareness and Staff Training Campaign
The Advocate is required to conduct a public information campaign to inform students about their existence, contact information, and available services. This campaign must include posting information on the institution's website, in student orientation materials, and on posters displayed in various campus locations such as dormitories, cafeterias, and classrooms. Additionally, the Advocate must ensure that coaches, faculty, school administrators, resident advisors, and other staff are trained to provide this information to students.
This subsection clarifies that nothing in the new section establishing the Independent Advocate shall alter or amend the rights, duties, and responsibilities under section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act (known as the Clery Act) or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Section 2, adding new Section 124(d) to HEA
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope of new legislation and prevent unintended conflicts with established federal statutes, ensuring legal consistency.
Case for: Supporters argue this clause is crucial to ensure the new Advocate role complements, rather than undermines or replaces, existing federal protections and reporting requirements for campus safety and gender equity.
Case against: Critics might argue that despite this clause, the inherent tension between the Advocate's strict confidentiality (124(c)(4)) and an institution's Clery Act reporting obligations (which require disclosure of crime statistics) creates practical challenges that this clause does not fully resolve, potentially leading to compliance difficulties.
Estimated impact: Clarifies legal boundaries, but may still require institutions to develop new internal protocols to reconcile the Advocate's confidentiality with Clery Act reporting requirements without violating either mandate.