Smith College, a prestigious liberal arts institution in Northampton, Massachusetts, has long been a bastion for women's education since its founding in 1871. As one of the original Seven Sisters colleges, it has provided a unique environment tailored specifically for undergraduate women, fostering leadership, intellectual growth, and sisterhood in a single-sex setting. With around 2,500 undergraduates, the college receives federal funding, subjecting it to Title IX regulations. Recently, this historic mission has come under scrutiny amid evolving debates on gender identity and sex-based protections in higher education.

Understanding Title IX and Single-Sex Institutions

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. This landmark legislation has transformed opportunities for women in sports, academics, and campus life. Importantly, Title IX includes an exemption for single-sex undergraduate institutions, allowing colleges to maintain all-male or all-female student bodies based on biological sex. This provision recognizes the value of sex-segregated educational environments, which can offer distinct benefits like enhanced privacy, safety, and community bonds tailored to biological differences.

The law defines 'sex' as biological distinctions between males and females, a interpretation reinforced by recent executive actions and court rulings emphasizing immutable sex over self-identified gender. For an all-women's college to qualify under this exemption, its admissions and facilities must align with biological sex, not gender identity. Deviations could jeopardize federal funding and the institution's single-sex status.

The Catalyst: Defending Education's Civil Rights Complaint

In June 2025, Defending Education (DE), a nonprofit organization advocating for viewpoint diversity and sex-based rights in education, filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The complaint alleged that Smith College's policies discriminate against biological women by prioritizing gender identity over biological sex. Key issues raised include:

• Admissions: Smith admits applicants who self-identify as women, including transgender women (biological males) and nonbinary individuals, based solely on their affirmation of identity. This policy does not extend to biological females identifying as men, creating an asymmetry that allegedly disadvantages cisgender women in spots and scholarships.
• Housing and Restrooms: All single-occupancy restrooms are designated all-gender, with increasing multi-stall facilities following suit, potentially compromising female students' privacy and safety.
• Athletics and Locker Rooms: An all-gender locker room in athletic facilities allows biological males access to female-only spaces, raising fairness concerns in competitions and changing areas.

DE argued these practices violate Title IX, executive orders on sex discrimination, and OCR guidance, subverting the law's intent to protect biological women.

U.S. Department of Education Launches Formal Probe

On May 4, 2026, the OCR announced it had opened a full investigation into Smith College, marking a significant escalation. The probe examines whether the college's accommodations for gender identity encroach on sex-specific programs, potentially disqualifying it as a single-sex institution. Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey emphasized, “An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males. Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law.”

The investigation could span months or years, involving document reviews, interviews, and site visits. Noncompliance risks include loss of federal funds—critical for student aid and research—or mandated policy changes. This action aligns with the Trump administration's broader push to define sex biologically, as seen in rescinded transgender protections and sports bans.

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

Smith College's Transgender Inclusion Policy Explained

Smith updated its admissions policy in 2015 to welcome "people who identify as women—cis, trans, and nonbinary women." Self-identification suffices, without requiring medical transition. This shift, driven by student advocacy, aimed to create an inclusive environment amid growing transgender visibility. The college provides affirming care like hormone therapy and investigates bias incidents related to gender identity.

While Smith's Title IX office focuses on sexual misconduct, its equity policies interpret sex discrimination broadly to include gender identity. As of early 2025, following court vacaturs of Biden-era rules, Smith reverted to prior sexual misconduct policies. The college has not publicly responded to the probe, but past statements affirm commitment to LGBTQ+ students.

Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives

The investigation has sparked polarized reactions. Conservative groups and women's rights advocates hail it as a victory for protecting female-only spaces. DE's complaint underscores how gender identity policies can erode opportunities meant for biological women, citing Supreme Court precedents like United States v. Virginia.

Conversely, transgender advocates and higher education leaders decry it as an attack on inclusivity. Former Smith president Lynn Pasquerella called it "fear and intimidation," predicting institutions might abandon progressive policies to safeguard funding. Trans students at Smith have expressed fears of exclusion, emphasizing mental health impacts.

Legal experts note Title IX's ambiguity post-Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which extended sex protections to sexual orientation and gender identity but did not address single-sex exemptions directly. Ongoing litigation will shape outcomes.

Implications for Women's Colleges Nationwide

Smith is not alone; peers like Wellesley, Barnard, and Bryn Mawr admit trans women via self-ID. Mount Holyoke briefly allowed nonbinary but reverted. This probe could pressure similar institutions to tighten criteria, potentially reviving enrollment by appealing to sex-separatist feminists disillusioned by co-ed trends. Enrollment at women's colleges has declined 43% since 1970, partly due to cultural shifts.

For more on Title IX's role in single-sex education, see the U.S. Department of Education's announcement.

Broader Title IX Enforcement Trends

Under the current administration, OCR has ramped up probes into transgender policies, from K-12 bathrooms to college sports. Recent cases at San José State and UPenn saw institutions alter policies to exclude trans women from women's teams. Federal funding—over $100 billion annually—looms large, incentivizing compliance. This contrasts with prior emphases on expansive gender identity protections, now rolled back via executive orders.

Statistics show rising complaints: OCR resolved 1,200+ Title IX cases in 2025, many sex-segregation related. Higher ed leaders must navigate these shifts amid free speech, DEI scrutiny, and enrollment pressures.

Photo by Hg Creations on Unsplash

Potential Outcomes and Future Outlook

If substantiated, Smith may need to revise admissions to biological females only, redesignate facilities, or forfeit funds—affecting 70% of students on aid. Litigation could reach the Supreme Court, clarifying Title IX amid cultural divides. Optimists see restored purpose for women's colleges; skeptics warn of exclusionary precedents.

Actionable insights for administrators: Review policies against biological sex definitions, train staff, monitor OCR updates. Students and faculty should engage via town halls. Long-term, this may spur hybrid models balancing inclusion and sex protections.

Explore related analyses in Inside Higher Ed.

Navigating Policy Changes in Higher Education

This case exemplifies tensions between evolving social norms and statutory text. Colleges must define terms clearly—'sex' biologically per federal guidance—while supporting all students compassionately. Stakeholder dialogues, data-driven decisions, and legal counsel are key. As debates continue, institutions like Smith highlight higher ed's role in societal progress.

For the full complaint details, visit Defending Education's site.