Dorea Batté could not avoid the unwanted text messages and phone calls from a law school classmate at George Washington University. She tried blocking the man’s phone number, but he reached her using different numbers.

The harassment, which started the summer of 2018, continued for a few weeks, she said. So she visited the university’s Title IX office, which helps students navigate the federal law that bars sex discrimination in education.

The office helped broker a mutual no-contact order in which Batté and her classmate agreed to stay away from each other, she said. She graduated in 2019 without any more issues from the classmate. But when Batté applied for the D.C. bar earlier this year, she learned that GWU had told the D.C. Court of Appeals, which oversees admissions to the bar, that Batté had been disciplined by the university. 

The only item listed on her disciplinary record: the no-contact order.

Batté alerted the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which convinced the university to clarify the order was not disciplinary. But Batté and her lawyer say GWU would not agree to stop reporting all no-contact orders as discipline, potentially deterring future students from reporting harassment.

Scott Michelman, legal director for the ACLU of D.C., said students “could be forced to suffer harassment in silence out of fear it could impact their future chances for bar admissions.”

“It would be profoundly chilling,” he said.

In a statement, GWU spokeswoman Crystal Nosal said the university is “glad to hear that this student reported that her individual concern was resolved.” Nosal declined to comment further on the case because she said the university cannot discuss issues involving individual students. She said the university does not consider no-contact orders as punishment and is no longer reporting them to state bars.

“Mutual no-contact orders are not disciplinary actions, they are not reported to third parties as disciplinary actions, and they are not listed as a sanction on university conduct records,” Nosal said.

But that did not match Batté’s experience.

In January, Elizabeth L. Ewert, an associate dean of students, signed a legal form certifying Batté graduated with a law degree from GWU. On the same form, Ewert checked a box indicating Batté violated the law school honor code or was disciplined by the university, according to a copy of the form provided by the ACLU.

As an explanation, Ewert attached a copy of the no-contact order barring Batté from contacting the classmate who allegedly harassed her. No further explanation was provided on the form, which was part of Batté’s application to the D.C. bar.  

Ewert did not respond to a request seeking comment.

In April, after the ACLU contacted the university on behalf of Batté, Ewert wrote a letter explaining that Batté requested the mutual no-contact order. In the letter, she said the order “does not begin a disciplinary process nor is it noted as a disciplinary action.”

She stopped short of saying the order should not have been reported to the bar.

“Based on my understanding of the duty of extraordinary candor to the state bar, I ensured reporting of Ms. Batte’s receipt of a no-contact order as part of the law school’s character and fitness reporting,” Ewert said.

Michelman, the ACLU lawyer, called the decision to report the order as discipline “affirmatively misleading.” He said it is “laudable” if the university is no longer reporting no-contact orders as discipline and “shows they have learned an important lesson from their misstep regarding Ms. Batté.”

Many colleges and universities frequently issue no-contact orders after a report of sexual misconduct or after negative interactions between two students, said Howard Kallem, a former attorney for the civil rights arm of the U.S. Department of Education.

Kallem, who retired after serving as  Duke University’s Title IX Coordinator for nearly five years, said the orders are used as safety or preventative measures to thwart future misconduct or disagreements. The orders are not considered disciplinary under federal law.

Batté said she feared having the no-contact order included as part of her application to the bar could have jeopardized her chances of practicing law in the District. Applicants’ personal history and character are reviewed as part of the admissions process.

The university’s Title IX office described multiple options for dealing with harassment, including a formal investigation. She chose the no-contact order because she said it seemed like the least severe course of action. 

“It really worried me,” she said. “It was starting to get stressful as to what the bar would believe or take into consideration because GW’s supposed to be a very reputable school.”