This en banc opinion reverses a summary judgment the district court had granted the University of Arizona in a Title IX sex harassment claim based on a sexual assault by a male student on a football scholarship against a woman student in off-campus housing.  To obtain damages under Title IX for student-on-student harassment, a plaintiff must show (1) that the educational institution had substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs; (2) that the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denied its victims the equal access to education that Title IX is designed to protect; (3) that a school official with authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures has actual knowledge of the discrimination; (4) that the school acted with deliberate indifference to the harassment; and (5) that the school’s deliberate indifference must, at a minimum, cause students to undergo harassment, or make them liable or vulnerable to it.  Here, those elements were satisfied.  UofA exercised disciplinary authority over students for on- and off-campus conduct, and more strictly supervised student athletes, particularly those on athletic scholarships like the assaulter in this case.  It thereby exercised substantial control over the harasser and the context in which the harassment occurred.  There was evidence to show that officials with authority knew that the assaulter had previously assaulted two other women students but had done nothing about it–but that if they had informed the football coach, the assaulter would have been kicked off the team, lost his scholarship and likely have been expelled all before the date on which he assaulted plaintiff in off-campus student housing.