An ongoing #MeToo-type discussion at the University of Hawaii at Manoa got underway about five years ago. That’s when investigators from the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued open invitations to meet with students, faculty, staff, administrators and regents to talk privately or in focus groups about sexual harassment and assault.

Then in 2014, UH-Manoa landed on a list of 55 campuses nationwide tagged for OCR scrutiny to ensure compliance with Title IX, which requires schools that receive federal funds to not discriminate on the basis of gender. While sexual harassment and violence are not mentioned in the Civil Rights-era legislation, it’s understood — with backing from court rulings — that schools must address both.

The sweeping Obama administration effort aimed to bring more transparency to this issue. And at the UH’s flagship campus, that aim is yielding constructive progress.

Last week, the university announced a “voluntary resolution agreement,” which concludes the investigation, although compliance monitoring continues. In the OCR’s review of nearly 90 complaints submitted to UH-Manoa from 2010 to 2016, the campus fell short of full compliance with Title IX. However, it already has taken all but one in a set of corrective steps outlined in the agreement.

OCR’s probe has rightly shined a spotlight on murky and emotionally charged matters. At UH-Manoa and elsewhere around the country, needed changes are in the works.

In more than half of the UH-Manoa cases reviewed, OCR revealed that the university dropped the ball by not pursuing them for reasons such as complaints were secondhand; the alleged victim did not want to pursue the matter; or the accused was not a student.

It’s alarming that UH-Manoa responded to such challenges with inaction. Linda Mangel, OCR’s regional director, wrote in the letter of findings: “In cases such as these, the university should evaluate what steps it can take in the context of its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students.” Clearly, the campus must now remain committed to proactive response.

Conversely, some cases UH-Manoa did tackle took an unusually long time to resolve, and lacked information explaining the delay. In one, a student accused of rape by another student was banned from student housing during the university’s investigation, which took longer than five months. Although officials sent the accused letters and met with him, he repeatedly violated the ban.

The OCR pointed out that the campus shares blame for subjecting the complainant to a hostile environment. In this case, the rattled student’s grades suffered and she considered dropping out due to the ban violation. What’s more, the university apparently fell short of a Title IX requirement to complete an investigation in a reasonably prompt time-frame.

Schools that violate the federal law and fail to address problems identified by OCR risk losing federal dollars.

To the UH system’s credit, it has made strides toward better compliance by creating an Office of Institutional Equity to oversee compliance at its 10 campuses. Also, a Title IX office that receives on-campus complaints was established at UH-Manoa about three years ago. Other improvements range from stepped up staff training to the launch of a campus climate survey of all students.

The remaining step requires the UH to contact people involved in some cases dating back to 2013, to give them a chance to register concerns about the report processing.

Both the #MeToo movement and U.S. Education Department’s higher-ed examination of Title IX compliance are bringing needed clarity and candor to discussions about sexual harassment and assault. UH-Manoa must continue the discussion and its push toward fully achieving and maintaining a safe and respectful campus environment.