# data[].attributes.body
The information in this legal guide is from the viewpoint of a higher education professional and primarily focuses on race and college admissions. I currently work for a large flagship institution and the discussion of race, diversity and recruitment often comes up. The impact of race in relation to college admissions is a controversial topic so I was interested in learning the legal and ethical views behind the subject.

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative action allows for institutions to increase their diversity and opportunities for those that may otherwise not have ability to attend. It levels the playing field to assist low income, first generation, and students of color. Affirmative action has been most recently a controversial topic since the Obama Administration Documents issued between 2011 and 2016 were withdrawn by the Trump Administration. These documents provided voluntary guidance for institutions that wanted to use race to achieve campus diversity. That, in combination with the recent court ruling regarding Harvard University’s admissions practices make it an ongoing concern (National Association for College Admissions Counseling, n.d). This in combination with the 2019 College Admissions Bribery Scandal are shining on light on the college admissions process and practices in place. As a current professional in the field, I foresee institutions continuing to review their practices to ensure legal and ethical compliance while still being able to increase diversity .

National Association for College Admissions Counseling. (n.d.). Diversity and Access. Retrieved from https://www.nacacnet.org/knowledge-center/marginalized-populations/diversity-and-access.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource from the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) educates the reader on the benefit derived from having diverse student bodies and race conscious admissions.  Contains litigation information about Fisher vs. UT Austin (2016) and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2019).

National Association for College Admissions Counseling. (n.d.). Diversity and Access. Retrieved from https://www.nacacnet.org/knowledge-center/marginalized-populations/diversity-and-access

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Regardless of whether institutions use race-conscious or race-neutral admission policies, NACAC recognizes and seeks to educate the community on the substantial benefits derived from a diverse student body and the complexity of the admission process. ​​​​​​​​​This page offers the most recent guidance for NACAC members on race-conscious admission.

Current litigation, including a lawsuit against University of North Carolina, continue to pose potential threats to the future of race-conscious admission policies. NACAC will continue to changes and will update this webpage as necessary.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2019)
The US district judge of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Harvard, finding "no persuasive documentary evidence of any racial animus or conscious prejudice against Asian Americans."

Read NACAC's press release on this decision.
Fisher v. UT Austin (2016)
The Fisher II decision upholds UT-Austin's use of race-conscious admissions and preserves the earlier positions that colleges have a compelling interest in ensuring student body diversity.

Read NACAC's press release on this decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Regardless of whether institutions use race-conscious or race-neutral admission policies, NACAC recognizes and seeks to educate policymakers on the substantial benefits derived from a diverse student body and the complexity of the admission process. ​​​​​​​​​This page offers the most recent guidance for NACAC members on race-conscious admission.

# data[].attributes.body
Now More Than Ever, We Need Diversity in Admissions

The article discusses the guidelines drafted by the Trump administration on the use of race in college admissions and affirmative action.

The 2016 Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin is the most recent case where the law has endorsed the use of affirmative action to achieve a diverse student body.

Higher education institutions are able to to use race as a consideration when making admissions decisions.

College admissions must think is it ethical to prefer certain groups based on under representation or past discrimination.

Yudof, M. G., & Moran, R. F. (2018, July 11). Now More Than Ever, We Need Diversity in Admissions. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Now-More-Than-Ever-We-Need/243897

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Now More Than Ever, We Need Diversity in Admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For 40 years, the Supreme Court has recognized diversity as a viable factor in college admissions. Trump is moving to undermine that consensus.

# data[].attributes.body
That Other Affirmative-Action Case: The Battle Over UNC’s Admissions Policies Heats Up

Students for Fair Admissions alleges that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was unconstitutional as it gives significant racial preferences to underrepresented minority applicants and contends that the university can achieve racial diversity without considering an applicant's race.

Chapel Hill disputed the allegations stating that race is considered only in context  of other applicant factors and reassures that the universities admissions policies and practices comply with the constitutional laws in place.

Hoover, E. (2019, January 18). That Other Affirmative-Action Case: The Battle Over UNC's Admissions Policies Heats Up. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/That-Other-Affirmative-Action/245519

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill gives "significant racial preferences" to underrepresented minority applicants while ignoring race-neutral alternatives for achieving diversity, according to documents filed on Friday in federal court in Winston-Salem, N.C. Those allegations come from Students for Fair Admissions, the advocacy group that's challenging race-conscious policies at two big-name campuses.

In its motion for summary judgment, Students for Fair Admissions, known as SFFA, argued that UNC unfairly uses race "to ensure the admission of the vast majority of underrepresented minorities." The group leans on an analysis by a Duke University economist who found that Chapel Hill uses races "in a mechanical, formulaic way," according to court documents.

UNC, which filed its own motion for summary judgment on Friday, rejected those claims, stating that the educational benefits of diversity are critical to its educational mission. "The undisputed material facts," its filing says, "demonstrate that the university's admissions approach is constitutionally sound." And UNC stated that it had "rigorously assessed" race-neutral strategies, yet concluded that none of them would produce desirable results.

Back in 2014, Students for Fair Admissions filed federal lawsuits against Harvard University and UNC, alleging that both institutions' admissions practices were discriminatory. Last fall Harvard officials took the witness stand during a three-week trial in Boston (a judge is expected to rule on the case this year). Now one of the nation's most-prominent public universities is preparing to defend its own admissions practices in court.

If drawn-out legal dramas are your thing, go ahead and get comfy: This will probably be a long-running double feature. Legal experts expect one or both cases to end up at the Supreme Court.

The two lawsuits are similar but not identical. The Harvard case hinges on the question of whether the university discriminates against Asian-American students by holding them to a higher standard than other applicants. The lawsuit against UNC claims that the university puts a heavy thumb on the scale for underrepresented minority students. Both lawsuits accuse the universities of going beyond what the Supreme Court has allowed when considering race in admissions.

The plaintiff in the UNC case, a white male from North Carolina whose name has not been disclosed, applied for a spot in the university's 2014 freshman class, but was denied. His credentials included a 1510 (out of a possible 1600) on the SAT, a 32 (out of a possible 36) on the ACT, and perfect scores on four Advanced Placement exams, according to the lawsuit. The applicant, it says, "was denied the opportunity to compete ... on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to UNC-Chapel Hill's discriminatory admissions policies."

Students for Fair Admissions submitted evidence that, it argues, reveals a keen focus on applicants' race among admissions officers.

'An Endless Game of Whack-a-Mole'

Chapel Hill strongly disputed each of SFFA's allegations. In its holistic review of each applicant, admissions officers may consider his or her race or ethnicity, according to its legal filing, "but only in the context of a everything else known about the applicant."

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions programs, which, it has said, must be narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. UNC argued that its policy is just that: While race might be a "plus" for a given applicant, it isn't a dominant factor. The university said that it does not use racial quotas or set-asides.

In its motion, UNC described its efforts to achieve the educational benefits of diversity as "significant and ongoing." The university said it "continues to face challenges" in enrolling underrepresented minority students, especially black males, Hispanics, and Native Americans, hindering its ability to provide the benefits of diversity to the campus.

UNC also cited evidence that minority students are underrepresented in some classes and majors, and that they report feelings of "isolation and unfair pressure to represent their race and ethnicity."

Questions about race-neutral strategies loom large in this case. Students for Fair Admissions contends that Chapel Hill could achieve racial diversity without considering applicants' race. And the group has tried to turn the university's own evidence against it.

In its lawsuit, Students for Fair Admissions cites an amicus brief that UNC submitted in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the case that was the Supreme Court's last consideration of race-conscious admissions. The brief, which supported the University of Texas, was based on a 2012 study in which Chapel Hill's admissions office analyzed the potential effects of adopting an admission plan similar to the one in Texas, which guarantees admission to students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high-school class.

Such a plan would increase the percentage of underrepresented students at Chapel Hill by one percentage point (to 16 percent), UNC found. Yet it also concluded that the academic quality of the class would decline. The average SAT score of the incoming class would drop by 56 points, for instance, and the predicted grade-point average of first-year students would decline, to 3.16 from 3.26. (In its lawsuit, SFFA called the projected decrease in average SAT scores "trivial.")

UNC later convened a Working Group on Race-Neutral Alternatives, which examined the potential impact of five different admission plans. None of those race-neutral plans, the panel determined, would allow the university to maintain the level of both diversity and academic quality achieved through its current process, according to court documents.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that colleges using race-conscious programs must make good-faith efforts to assess the viability of race-neutral alternatives. Yet UNC argued in its motion that Students for Fair Admissions can't force it "to play an endless game of Whack-a-Mole in which it must systematically test every concept that SFFA can imagine."

UNC received about 43,000 applications for the Class of 2022. It accepted about 9,000 of them.

The university has spent nearly $17 million on legal fees and expenses related to the case.

The university has spent nearly $17 million on legal fees and expenses related to the case, The News & Observer reported in August.

By filing motions for summary judgment, both parties argued that the judge should rule in their favor based on their written filings, instead of holding a trial. In an email to the campus on Friday, Carol L. Folt, the university's chancellor, and Robert A. Blouin, executive vice chancellor and provost, wrote: "Our admissions policies and practices comply with the spirit and letter of the law, and we will continue to defend our position in this nationally significant case."

Edward J. Blum, the conservative activist who founded Students for Fair Admissions, also led the legal challenge to Texas' race-conscious admissions program.

"It is our hope," he said in a written statement, "that the court will carefully study the statistical and testimonial evidence amassed against UNC and end these unfair, unnecessary, and unlawful practices."

Eric Hoover writes about admissions trends, enrollment-management challenges, and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He's on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is eric.hoover@chronicle.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
That Other Affirmative-Action Case: The Battle Over UNC's Admissions Policies Heats Up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill gives "significant racial preferences" to underrepresented minority applicants while ignoring race-neutral alternatives for achieving diversity, according to documents filed on Friday in federal court in Winston-Salem, N.C. Those allegations come from Students for Fair Admissions, the advocacy group that's challenging race-conscious policies at two big-name campuses.

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Law: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)

Considered a  landmark Supreme Court case that ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

In his lawsuit, Brown claimed that schools for black children were not equal to the white schools, and that segregation violated the so-called “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment, which holds that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Plessy Decision

Although the Declaration of Independence stated that "All men are created equal," due to the institution of slavery, this statement was not to be grounded in law in the United States until after the Civil War (and, arguably, not completely fulfilled for many years thereafter). In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified and finally put an end to slavery. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) strengthened the legal rights of newly freed slaves by stating, among other things, that no state shall deprive anyone of either "due process of law" or of the "equal protection of the law." Finally, the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) further strengthened the legal rights of newly freed slaves by prohibiting states from denying anyone the right to vote due to race.

Despite these Amendments, African Americans were often treated differently than whites in many parts of the country, especially in the South. In fact, many state legislatures enacted laws that led to the legally mandated segregation of the races. In other words, the laws of many states decreed that blacks and whites could not use the same public facilities, ride the same buses, attend the same schools, etc. These laws came to be known as Jim Crow laws. Although many people felt that these laws were unjust, it was not until the 1890s that they were directly challenged in court. In 1892, an African-American man named Homer Plessy refused to give up his seat to a white man on a train in New Orleans, as he was required to do by Louisiana state law. For this action he was arrested. Plessy, contending that the Louisiana law separating blacks from whites on trains violated the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, decided to fight his arrest in court. By 1896, his case had made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court ruled against Plessy. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice Henry Billings Brown, writing the majority opinion, stated that:

"The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to endorse social, as distinguished from political, equality. . . If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane."

The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshal Harlan, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment another way, stated, "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Justice Harlan's dissent would become a rallying cry for those in later generations that wished to declare segregation unconstitutional.

Sadly, as a result of the Plessy decision, in the early twentieth century the Supreme Court continued to uphold the legality of Jim Crow laws and other forms of racial discrimination. In the case of Cumming v. Richmond (Ga.) County Board of Education (1899), for instance, the Court refused to issue an injunction preventing a school board from spending tax money on a white high school when the same school board voted to close down a black high school for financial reasons. Moreover, in Gong Lum v. Rice (1927), the Court upheld a school's decision to bar a person of Chinese descent from a "white" school.

The Road to Brown

(Note: Some of the case information is from Patterson, James T. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy. Oxford University Press; New York, 2001.)

Early Cases

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy and similar cases, many people continued to press for the abolition of Jim Crow and other racially discriminatory laws. One particular organization that fought for racial equality was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) founded in 1909. For about the first 20 years of its existence, it tried to persuade Congress and other legislative bodies to enact laws that would protect African Americans from lynchings and other racist actions. Beginning in the 1930s, though, the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund began to turn to the courts to try to make progress in overcoming legally sanctioned discrimination. From 1935 to 1938, the legal arm of the NAACP was headed by Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston, together with Thurgood Marshall, devised a strategy to attack Jim Crow laws by striking at them where they were perhaps weakest-in the field of education. Although Marshall played a crucial role in all of the cases listed below, Houston was the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund while Murray v. Maryland and Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada were decided. After Houston returned to private practice in 1938, Marshall became head of the Fund and used it to argue the cases of Sweat v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education.

Pearson v. Murray (Md. 1936)

Disappointed that the University of Maryland School of Law was rejecting black applicants solely because of their race, beginning in 1933 Thurgood Marshall (who was himself rejected from this law school because of its racial acceptance policies) decided to challenge this practice in the Maryland court system. Before a Baltimore City Court in 1935, Marshall argued that Donald Gaines Murray was just as qualified as white applicants to attend the University of Maryland's School of Law and that it was solely due to his race that he was rejected. Furthermore, he argued that since the "black" law schools which Murray would otherwise have to attend were nowhere near the same academic caliber as the University's law school, the University was violating the principle of "separate but equal." Moreover, Marshall argued that the disparities between the "white" and "black" law schools were so great that the only remedy would be to allow students like Murray to attend the University's law school. The Baltimore City Court agreed and the University then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. In 1936, the Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of Murray and ordered the law school to admit him. Two years later, Murray graduated.

Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Beginning in 1936, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund decided to take on the case of Lloyd Gaines, a graduate student of Lincoln University (an all-black college) who applied to the University of Missouri Law School but was denied because of his race. The State of Missouri gave Gaines the option of either attending an all-black law school that it would build (Missouri did not have any all-black law schools at this time) or having Missouri help to pay for him to attend a law school in a neighboring state. Gaines rejected both of these options, and, employing the services of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, he decided to sue the state in order to attend the University of Missouri's law school. By 1938, his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and, in December of that year, the Court sided with him. The six-member majority stated that since a "black" law school did not currently exist in the State of Missouri, the "equal protection clause" required the state to provide, within its boundaries, a legal education for Gaines. In other words, since the state provided legal education for white students, it could not send black students, like Gaines, to school in another state.

Sweat v. Painter (1950)

Encouraged by their victory in Gaines' case, the NAACP continued to attack legally sanctioned racial discrimination in higher education. In 1946, an African American man named Heman Sweat applied to the University of Texas' "white" law school. Hoping that it would not have to admit Sweat to the "white" law school if a "black" school already existed, elsewhere on the University's campus, the state hastily set up an underfunded "black" law school. At this point, Sweat employed the services of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and sued to be admitted to the University's "white" law school. He argued that the education that he was receiving in the "black" law school was not of the same academic caliber as the education that he would be receiving if he attended the "white" law school. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1950, the Court unanimously agreed with him, citing as its reason the blatant inequalities between the University's law school (the school for whites) and the hastily erected school for blacks. In other words, the "black" law school was "separate," but not "equal." Like the Murray case, the Court found the only appropriate remedy for this situation was to admit Sweat to the University's law school.

McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education (1950)

In 1949, the University of Oklahoma admitted George McLaurin, an African American, to its doctoral program. However, it required him to sit apart from the rest of his class, eat at a separate time and table from white students, etc. McLaurin, stating that these actions were both unusual and resulting in adverse effects on his academic pursuits, sued to put an end to these practices. McLaurin employed Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund to argue his case, a case which eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In an opinion delivered on the same day as the decision in Sweat, the Court stated that the University's actions concerning McLaurin were adversely affecting his ability to learn and ordered that they cease immediately.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954, 1955)

The case that came to be known as Brown v. Board of Education was actually the name given to five separate cases that were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the issue of segregation in public schools. These cases were Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. Board of Education of Prince Edward County (VA.), Bolling v. Sharpe, and Gebhart v. Ethel. While the facts of each case are different, the main issue in each was the constitutionality of state-sponsored segregation in public schools. Once again, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund handled these cases.

Although it acknowledged some of the plaintiffs'/plaintiffs claims, a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court that heard the cases ruled in favor of the school boards. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When the cases came before the Supreme Court in 1952, the Court consolidated all five cases under the name of Brown v. Board of Education. Marshall personally argued the case before the Court. Although he raised a variety of legal issues on appeal, the most common one was that separate school systems for blacks and whites were inherently unequal, and thus violate the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, relying on sociological tests, such as the one performed by social scientist Kenneth Clark, and other data, he also argued that segregated school systems had a tendency to make black children feel inferior to white children, and thus such a system should not be legally permissible.

Meeting to decide the case, the Justices of the Supreme Court realized that they were deeply divided over the issues raised. While most wanted to reverse Plessy and declare segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional, they had various reasons for doing so. Unable to come to a solution by June 1953 (the end of the Court's 1952-1953 term), the Court decided to rehear the case in December 1953. During the intervening months, however, Chief Justice Fred Vinson died and was replaced by Gov. Earl Warren of California. After the case was reheard in 1953, Chief Justice Warren was able to do something that his predecessor had not-i.e. bring all of the Justices to agree to support a unanimous decision declaring segregation in public schools unconstitutional. On May 14, 1954, he delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. . ."

Expecting opposition to its ruling, especially in the southern states, the Supreme Court did not immediately try to give direction for the implementation of its ruling. Rather, it asked the attorney generals of all states with laws permitting segregation in their public schools to submit plans for how to proceed with desegregation. After still more hearings before the Court concerning the matter of desegregation, on May 31, 1955, the Justices handed down a plan for how it was to proceed; desegregation was to proceed with "all deliberate speed." Although it would be many years before all segregated school systems were to be desegregated, Brown and Brown II (as the Courts plan for how to desegregate schools came to be called) were responsible for getting the process underway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Plessy Decision Although the Declaration of Independence stated that "All men are created equal," due to the institution of slavery, this statement was not to be grounded in law in the United States until after the Civil War (and, arguably, not completely fulfilled for many years thereafter).

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional Law: 14th Amendment U.S. Const. amend. XIV (1868)

The 14th amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

It also forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

The 14th amendment is often referred to in many court cases.

This amendment ensures a level playing field for those who have been disproportionately rejected by college admissions.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV (1868)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Law: Fisher v. University of Texas Austin 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

Controversial Supreme Court Case to consider whether the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

The university uses an admissions system containing two components. It offers admission under the State’s Top Ten Percent Law and then fills its remaining spots using an academic index, taking a holistic view of applicants.

Fisher, whom was not in the top ten percent, was denied admission to the University and alleged that her race played a factor in her Fall 2008 denial. She argued that the consideration of race disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, also violating her constitutional rights to equal protection.

The University of Texas argued that the admissions process was holistic and that race plays only one component for an applicant.

Fisher v. University of Texas Austin 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

# data[].attributes.body
Statutory Law: Top 10% Rule: Texas House Bill 588 (TEC § 51.803)

guarantees admission into public universities in the State of Texas to students ranked in the top ten percent of their graduating class.

Students are not guaranteed funding or their desired program of study.

The goal behind this rule was to help increase the Latino and African American enrollment rate into large flagships institutions in the state.

Tex. Educ. Code § 51.803 (1997)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
State of Texas: Texas Legislative Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Website for the Texas Legislature. Provides information on legislation, committees, house, and senate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #10 Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #10 Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative Law: Texas A&M University

in accordance with applicable federal and state law, prohibits discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or veteran status in employment, educational programs, and admissions.

The university does not discriminate applicants based upon their race in regards to college admissions. It will not assist or harm an applicant’s chances of being admitted to the university.

The university follows the Texas House Bill 588 and admits all students in the top ten percent of their graduating

Texas A&M University . (n.d.). Policy and Regulation Library. Retrieved April 26, 2020, from https://www.tamus.edu/legal/policy/policy-and-regulation-library/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Policy and Regulation Library - Office of General Counsel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Used to guide A&M System members in the process of defining, developing, maintaining, and accessing accurate, up-to-date policies, regulations, and rules.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard D states that educators should not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. Educational professionals must be sure to follow university policies and treat all students and applicants in a just manner (19 TAC § 247.2.)

19 Tex. Admin. Code § 247.2 (1998)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.body
Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education

This resource provided by the U.S Department of Education provides qualitative and quantitative data to institutions. This information can be used to influence best practices and identify gaps in processes.

U.S Department of Education . (2016, November). Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide # 13 Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance:

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide # 13 Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance:

# data[].attributes.body
Ensure that statements of advice and information are are clear and concise. It's better to stick to the facts rather than opinions

Proactively engage parents and students about the application process; provide transparent and accurate information

Work with General Counsel to ensure that the admissions practices in place follow constitutional laws

Perform internal audits to review the applicant pool: analyzing the student race, admissions type, test scores, grade point average, and other academic and socioeconomic factors

Make student profile information public: such as the average SAT/ACT test score for an admitted student, average grade point average, involvement, leadership.

Consider using other scorecard measures such as adversity scores that focus on additional factors aside from race. Additional factors include percentage of students on free/reduced lunch, AP offerings, and other information usually found on a school profile.

Consider implementing school partnerships or programs in place to target desired demographics.