# data[].attributes.body
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies in higher education aim to create an environment that values and supports individuals from diverse backgrounds, ensures equal opportunities, and fosters an inclusive community.

Many professionals view DEI policies as essential to creating an enriching and dynamic learning environment and that exposure to diverse perspectives and experiences contributes to a well-rounded education. Others view these policies as ways an institution can discriminate against non-minority students, result in reverse discrimination, and contribute to identity politics by categorizing individuals based on their demographic characteristics.

DEI policies have been a hot topic in the political sphere in the last few years, and more recently, state legislatures have passed laws restricting DEI policies and funding for public universities. Higher education institutions now have to deal with the impact these laws will have on their programming and approach to student development.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal: Currently, no federal agency directly governs diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education. President Biden has issued multiple executive orders that aim to target inequity and expand diversity and inclusion in federal offices. Each agency is tasked with integrating equity into planning and decision-making procedures and extending equity-advancing requirements.

State: A similar situation occurs at the state level. There are no state agencies that directly oversee DEI initiatives on college campuses. Any evaluation would be completed by the in-house DEI office at each university. During the most recent legislative session, Texas lawmakers passed a law that prohibits state-funded institutions from funding and staffing DEI offices thus making any overseeing measures essentially non-existent.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal: Title IX of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," (20 U.S.C § 1681).

While DEI is not directly linked to this amendment, they both address the issue of inclusion.

With the passing of Title IX, federal agencies were now allowed to issue regulations that ensure sex discrimination does not occur in areas under their purview.

This was one of the first times that additional protections were issued at the federal level to protect vulnerable groups.

https://shorturl.at/fyHJO

State: Section 3 of the Texas Constitution grants equal rights and equality under the law, specifically stating "equality...shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin," (Tex. Const. art. 1, § 3.).

Much like in the U.S. Constitution, this section in the Texas Constitution provides basic protection against discrimination.

Should be noted the first language referencing equality was added in 1876 and focused on the equal rights of all free men.

The subsequent language referencing equality under the law was added nearly 100 years later, in 1972.

https://shorturl.at/ryJKR

# data[].attributes.body
Statue: This statute passed by the Texas legislature addresses the "responsibility of governing boards regarding diversity, equity and inclusion initiative." (Tex Educ Code § 51.5325)

The statute prohibits the promotion of differential treatment based on race, color, and ethnicity.

Also prevents higher education institutions that receive state funding from conducting training or programs based on DEI initiatives.

The statute does not allow institutions to further expand on DEI policies beyond those already outlined by federal anti-discrimination laws.

https://shorturl.at/bqIT7

Administrative Law: The Standard Employment Discrimination Training rule found in the Texas Administrative Code outlines the requirements for employees. (40 Tex. Admin. Code § 819.24)

Employment discrimination training should occur no later than 30 days after the date of hiring.

Each agency will be responsible for creating the materials that will be decimated to employees.

The training must include the information needed to identify unlawful employment practices, the identification of protected classes, a complainant's tights and remedies, and the general stages involved in the processing of a complaint.

https://shorturl.at/xCGPV

# data[].attributes.body
Case #1: In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case brought by the Regents of the University of California v Allan Bakke regarding admission policies based on race, ethnicity, and test scores. (Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke 1978)

UC Davis Medical School hosted two admission programs to admit 100 new applicants every year.

The regular admissions program was based on a GPA scale and a subsequent interview.

The special admissions program was meant to admit minority students who could be considered disadvantaged, with approximately 16 of the 100 spots reserved for students who fell under this category.

Bakke, a white male, applied twice to the UC Davis medical program and both times was denied admission.

After his first denial, he filed a complaint with the Chairman of the Admissions Committee and protested that the special admissions program was the institution's way of meeting a racial/ethnic quota.

Bakke was denied admittance a second time, even when his test scores and GPA were higher than those admitted in the special program.

SCOTUS ultimately ruled that affirmative action programs could use race/ethnicity to select candidates and create a diverse student population, but they could not set a quota for minority students.

https://shorturl.at/iOPR2

Case #2: In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College regarding affirmative action and race-based admissions. (Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2023).

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. argued that the race-based admissions process of the University of North Carolina and Harvard College were unfair to non-minority applicants.

The non-profit organization stipulated in their lawsuits that affirmative action violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title IV prohibits discrimination against anyone who receives federal funds due to their race, color, and national origin.

Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled that both university programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://shorturl.at/bNTX8

# data[].attributes.body
Executive Order: The Biden Administration issued Executive Order 14091, Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.

The executive order requires federal agencies to include equity in their planning and decision-making models.

It also outlines the complex approach to advancing equity at the federal level.

Built on previous executive orders that aimed to support DEI efforts in the federal government.

Additionally, it established new terms such as equitable development, community wealth building, equitable data, and algorithmic discrimination.

﻿https://shorturl.at/oqvOT

# data[].attributes.body
Local Policy: Angelo State Operating Policy 52.02 focuses on Ethics and Standards of Conduct and aims to establish the institution policy for all employees at the university (ASU OP 52.02).

The policy is compliant with the requirements outlined in Section 572.051(e) of the state's government code and Section 03.01.2 of the Texas Tech rules and regulations set by the Board of Regents.

The Texas Tech University System claims to value diversity of culture and intellect. It aims to create an environment where no employees discriminate against each other and those whom the universities serve.

The policy also outlines the steps required in the event of an ethics violation.

https://shorturl.at/hCL37

# data[].attributes.body
Clear Communication: Have the institution set and communicate realistic expectations to all stakeholders regarding the outcomes of DEI programs, especially in a post-Senate Bill 17 world.

Leadership Commitment: Provide leadership training that emphasizes the importance of inclusive leadership and the role of leaders in driving DEI efforts to ensure there is visible and committed support from all levels at the university.

Community Engagement: Include all relevant stakeholders in the conversations that relate to DEI efforts and build partnerships with outside groups and community members to ensure a well-rounded approach to improving the student experience and cultivating a diverse campus environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethical Principle: ASCPA Ethical Standard 4.3 has a direct connection with DEI efforts on college campuses.

The ethical standard relates directly to discrimination, which DEI efforts aim to counteract on an institutional level. Higher education staff are expected to take a proactive stance to change and remove discriminatory practices that negatively impact students, faculty, and staff.

The standard specifically mentions discrimination based on "age, culture, age, culture, ethnicity, gender, ability, gender identity, race, class, religion, or sexual orientation," (American College Personnel Association [ACPA], 2020).

https://shorturl.at/gkqvQ

# data[].attributes.body
Exploring legal and ethical principles was significantly more challenging than I would have imagined. I truly believe that this experience has allowed me to grow as a researcher while also requiring me to be more conscious of where policies on college campuses originate.

Understanding the impact that these sources of law have on our daily responsibilities has been an eye-opening experience. Looking back on my previous coursework, I can see how I would have significantly benefitted from taking this course earlier on in the semester.

In my experience, having the skills learned in this course would have allowed me to establish a connection between theory and the law in other courses.

To conclude, this course also has provided me with the ability to see how interconnected all these different stakeholders truly are, even when it seems like they function in different orbits.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 11 | Recommendations / Best Practices

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 11 | Recommendations / Best Practices

# data[].attributes.body
DEI Policies: Aim to create an inclusive environment valuing diverse backgrounds, ensure equal opportunities for all, and support individuals in higher education.

Political Landscape: DEI policies face scrutiny in state legislatures, impacting funding and programming, specifically recent laws have significantly restricted DEI policies and funding for public universities.

Professional Perspectives: Some view DEI policies as essential for enriching education, while others perceive them as potential sources of discrimination and identity politics.

Federal Level: Currently, no direct federal agency governs DEI in higher education, but the current administration has issued multiple executive orders to promote equity at least on that level.

State Level: The vast majority of states lack direct oversight agencies for DEI in college, and with funding restrictions caused by recently passed laws oversight becomes even more difficult.

Institutional Strategies: Strategies include emphasizing clear communication on DEI program expectations, encouraging leadership commitment to inclusive practices, promoting community engagement and partnerships for a well-rounded approach, and aligning with ethical standards, such as ASCPA Ethical Standard 4.3, to counteract discrimination.