# data[].attributes.body
Principle IV- Justice

-This ethical principle is centered around the fair and equal treatment of every person that a student affairs professional comes into contact with. As a part of the principle, it is the job of the professional to "recognize diversity" and promote the student body as a whole despite the students' unique differences (CAS, 2023).

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2023). CAS statement of shared ethical principles. In J. B. Wells & L. K. Crain (Eds.), CAS professional standards for higher education (Version 11). Author. https://www.cas.edu/ethics--values.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CAS values, embraces, and recognizes the need to foster equitable and inclusive communities to promote student learning, development, success, and belonging. CAS recognizes the historical and ongoing challenges around discrimination, racism, and oppression present in higher education. As a strategic area of focus, CAS will be an inclusive organization that reflects the broad and diverse higher education community. CAS is committed to advocating for creating programs and services that advance equitable outcomes for all students. CAS serves as a conduit of professional standards for post-secondary institutions and member associations to foster a framework for inclusive and equitable environments. CAS will also work to identify and address barriers and inequities to promote socially just assessment and evaluation practices and partner in support of student learning, development, and success.

As a reflection of CAS's values and mission, the framework for our justice, diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging work is grounded in the following models:

Museus and Smith's (2016) culturally engaging campus environments (CECE model) which provides a framework for principles of promoting and advocating for diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments (CAS, 2019).

Equity Mindedness created by the Center for Urban Education at the University of Southern California, the EM model recognizes and addresses policies, practices, and racialized structures contributing to the creation and sustainment of racial inequities (Bensimon & Malcolm, 2012; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) a set of principles based on the three-network model of learning for curriculum development that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn (Johnston, Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, 2006).

Belonging a critical model for student success focused on fostering diverse, equitable and inclusive environments where all students feel welcomed, accepted, and fully engaged (Strayhorn, 2019).

A bold vision forward: A framework for the strategic imperative for racial justice and decolonization. Addressing racial justice in student affairs and higher education using an intersectional lens with a focus on reducing the oppression of communities of color (ACPA, 2019).

References.
The American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (2019). A bold vision forward: A framework for the strategic imperative for racial justice and decolonization. https://myacpa.org/sirjd/
Bensimon, E. M., & Malcolm, L. E. (2012). Confronting Equity Issues on Campus: Implementing the Equity Scorecard in Theory and Practice. Stylus Publishing.
Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS). (2019). The case for CAS. In CAS professional standards for higher education (10th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Dowd, A. C., Bishop, R. M., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Critical action research on race and equity in higher education. In Martinez-Aleman, A. M., Bensimon, E. M., & Pusser, B. (Eds.) Critical approaches to the study of higher education. (pp. 174-192) Johns Hopkins University Press.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students (2nd edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/UDLinPostsecondary.pdf

Additional Resources.
CAS Statement on Understanding Aspects of Identity in the CAS Standards

# data[].attributes.body
As the legal and ethical ramifications of the SCOTUS decision come to light, it will be important for higher education institutions to follow all guidance provided by federal and state education departments. My recommendations for legal and ethical compliance are as follows:

- Institutions must audit their admissions policies to ensure compliance with the Department of Education's guidance.

- Selective institutions need clearly defined admissions requirements and transparency of the admissions review process.

- Members of the admissions committees need to be faculty and staff who have been well versed on the admissions requirements and institutional goals.

- Admissions committee members should be required to sign an ethical principle document stating that they will uphold the integrity and confidentiality of the institution and admissions process.

- Students need a clear understanding of the admissions appeal process if they would like to challenge the admissions committee decision.

- Compliance with the decision should extend to areas of publically funded scholarships and grants and exclude privately funded scholarships and grants.

- Administrators need to ensure that faculty and staff are aware of policy changes that may need to be made to ensure compliance and provide any required professional development in conjunction with the change.

# data[].attributes.body
A lobbying group of lawyers who focus on education wrote this document. It outlines the SCOTUS opinion in lamens terms that non-legal professionals in higher education can easily understand. At the end of the document are suggested policy considerations for institutions to review. Using these legal suggestions and review by the institution's legal team can aid administration and student affairs professionals to ensure compliance with the court's ruling.

Educational Counsel team. (2023, July 6). EducationCounsel’s Preliminary Guidance Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. https://educationcounsel.com/storage/seLGkbGgqeKNZ56fYVH9l4AT5U0cw88M2YwTomUc.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This preliminary draft provides initial guidance regarding the Supreme Court's SFFA opinion. We offer analysis of what the Court held and why, potential implications for higher education, and five actions higher education institutions and leaders should take now to lead on equity and diversity in light of the Court's decision. This initial guidance is directed toward higher education institutions and leaders. Updates and additional, broader frameworks and guidance will follow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EducationCounsel - EducationCounsel's Preliminary Guidance Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This preliminary draft provides initial guidance regarding the Supreme Court's SFFA opinion. We offer analysis of what the Court held and why, potential implications for higher education, and five actions higher education institutions and leaders should take now to lead on equity and diversity in light of the Court's decision.

# data[].attributes.body
University of North Carolina. (2023). Undergraduate Admissions Policy.  https://catalog.unc.edu/admissions/undergraduate/#admissionspolicytext

Source of Law: Administrative Law

The admissions policy includes a statement of non-discrimination in their admissions procedures. This statement coincides with the university’s administrative policy of non-discrimination and ethics policy that is enforced for all departments and areas of the university’s administration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Undergraduate Admissions < University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Provided that the criteria set forth hereinafter are met, this policy of competitive admissions shall not prevent the admission of selected applicants:

# data[].attributes.body
Code of Federal Regulations

Discrimination Prohibited, 34 C. F. R. §100.3(b)(1)(v)

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-100

This section prohibits the different treatment of any individual in determining the satisfaction of admissions, eligibility, or enrollment in a program. This would keep individuals from having their race considered as a part of their satisfaction with admissions criteria.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
§ 100.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter referred to as the "Act") to the end that no person in the United States shall; on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education.

(Authority: Sec. 601, Civil Rights Act of 1964; 78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. 2000d)

§ 100.2 Application of this regulation.

This regulation applies to any program to which Federal financial assistance is authorized to be extended to a recipient under a law administered by the Department, including the Federal financial assistance listed in appendix A of this regulation. It applies to money paid, property transferred, or other Federal financial assistance extended after the effective date of the regulation pursuant to an application approved prior to such effective date. This regulation does not apply to (a) any Federal financial assistance by way of insurance or guaranty contracts, (b) money paid, property transferred, or other assistance extended before the effective date of this regulation, (c) the use of any assistance by any individual who is the ultimate beneficiary, or (d) any employment practice, or any employer, employment agency, or labor organization, except to the extent described in § 100.3. The fact that a type of Federal assistance is not listed in appendix A shall not mean, if title VI of the Act is otherwise applicable, that a program is not covered. Federal financial assistance under statutes now in force or hereinafter enacted may be added to this list by notice published in the Federal Register.

[ 45 FR 30918, May 9, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 68053, Nov. 13, 2000]

§ 100.3 Discrimination prohibited.

Deny an individual an opportunity to participate in the program through the provision of services or otherwise or afford him an opportunity to do so which is different from that afforded others under the program (including the opportunity to participate in the program as an employee but only to the extent set forth in paragraph (c) of this section).

Programs assisted under laws listed in appendix A as respects employment opportunities provided thereunder, or in facilities provided thereunder, which are limited, or for which preference is given, to students, fellows, or other persons in training for the same or related employments.

Assistance to rehabilitation facilities under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 32-34, 41a and 41b.

[ 45 FR 30918, May 9, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 68053, Nov. 13, 2000]

§ 100.5 Illustrative application.

The following examples will illustrate the programs aided by Federal financial assistance of the Department. (In all cases the discrimination prohibited is discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin prohibited by title VI of the Act and this regulation, as a condition of the receipt of Federal financial assistance).

In some situations, even though past discriminatory practices attributable to a recipient or applicant have been abandoned, the consequences of such practices continue to impede the full availability of a benefit. If the efforts required of the applicant or recipient under § 100.6(d), to provide information as to the availability of the program or activity and the rights of beneficiaries under this regulation, have failed to overcome these consequences, it will become necessary under the requirement stated in paragraph (i) of § 100.3(b)(6) for such applicant or recipient to take additional steps to make the benefits fully available to racial and nationality groups previously subject to discrimination. This action might take the form, for example, of special arrangements for obtaining referrals or making selections which will insure that groups previously subjected to discrimination are adequately served.

[ 45 FR 30918, May 9, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 68053, Nov. 13, 2000]

§ 100.6 Compliance information.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1870-0500)

[ 45 FR 30918, May 9, 1980, as amended at 53 FR 49143, Dec. 6, 1988; 65 FR 68053, Nov. 13, 2000]

§ 100.7 Conduct of investigations.

§ 100.8 Procedure for effecting compliance.

Noncompliance with § 100.4. If an applicant fails or refuses to furnish an assurance required under § 100.4 or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to that section Federal financial assistance may be refused in accordance with the procedures of paragraph (c) of this section. The Department shall not be required to provide assistance in such a case during the pendency of the administrative proceedings under such paragraph except that the Department shall continue assistance during the pendency of such proceedings where such assistance is due and payable pursuant to an application therefor approved prior to the effective date of this part.

§ 100.10 Decisions and notices.

Review in certain cases by the Secretary. If the Secretary has not personally made the final decision referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section, a recipient or applicant or the counsel for the Department may request the Secretary to review a decision of the Reviewing Authority in accordance with rules of procedure issued by the responsible Department official. Such review is not a matter of right and shall be granted only where the Secretary determines there are special and important reasons therefor. The Secretary may grant or deny such request, in whole or in part. He may also review such a decision upon his own motion in accordance with rules of procedure issued by the responsible Department official. In the absence of a review under this paragraph, a final decision referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) of this section shall become the final decision of the Department when the Secretary transmits it as such to Congressional committees with the report required under section 602 of the Act. Failure of an applicant or recipient to file an exception with the Reviewing Authority or to request review under this paragraph shall not be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the purpose of obtaining judicial review.

An applicant or recipient adversely affected by an order issued under paragraph (f) of this section shall be restored to full eligibility to receive Federal financial assistance if it satisfies the terms and conditions of that order for such eligibility or if it brings itself into compliance with this part and provides reasonable assurance that it will fully comply with this part. An elementary or secondary school or school system which is unable to file an assurance of compliance with § 100.3 shall be restored to full eligibility to receive Federal financial assistance, if it files a court order or a plan for desegregation which meets the requirements of § 100.4(c), and provides reasonable assurance that it will comply with the court order or plan.

§ 100.11 Judicial review.

Action taken pursuant to section 602 of the Act is subject to judicial review as provided in section 603 of the Act.

§ 100.12 Effect on other regulations; forms and instructions.

§ 100.13 Definitions.

As used in this part:

The term program or activity and the term program mean all of the operations of-

Any other entity that is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (g)(1), (2), or (3) of this section; any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.

The term applicant means one who submits an application, request, or plan required to be approved by a Department official, or by a primary recipient, as a condition to eligibility for Federal financial assistance, and the term application means such an application, request, or plan.

[ 45 FR 30918, May 9, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 68054, Nov. 13, 2000]

Appendix A to Part 100-Federal Financial Assistance to Which These Regulations Apply

Part 1-Assistance Other Than Continuing Assistance to States

Training projects for manpower development and training ( 42 U.S.C. 2601, 2602, 2610a-2610c).

Research and training projects in Vocational Education ( 20 U.S.C. 1281(a), 1282-1284).

Gallaudet College (31 D.C. Code, Chapter 10).

Establishment and operation of a model secondary school for the deaf by Gallaudet College (31 D.C. Code 1051-1053; 80 Stat. 1027-1028).

Grants for strengthening developing institutions of higher education ( 20 U.S.C. 1051-1054); National Fellowships for teaching at developing institutions ( 20 U.S.C. 1055), and grants to retired professors to teach at developing institutions ( 20 U.S.C. 1056).

Grant programs for advanced and undergraduate international studies ( 20 U.S.C. 1171-1176; 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)).

Resource centers for improvement of education of handicapped children ( 20 U.S.C. 1421) and centers and services for deaf-blind children ( 20 U.S.C. 1422).

Grants for research and demonstrations relating to physical education or recreation for handicapped children ( 20 U.S.C. 1442) and training of physical educators and recreation personnel ( 20 U.S.C. 1434).

Part 2-Continuing Assistance to States

Arrangements with State education agencies for training under the Manpower Development and Training Act ( 42 U.S.C. 2601-2602, 2610a).

[ 45 FR 30918, May 9, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 68054, Nov. 13, 2000]

Appendix B to Part 100-Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex, and Handicap in Vocational Education Programs

I. Scope and Coverage

A. Application of Guidelines

These Guidelines apply to recipients of any Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education that offer or administer programs of vocational education or training. This includes State agency recipients.

B. Definition of Recipient

The definition of recipient of Federal financial assistance is established by Department regulations implementing Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 ( 34 CFR 100.13(i), 106.2(h), 104.3(f).

For the purposes of Title VI:

The term recipient means any State, political subdivision of any State, or instrumentality of any State or political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or other entity, or any individual, in any State, to whom Federal financial assistance is extended, directly or through another recipient, for any program, including any successor, assignee, or transferee thereof, but such terms does not include any ultimate beneficiary [e.g., students] under any such program. ( 34 CFR 100.13(i)).

For the purposes of Title IX:

Recipient means any State or political subdivision thereof, or any instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or other entity, or any person to whom Federal financial assistance is extended, directly or through another recipient and which operates an education program or activity which receives or benefits from such assistance, including any subunit, successor, assignee, or transferee thereof. ( 34 CFR 106.2(h)).

For the purposes of Section 504:

Recipient means any State or its political subdivision any instrumentality of a State or its political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or other entity, or any person to which Federal financial assistance is extended, directly or through another recipient, including any successor, assignee, or transferee of a recipient, but excluding the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance. ( 34 CFR 104.3(f)).

II. Responsibilities Assigned Only to State Agency Recipients

C. Statement of Procedures and Practices

Within one year from the publication of these Guidelines in final form, each State agency recipient performing oversight responsibilities must submit to the Office for Civil Rights the methods of administration and related procedures it will follow to comply with the requirements described in paragraphs A and B immediately above. The Department will review each submission and will promptly either approve it, or return it to State officials for revision.

III. Distribution of Federal Financial Assistance and Other Funds for Vocational Education

A. Agency Responsibilities

Recipients that administer grants for vocational education must distribute Federal, State, or local vocational education funds so that no student or group of students is unlawfully denied an equal opportunity to benefit from vocational education on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap.

B. Distribution of Funds

Recipients may not adopt a formula or other method for the allocation of Federal, State, or local vocational education funds that has the effect of discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. However, a recipient may adopt a formula or other method of allocation that uses as a factor race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap [or an index or proxy for race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap e.g., number of persons receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children or with limited English speaking ability] if the factor is included to compensate for past discrimination or to comply with those provisions of the Vocational Education Amendments of 1976 designed to assist specified protected groups.

C. Example of a Pattern Suggesting Unlawful Discrimination

In each State it is likely that some local recipients will enroll greater proportions of minority students in vocational education than the State-wide proportion of minority students in vocational education. A funding formula or other method of allocation that results in such local recipients receiving per-pupil allocations of Federal or State vocational education funds lower than the State-wide average per-pupil allocation will be presumed unlawfully discriminatory.

D. Distribution Through Competitive Grants or Contracts

Each State agency that establishes criteria for awarding competitive vocational education grants or contracts must establish and apply the criteria without regard to the race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap of any or all of a recipient's students, except to compensate for past discrimination.

E. Application Processes for Competitive or Discretionary Grants

State agencies must disseminate information needed to satisfy the requirements of any application process for competitive or discretionary grants so that all recipients, including those having a high percentage of minority or handicapped students, are informed of and able to seek funds. State agencies that provide technical assistance for the completion of the application process must provide such assistance without discrimination against any one recipient or class of recipients.

F. Alteration of Fund Distribution to Provide Equal Opportunity

If the Office for Civil Rights finds that a recipient's system for distributing vocational education funds unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap, it will require the recipient to adopt an alternative nondiscriminatory method of distribution. The Office for Civil Rights may also require the recipient to compensate for the effects of its past unlawful discrimination in the distribution of funds.

IV. Access and Admission of Students to Vocational Education Programs

A. Recipient Responsibilities

Criteria controlling student eligibility for admission to vocational education schools, facilities and programs may not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. A recipient may not develop, impose, maintain, approve, or implement such discriminatory admissions criteria.

B. Site Selection for Vocational Schools

State and local recipients may not select or approve a site for a vocational education facility for the purpose or with the effect of excluding, segregating, or otherwise discriminating against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Recipients must locate vocational education facilities at sites that are readily accessible to both nonminority and minority communities, and that do not tend to identify the facility or program as intended for nonminority or minority students.

C. Eligibility for Admission to Vocational Education Centers Based on Residence

Recipients may not establish, approve or maintain geographic boundaries for a vocational education center service area or attendance zone, (hereinafter "service area"), that unlawfully exclude students on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The Office for Civil Rights will presume, subject to rebuttal, that any one or combination of the following circumstances indicates that the boundaries of a given service area are unlawfully constituted:

The over-all vocational education program of the given service area in comparison to the over-all vocational education program of a contiguous school system or service area enrolling a substantially greater proportion of minority students:

Provides its students with a broader range of curricular offerings, facilities and equipment; or

provides its graduates greater opportunity for employment in jobs:

D. Additions and Renovations to Existing Vocational Education Facilities

A recipient may not add to, modify, or renovate the physical plant of a vocational education facility in a manner that creates, maintains, or increases student segregation on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap.

F. Eligibility for Admission to Secondary Vocational Education Centers Based on Numerical Limits Imposed on Sending Schools

A recipient may not adopt or maintain a system for admission to a secondary vocational education center or program that limits admission to a fixed number of students from each sending school included in the center's service area if such a system disproportionately excludes students from the center on the basis of race, sex, national origin or handicap. (Example: Assume 25 percent of a school district's high school students are black and that most of those black students are enrolled in one high school; the white students, 75 percent of the district's total enrollment, are generally enrolled in the five remaining high schools. This paragraph prohibits a system of admission to the secondary vocational education center that limits eligibility to a fixed and equal number of students from each of the district's six high schools.)

G. Remedies for Violation of Eligibility Based on Numerical Limits Requirements

If the Office for Civil Rights finds a violation of paragraph F, above, the recipient must implement an alternative system of admissions that does not disproportionately exclude students on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap.

H. Eligibility for Admission to Vocational Education Centers, Branches or Annexes Based Upon Student Option

A vocational education center, branch or annex, open to all students in a service area and predominantly enrolling minority students or students of one race, national origin or sex, will be presumed unlawfully segregated if:

K. Eligibility Based on Evaluation of Each Applicant Under Admissions Criteria

Recipients may not judge candidates for admission to vocational education programs on the basis of criteria that have the effect of disproportionately excluding persons of a particular race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. However, if a recipient can demonstrate that such criteria have been validated as essential to participation in a given program and that alternative equally valid criteria that do not have such a disproportionate adverse effect are unavailable, the criteria will be judged nondiscriminatory. Examples of admissions criteria that must meet this test are past academic performance, record of disciplinary infractions, counselors' approval, teachers' recommendations, interest inventories, high school diplomas and standardized tests, such as the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE).

An introductory, preliminary, or exploratory course may not be established as a prerequisite for admission to a program unless the course has been and is available without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, and handicap. However, a course that was formerly only available on a discriminatory basis may be made a prerequisite for admission to a program if the recipient can demonstrate that:

The course is essential to participation in the program; and

L. Eligibility of National Origin Minority Persons With Limited English Language Skills

Recipients may not restrict an applicant's admission to vocational education programs because the applicant, as a member of a national origin minority with limited English language skills, cannot participate in and benefit from vocational instruction to the same extent as a student whose primary language is English. It is the responsibility of the recipient to identify such applicants and assess their ability to participate in vocational instruction.

Acceptable methods of identification include: (1) Identification by administrative staff, teachers, or parents of secondary level students; (2) identification by the student in postsecondary or adult programs; and (3) appropriate diagnostic procedures, if necessary.

Recipients must take steps to open all vocational programs to these national origin minority students. A recipient must demonstrate that a concentration of students with limited English language skills in one or a few programs is not the result of discriminatory limitations upon the opportunities available to such students.

M. Remedial Action in Behalf of Persons With Limited English Language Skills

If the Office for Civil Rights finds that a recipient has denied national origin minority persons admission to a vocational school or program because of their limited English language skills or has assigned students to vocational programs solely on the basis of their limited English language skills, the recipient will be required to submit a remedial plan that insures national origin minority students equal access to vocational education programs.

O. Public Notification

Prior to the beginning of each school year, recipients must advise students, parents, employees and the general public that all vocational opportunities will be offered without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. Announcement of this policy of non-discrimination may be made, for example, in local newspapers, recipient publications and/or other media that reach the general public, program beneficiaries, minorities (including national origin minorities with limited English language skills), women, and handicapped persons. A brief summary of program offerings and admission criteria should be included in the announcement; also the name, address and telephone number of the person designated to coordinate Title IX and Section 504 compliance activity.

If a recipient's service area contains a community of national origin minority persons with limited English language skills, public notification materials must be disseminated to that community in its language and must state that recipients will take steps to assure that the lack of English language skills will not be a barrier to admission and participation in vocational education programs.

V. Counseling and Prevocational Programs

A. Recipient Responsibilities

Recipients must insure that their counseling materials and activities (including student program selection and career/employment selection), promotional, and recruitment efforts do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap.

B. Counseling and Prospects for Success

Recipients that operate vocational education programs must insure that counselors do not direct or urge any student to enroll in a particular career or program, or measure or predict a student's prospects for success in any career or program based upon the student's race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. Recipients may not counsel handicapped students toward more restrictive career objectives than nonhandicapped students with similar abilities and interests. If a vocational program disproportionately enrolls male or female students, minority or nonminority students, or handicapped students, recipients must take steps to insure that the disproportion does not result from unlawful discrimination in counseling activities.

C. Student Recruitment Activities

Recipients must conduct their student recruitment activities so as not to exclude or limit opportunities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. Where recruitment activities involve the presentation or portrayal of vocational and career opportunities, the curricula and programs described should cover a broad range of occupational opportunities and not be limited on the basis of the race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap of the students or potential students to whom the presentation is made. Also, to the extent possible, recruiting teams should include persons of different races, national origins, sexes, and handicaps.

D. Counseling of Students With Limited English-Speaking Ability or Hearing Impairments

Recipients must insure that counselors can effectively communicate with national origin minority students with limited English language skills and with students who have hearing impairments. This requirement may be satisfied by having interpreters available.

E. Promotional Activities

Recipients may not undertake promotional efforts (including activities of school officials, counselors, and vocational staff) in a manner that creates or perpetuates stereotypes or limitations based on race, color, national origin, sex or handicap. Examples of promotional efforts are career days, parents' night, shop demonstrations, visitations by groups of prospective students and by representatives from business and industry. Materials that are part of promotional efforts may not create or perpetuate stereotypes through text or illustration. To the extent possible they should portray males or females, minorities or handicapped persons in programs and occupations in which these groups traditionally have not been represented. If a recipient's service area contains a community of national origin minority persons with limited English language skills, promotional literature must be distributed to that community in its language.

VI. Equal Opportunity in the Vocational Education Instructional Setting

A. Accommodations For Handicapped Students

Recipients must place secondary level handicapped students in the regular educational environment of any vocational education program to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the student unless it can be demonstrated that the education of the handicapped person in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Handicapped students may be placed in a program only after the recipient satisfies the provisions of the Department's Regulation, 34 CFR, part 104, relating to evaluation, placement, and procedural safeguards. If a separate class or facility is identifiable as being for handicapped persons, the facility, the programs, and the services must be comparable to the facilities, programs, and services offered to nonhandicapped students.

B. Student Financial Assistance

Recipients may not award financial assistance in the form of loans, grants, scholarships, special funds, subsidies, compensation for work, or prizes to vocational education students on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap, except to overcome the effects of past discrimination. Recipients may administer sex restricted financial assistance where the assistance and restriction are established by will, trust, bequest, or any similar legal instrument, if the overall effect of all financial assistance awarded does not discriminate on the basis of sex. Materials and information used to notify students of opportunities for financial assistance may not contain language or examples that would lead applicants to believe the assistance is provided on a discriminatory basis. If a recipient's service area contains a community of national origin minority persons with limited English language skills, such information must be disseminated to that community in its language.

C. Housing In Residential Postsecondary Vocational Education Centers

Recipients must extend housing opportunities without discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. This obligation extends to recipients that provide on-campus housing and/or that have agreements with providers of off-campus housing. In particular, a recipient postsecondary vocational education program that provides on-campus or off-campus housing to its nonhandicapped students must provide, at the same cost and under the same conditions, comparable convenient and accessible housing to handicapped students.

D. Comparable Facilities

Recipients must provide changing rooms, showers, and other facilities for students of one sex that are comparable to those provided to students of the other sex. This may be accomplished by alternating use of the same facilities or by providing separate, comparable facilities.

Such facilities must be adapted or modified to the extent necessary to make the vocational education program readily accessible to handicapped persons.

VII. Work Study, Cooperative Vocational Education, Job Placement, and Apprentice Training

A. Responsibilities in Cooperative Vocational Education Programs, Work-Study Programs, and Job Placement Programs

A recipient must insure that: (a) It does not discriminate against its students on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap in making available opportunities in cooperative education, work study and job placement programs; and (b) students participating in cooperative education, work study and job placement programs are not discriminated against by employers or prospective employers on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap in recruitment, hiring, placement, assignment to work tasks, hours of employment, levels of responsibility, and in pay.

If a recipient enters into a written agreement for the referral or assignment of students to an employer, the agreement must contain an assurance from the employer that students will be accepted and assigned to jobs and otherwise treated without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap.

Recipients may not honor any employer's request for students who are free of handicaps or for students of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex. In the event an employer or prospective employer is or has been subject to court action involving discrimination in employment, school officials should rely on the court's findings if the decision resolves the issue of whether the employer has engaged in unlawful discrimination.

B. Apprentice Training Programs

A recipient may not enter into any agreement for the provision or support of apprentice training for students or union members with any labor union or other sponsor that discriminates against its members or applicants for membership on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. If a recipient enters into a written agreement with a labor union or other sponsor providing for apprentice training, the agreement must contain an assurance from the union or other sponsor:

VIII. Employment of Faculty and Staff

A. Employment Generally

Recipients may not engage in any employment practice that discriminates against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of sex or handicap. Recipients may not engage in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin if such discrimination tends to result in segregation, exclusion or other discrimination against students.

B. Recruitment

Recipients may not limit their recruitment for employees to schools, communities, or companies disproportionately composed of persons of a particular race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap except for the purpose of overcoming the effects of past discrimination. Every source of faculty must be notified that the recipient does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap.

C. Patterns Of Discrimination

Whenever the Office for Civil Rights finds that in light of the representation of protected groups in the relevant labor market there is a significant underrepresentation or overrepresentation of protected group persons on the staff of a vocational education school or program, it will presume that the disproportion results from unlawful discrimination. This presumption can be overcome by proof that qualified persons of the particular race, color, national origin, or sex, or that qualified handicapped persons are not in fact available in the relevant labor market.

D. Salary Policies

Recipients must establish and maintain faculty salary scales and policy based upon the conditions and responsibilities of employment, without regard to race, color, national origin, sex or handicap.

E. Employment Opportunities For Handicapped Applicants

Recipients must provide equal employment opportunities for teaching and administrative positions to handicapped applicants who can perform the essential functions of the position in question. Recipients must make reasonable accommodation for the physical or mental limitations of handicapped applicants who are otherwise qualified unless recipients can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

F. The Effects Of Past Discrimination

Recipients must take steps to overcome the effects of past discrimination in the recruitment, hiring, and assignment of faculty. Such steps may include the recruitment or reassignment of qualified persons of a particular race, national origin, or sex, or who are handicapped.

G. Staff Of State Advisory Councils Of Vocational Education

State Advisory Councils of Vocational Education are recipients of Federal financial assistance and therefore must comply with Section VIII of the Guidelines.

H. Employment at State Operated Vocational Education Centers Through State Civil-Service Authorities

Where recruitment and hiring of staff for State operated vocational education centers is conducted by a State civil service employment authority, the State education agency operating the program must insure that recruitment and hiring of staff for the vocational education center is conducted in accordance with the requirements of these Guidelines.

IX. Proprietary Vocational Education Schools

A. Recipient Responsibilities

Proprietary vocational education schools that are recipients of Federal financial assistance through Federal student assistance programs or otherwise are subject to all of the requirements of the Department's regulations and these Guidelines.

Enforcement of the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is the responsibility of the Department of Education. However, authority to enforce Title VI of the Civil rights Act of 1964 for proprietary vocational education schools has been delegated to the Veterans Administration.

When the Office for Civil Rights receives a Title VI complaint alleging discrimination by a proprietary vocational education school it will forward the complaint to the Veterans Administration and cite the applicable requirements of the Department's regulations and these Guidelines. The complainant will be notified of such action.

[ 45 FR 30918, May 9, 1980; 45 FR 37426, June 3, 1980]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
34 CFR Part 100 -- Nondiscrimination Under Programs Receiving Federal Assistance Through the Department of Education Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
§ 100.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to effectuate the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter referred to as the "Act") to the end that no person in the United States shall; on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas Education Code

Uniform Admission Policy, Tex. Educ. Code § 51.805

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.51.htm#U

The code outlines institutions' requirements for setting admissions criteria outside of automatic admission. Section 51.805 gives the authority for defining admissions criteria to the institution. It states that institutions may “review other factors” when reviewing applications for admissions (Tex. Educ. Code §51.805).

# data[].attributes.body
Supreme Court Opinion

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf

The Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) claims that Harvard’s use of race in its holistic admissions review is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard argued that they were operating within the bounds set by the precedent of the Grutter v. Bollinger case of 2003. While Harvard uses race as a factor, it is not the only portion of the holistic review considered for selective admission. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of SFFA, stating that Harvard is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
14th Amendment

U.S. Const. amend. XIV

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm#amdt_14_(1868)

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides citizens' rights to all born or naturalized in the United States. The broad language does not limit the protections to one racial group or another.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Constitution of the United States
Preamble Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI
Article VII AMENDMENTS
Introduction

Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world's longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words - "We The People" - affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the "First Branch" of the federal government.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived. To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.

Annotated Constitutions

The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (popularly known as the Constitution Annotated) contains legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution, based primarily on Supreme Court case law.

The Constitution of the United States of America, S.PUB.103-21 (1994) (PDF), prepared by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with the assistance of Johnny H. Killian of the Library of Congress in 1994, provided the original text of each clause of the Constitution with an accompanying explanation of its meaning and how that meaning changed over time.

Italicized text indicates words and passages of the Constitution that were changed or affected by amendments.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G o. Washington-Presid t.

And deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire John Langdon

Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts Nathaniel Gorham

Rufus King

Connecticut Wm. Saml. Johnson

Roger Sherman

New York Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey Wil: Livingston

David Brearley

Wm. Paterson

Jona. Dayton

Pennsylvania B Franklin

Thomas Mifflin

Robt Morris

Geo. Clymer

Thos. FitzSimons

Jared Ingersoll

James Wilson

Gouv Morris

Delaware Geo: Read

Gunning Bedford jun

John Dickinson

Richard Bassett

Jaco: Broom

Maryland James McHenry

Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer

Danl Carroll

Virginia John Blair-

James Madison Jr.

North Carolina Wm. Blount

Richd. Dobbs Spaight

Hu Williamson

South Carolina J. Rutledge

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Charles Pinckney

Pierce Butler

Georgia William Few

Abr Baldwin

Attest William Jackson Secretary

AMENDMENTS
Amendment I (1791) Amendment II (1791)
Amendment III (1791) Amendment IV (1791)
Amendment V (1791) Amendment VI (1791)
Amendment VII (1791) Amendment VIII (1791)
Amendment IX (1791) Amendment X (1791)
Amendment XI (1795/1798) Amendment XII (1804)
Amendment XIII (1865) Amendment XIV (1868)
Amendment XV (1870) Amendment XVI (1913)
Amendment XVII (1913) Amendment XVIII (1919)
Amendment XIX (1920) Amendment XX (1933)
Amendment XXI (1933) Amendment XXII (1951)
Amendment XXIII (1961) Amendment XXIV (1964)
Amendment XXV (1967) Amendment XXVI (1971)
Amendment XXVII (1992)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President -The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses future implications for the state of college admissions policies. Focusing on the practice of early decision from a social justice standpoint, the article paints early decision as "favoring affluent" students over minority students (Charles, 2023). This practice has been voluntarily discontinued and reinstated in multiple selective institutions nationwide. With the new SCOTUS ruling, this admissions practice and others could also come under fire.

Charles, J. B. (2023, Spetember 20). After affirmative action and legacy admissions, will early decision be the next to go?. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/after-affirmative-action-and-legacy-admissions-will-early-decision-be-the-next-to-go

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Knox outlines the domino effect that the SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action in college admissions has started. Cases previously stalled while awaiting the opinion have been brought back to life. Yale chose to settle their case outside of court, and the University of Texas case is in negotiations; some lawyers fear that if UT settles, it could lead to a more conservative reading of the SCOTUS opinion (Knox, 2023). The ruling has also sparked cases from the left aimed at legacy admissions and the barriers that this is for people of color.

Knox, L. (2023, September 30). A new legal blitz on affirmative action. Inside Higher Ed.  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2023/09/20/affirmative-action-lawsuits-return-vengeance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court's June decision striking down race-conscious admissions may have been the most significant higher ed case in years, providing a concrete answer to questions that have spurred dozens of court cases since the 1990s. But it hardly put an end to the legal fight over affirmative action.

In fact, the outcome has unleashed a stream of new challenges to colleges' race-conscious policies and revived cases that had been dismissed or lost before the ruling was handed down.

Just yesterday, Students for Fair Admissions, the group that spearheaded the Supreme Court cases against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, filed a lawsuit challenging the race-conscious admissions policies of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. SFFA began building the case after the Supreme Court left open the possibility that military colleges could be exempt from the affirmative action ruling due to their "potentially distinct interests" in enrolling racially diverse student bodies.

The organization is also in the process of revisiting lawsuits that were stayed pending the outcome of the Harvard and UNC cases. One of those, against Yale University, was dropped last week after the two parties reached an agreement that included promises of significant admissions policy changes from Yale; the other, against the University of Texas at Austin, is up in the air while the university and SFFA try to negotiate a settlement.

Other groups are also piggybacking on SFFA's victory. Yesterday the conservative law firm Equal Protection Project filed a complaint with the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights against Western Kentucky University over two scholarships-the WKU Athletics Minority Fellowship and the WKU Distinguished Minority Fellowship-available only to students of color. Last month the same organization filed a complaint against the University of Nebraska at Lincoln over a residency program for Black filmmakers that the university hosts in partnership with a local nonprofit.

William Jacobson, EPP's founding director and a law professor at Cornell University, said colleges should expect to be held accountable for complying with the ruling.

"I don't view the Supreme Court ruling with the narrow focus of affirmative action in admissions, or even affirmative action in general; it's an equal protection decision," he said. "It would certainly be in colleges' best interest to change their policies now if they aren't already compliant ... Whatever the challenges were that failed before the decision, if those practices are ongoing, I don't see why they can't be challenged anew."

Stacy Hawkins, a Rutgers University law professor whose work focuses on the intersection of diversity and jurisprudence, said despite the June 29 Supreme Court ruling, the outcomes of the subsequent legal challenges are by no means predetermined. And while the battle over race-conscious admissions may be over, she said, the ensuing skirmishes are key to determining the decision's reach.

"Universities are going to have all sorts of different levels of risk tolerance associated with these cases as they come in, and Yale certainly took a very conservative posture," she said. "But that's important, because we will effectively continue to litigate the contours of admissions practices until we have some clear understanding of what the Supreme Court actually intends."

Resurrecting a Lawsuit Lazarus

Along with the Harvard and UNC cases, SFFA filed affirmative action suits against the University of Texas at Austin in 2019 and Yale University in 2020. But judges put those lawsuits on hold once the Supreme Court took up the other cases, noting that future proceedings would depend on those outcomes.

Once Harvard and UNC were determined, Yale and UT were reopened, and SFFA had the leverage of a precedent in its favor.

In its agreement with SFFA, Yale said it would make wide-reaching policy changes impacting not only admissions but financial aid and data transparency as well-effectively conceding to a broad interpretation of the decision, which many lawyers say is overreaching.

That means SFFA's only original affirmative action case that remains unresolved is the one against UT Austin, which can trace its origin back to the 2010s.

In 2013 a Texas circuit court ruled against the plaintiff in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding Austin's right to use race-conscious admissions. Abigail Fisher, a white student who believed UT's policies had led to her rejection and amounted to discrimination, appealed the ruling. When that appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, the decision was upheld by a 4-to-3 vote, marking what seemed like the end of Fisher's case.

In 2021 SFFA president Edward Blum-who, according to the reopened SFFA v. University of Texas lawsuit, is a family friend of Fisher's and whose old organization, the Project on Fair Representation, covered Fisher's legal fees against UT Austin-filed a lawsuit based largely on the same complaints, though SFFA noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the "claims are not the same." It was frozen along with the Yale suit and reopened in June, effectively exhuming the corpse of the Fisher case and giving its arguments new life.

The two parties are now engaged in negotiations to determine whether the case will return to court or be dropped, according to Blum, who said he hopes to reach an agreement for a "mutual dismissal" along the lines of the one reached with Yale earlier this month. A spokesperson for Austin declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

But multiple sources, some on background, said it could be more difficult for SFFA to reach an agreement with UT than with Yale. For starters, the allegations are entirely different and rest on circumstances unique to the state and the institution.

Texas law regarding affirmative action has swung back and forth over the years. The state banned the practice in admissions in the 1997 Hopwood v. Texas case, in which UT Austin's law school was found to have unlawfully given preference to certain racial groups in admissions; as a result the entire state university system discontinued race-conscious admissions practices. Then in 2003 the Supreme Court essentially reversed the Hopwood decision with its Grutter v. Bollinger ruling, prompting the university to recommit to affirmative action.

SFFA's 2019 suit against UT Austin alleges that the university never fully committed to ending its affirmative action policies in response to Hopwood and looked diligently for workarounds until it "swiftly reintroduced race into admissions" following Grutter. The suit takes aim at Texas's affirmative action practices since then.

Hawkins said that if SFFA is successful in getting UT to concede the way Yale did, it would further cement a more conservative interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, which she said is the ultimate goal of many of the more activist law firms pursuing these cases in the wake of the SFFA victory.

"What it confirms for me is a more cynical view, which is that this isn't about pursuing a specific view of the Constitution," she said. "It's a project to preserve white supremacy and attack pluralist democracy."

She added that any potential resistance from UT is likely to come from a stubborn insistence that its holistic policies to increase diversity are indeed legal alternatives and not mere proxies for race-based affirmative action, rather than an ideological commitment to diversity efforts.

"Texas lawmakers have supported legislation to outlaw teaching CRT and implementing DEI initiatives in higher ed ... I don't think UT, just by not rolling over like Yale did and saying, 'OK, we'll grant you everything you're demanding,' is showing itself to be the kind of progressive institution it was in the '90s," Hawkins said. "It may just be that they have a better case."

Opening the Floodgates

The flood of new civil rights complaints and court cases may be just beginning.

In 2021, a boutique conservative law firm called the Wisconsin Institute for Liberty and Liability sued the state's Higher Education Aids Board over grants earmarked specifically for Black, Hispanic, South Asian and Native American students. The case was dismissed in 2022, but the attorneys appealed, arguing that if the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action it would buoy their argument.

Rick Esenberg, WILL's president and general counsel, believes that's precisely what happened. While he declined to elaborate on any further suits his firm might file, he said institutions "were already on thin ice" with race-based programs and scholarships, and the Supreme Court's ruling hastened the thaw.

"It's very difficult to see how a scholarship program where certain people are excluded from eligibility based on race can survive scrutiny now that the court has made clear these cases cannot be trumped by concerns about diversity," he said. "I understand there's a lot of opposition to [the ruling] among college administrators, but they need to face the fact that there's a new reality."

The Supreme Court ruling has prompted legal challenges from the left as well, mostly focusing on legacy preferences at highly selective colleges such as Harvard, which in July received an OCR complaint over its practices from a coalition led by the progressive nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights.

The legal basis of these complaints is the same, effectively, as those from the right: that preferences for children of alumni disproportionately benefit white students, to the detriment of other racial groups-a claim supported by plenty of research, including a blockbuster report from Opportunity Insights released in July.

"We have certainly noticed an uptick in conservative challenges to race-conscious programs and policies," said Michael Kippins, a fellow at Lawyers for Civil Rights who helped file the complaint. "That, along with the Supreme Court's decision in June limiting the consideration of race in higher education, made it all the more important for us to take initiative and pursue an environment where barriers to admission for people of color, like legacy preferences, are broken down."

But conservative firms are the ones truly ramping up their efforts in the aftermath of the affirmative action ruling. Hawkins said that a number of factors-including a more conservative federal circuit bench largely appointed by former president Trump-coalesced with the Supreme Court ruling to create a "perfect storm" for a rapid-fire stream of new litigation.

"They have a receptive judiciary now, and I think they're taking full advantage of that," she said. "Litigation typically moves slowly, but there are shadow dockets on more activist circuit courts that are looking for opportunities to exercise their power, and I do think we're seeing evidence of that happening more and more."

Jacobson understands this shift; his EPP is preparing a full docket of legal challenges to race-conscious policies on everything from scholarships to summer programs, and even beyond higher education. He said that until colleges demonstrate an understanding of what he sees as the broad equal protection implications of the SFFA rulings, those challenges will keep coming.

"We have many other challenges we're already planning on pursuing," he said, "and we're certainly going to be looking for more opportunities in the future."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Affirmative action lawsuits return with a vengeance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Challenges to race-conscious policies are surging in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, including a new lawsuit against West Point. The Supreme Court's June decision striking down race-conscious admissions may have been the most significant higher ed case in years, providing a concrete answer to questions that have spurred dozens of court cases since the 1990s.

# data[].attributes.headline
NASPA: Students Affairs Administrators in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.subject
NASPA: Students Affairs Administrators in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.body
The statement by NASPA is in disagreement with the SCOTUS decision in June 2023. The authors agree that this ruling will set institutions back in the ways of diversity, equity, and inclusion and create racially diverse and accepting campus cultures. NASPA reaffirms its mission to diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice in its statement. They are promoting the continued importance of student affairs professionals to "foster an inclusive campus" and promote access to higher education (NASPA, 2023).

NASPA. (2023, June 29). NASPA condemns SCOTUS decision on race-conscious admissions. NASPA. https://naspa.org/news/naspa-condemns-scotus-decision-on-race-conscious-admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier today the U.S. Supreme Court dismantled race-conscious admissions in higher education with its decision in two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. In its ruling, the Court's majority relied on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but they dismissed the reality that in the U.S., race continues to affect access and educational outcomes. Over the course of five decades, affirmative action - and race-conscious admissions in particular - has fundamentally altered colleges and universities to be more racially diverse and to expose students to a broader range of perspectives. More than ever, we must affirm that fostering an inclusive campus remains an integral part of the mission of higher education, and is key to cultivating academic inquiry and advancing student success.

In a webinar hosted in May by NASPA's Public Policy Division, panelists cautioned against pre-emptively disinvesting financial and human resources in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The Court's decision focuses on the use of race as a decision factor in selective admission. It undoes one mechanism - albeit an important one - to facilitate diverse learning environments and accessible post-secondary opportunities, but institutions can and must continue to invest meaningfully in effective recruitment, retention, and support strategies. Support for diversity, inclusion, equity, and justice initiatives is more important than ever, in order to signal to prospective and current students that their experiences and strengths are valued and welcomed. The end of race-conscious admissions nationally will impact the way institutions, faculty, staff, and students navigate equity and inclusion work, but it does not change the charge to the profession to carry out this work.

We can learn from what colleagues have done to continue advancing racial equity at institutions in the nine states with existing legislative bans on race-conscious admissions. Some of these states have experienced decreases in racially diverse representation on campuses, but they continue to focus on race-conscious services, programs, and data collection and analysis. While the Supreme Court decision presents an undeniable hurdle, NASPA supports the continued development of equity-centered, identity-conscious strategies to create racially diverse campus environments and support racially minoritized students. In July, the Public Policy Division will host a webinar to explore the implications of the SFFA decisions on institutional policies and practices.

We recognize that the Court's decision arrives in a climate of uncertainty and fear resulting from coordinated attacks on higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. NASPA has coordinated the following educational and advocacy initiatives to amplify impact and highlight opportunities to continue supporting students and staff:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASPA Condemns SCOTUS Decision on Race-Conscious Admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier today the U.S. Supreme Court dismantled race-conscious admissions in higher education with its decision in two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. In its ruling, the Court's majority relied on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but they dismissed the reality that in the U.S., race continues to affect access and educational outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
The topic of race and admissions does not only affect first-time college students; it also impacts transfer students. When students decide where to attend college and start or complete their bachelor's degree, clear admissions and financial aid requirements may be a deciding factor. If a student feels that there is not a level playing field in the college admissions process or financial aid package, it may deter them from applying to the institution. The decrease in applications could lead to a decline in enrollment as well.

Future implications show that verbiage in admissions policies or admissions committee practices will not be the only policy that will be scrutinized. SCOTUS has also opened the door to analyzing the admissions policies of legacy students, early decision students, and automatic admission students. This initial ruling could affect how colleges choose to support the students they serve. This will also impact the financial aid sector of student affairs regarding the distribution of federally funded student grants and scholarships.

# data[].attributes.body
As a program coordinator at the local community college, I serve as an enrollment advisor, academic advisor, and instructor. We are an open-enrollment campus, and anyone who applies is accepted. Our students then move on to other schools; they will transfer to several campuses across the state and nation if they wish to obtain a baccalaureate degree. While we are open enrollment, the transfer institutions are much more selective about who they admit to their institution. My job is to guide my students to be the best candidates possible on paper for acceptance at the transfer institution.

Topic of the Legal Guide: Race and college admissions.

This is a guide for admissions and enrollment counselors on recent rulings and legislation regarding admissions requirements and required changes to educational policies that comply with Supreme Court rulings.

This topic addresses the need to understand the importance of access to higher education and placing value back on higher education degrees. With the still unknown effects of COVID-19 on the world of higher education, enrollment changes and the devaluation of higher education are at the forefront of the issues plaguing higher education today.