# data[].attributes.body
College Admissions Offices across the nation are currently revamping the way they communicate, network, and reach out to students. Campuses are interested in recruitment, retention, and especially diversifying their campus. It is such a great time to be involved in Higher Education at a time where schools are more inclusive and actively seeking a diverse population of students. Numerous campuses are currently investing substantial monetary and material investments to support their vision of diversity. The efforts and goal of these changes aim to produce college students who embrace diversity, inclusivity, and social justice (Ashby-King & Hanasono, 2019).
This padlet is to give insight to other Higher Education professionals regarding the legalities of race and college admissions.

Ashby-King, D. T., & Hanasono, L. K. (2019). Diverging discourses: Examining how college students majoring in communication define diversity. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 20(1), 9–18. https://doi-org.easydb.angelo.edu/10.1080/17459435.2019.1572645

# data[].attributes.body
The topic of Race and College Admissions is on the rise. This topic is being widely discussed by directors and colleges alike as the pressure is on to begin diversifying more campuses. Large institutions are seeking those underrepresented communities and are offering numerous scholarships and programs to assist students along their journey of pursuing a degree at a Higher Education Institution (Dr. D. DeSousa of Texas A&M, personal communication, September 2021). This topic is near and dear to me personally as a first-generation, minority college student. Segregation in schools was still prevalent less than 60 years ago and although there are rules, regulations, and policies in place to protect students at colleges, there are many places where students are struggling to fit into colleges campuses. I think it is special to consider that in 1965 cases were sent before the Supreme Court to request equality and now colleges are actively seeking out and recruiting underrepresented students.

One emerging issue that educators should keep an eye out for is how colleges are seeking applicant reviews in a more holistic approach. This may impact the topic of race and admissions.

# data[].attributes.body
This article found on the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers or AACRAO showcased an article discussing how certain current events such as the pandemic and BLM movement have helped shift Higher Education Institutions into thinking and being more "race neutral." This also now includes the latest update in colleges shifting to a test-optional admissions process prompting the question as to whether or not students should take the ACT or SAT. “One key consideration is that the approach be race-neutral, it doesn’t exclude any student,” Sandlin said. “You can have the intent of increasing diversity, as long as the benefit applies equally to all students, based on life experiences, background, talents, work experience, and so on" (AACRAO, 2020).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AACRAO Consulting

Admissions and Recruitment

Competencies

Diversity and Inclusion

Holistic Admissions

Holistic Admissions

blm

covid-19

Higher education is in the midst of a "test-optional revolution," according to Michele Sandlin, Managing Consultant, AACRAO Consulting.

"With the College Board and ACT unable to do college entrance exams due to the pandemic, a huge volume of schools are going test-optional," Sandlin said. "Some are saying that change will be temporary, but a lot of predictions are that test-optional is here to stay."
Race-neutral "add on" to academic criteria
Holistic admissions criteria are not a replacement for academic and cognitive standards. They do not take away from but rather supplement the normal admissions process.

"One key consideration is that the approach be race-neutral, it doesn't exclude any student," Sandlin said. "You can have the intent of increasing diversity, as long as the benefit applies equally to all students, based on life experiences, background, talents, work experience, and so on."
The perfect storm
Coupled with the increased focus on access and diversity brought about by the Black Lives Matter movement, the time is right for institutions to consider deploying a holistic admissions model.

"Holistic admissions has been gaining momentum for years, but COVID and BLM have created a perfect storm," Sandlin said. "Schools need something to address those issues, and AACRAO has a solution already built."

Though AACRAO offers a proven, customizable test-optional implementation plan based on the comprehensive research of Dr. William Sedlacek and years of fine-tuning, there are many ways to do holistic admissions.

Regardless of the plan, Sandlin advises institutions considering holistic admissions should make sure their processes meet the following criteria:

Join the conversation. Sandlin and institutional leaders are holding a series of conversations around holistic admissions at this fall's virtual 2020 AACRAO SEM Conference. Learn more and register now.

And look for Sandlin's book Holistic Admissions: Predicting the Likelihood for Student Success to be released by AACRAO Publications later this month. ( Join the list to be notified upon release.) The book contains a series of case studies of holistic admissions implementation by a variety of institutions,.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Holistic admissions: A just solution at a pivotal moment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AACRAO Consulting Admissions and Recruitment Competencies Diversity and Inclusion Holistic Admissions Holistic Admissions blm covid-19 Higher education is in the midst of a "test-optional revolution," according to Michele Sandlin, Managing Consultant, AACRAO Consulting. "With the College Board and ACT unable to do college entrance exams due to the pandemic, a huge volume of schools are going test-optional," Sandlin said.

# data[].attributes.body
As of June 14, 2021 there have been discussions in the Supreme Court to consider banning race when professionals are reviewing applications for college admissions (Associated Press, 2021). One current issue in the United States is students claiming they are not being considered for admission because of their "race."

While unfortunately this does impact a lot of students from a particular race, one must consider there are certain guaranteed admissions academic criteria for most institutions. For other institutions who are strictly holistic reviewed and are incorporating diversity by being more "race conscious," many Americans are left feeling that affirmative action is not falling within their favor. This will be an interesting story to follow as Harvard does deny all allegations stating they are discriminating against Asian-American students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (AP) - With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue - whether to ban consideration of race in college admissions.

The justices on Monday put off a decision about whether they will hear an appeal claiming that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants, in a case that could have nationwide repercussions. The court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on the case, a process that typically takes several months.

"It would be a big deal because of the nature of college admissions across the country and because of the stakes of having this issue before the Supreme Court," said Gregory Garre, who twice defended the University of Texas' admissions program before the justices.

The presence of three appointees of former President Donald Trump could prompt the court to take up the case, even though it's been only five years since its last decision in a case about affirmative action in higher education.

In that Texas case, the court reaffirmed in a 4-3 decision that colleges and universities may consider race in admissions decisions. But they must do so in a narrowly tailored way to promote diversity, the court said in a decision that rejected the discrimination claims of a white applicant. Schools also bear the burden of showing why their consideration of race is appropriate.

Two members of that four-justice majority are gone from the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September. Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018.

The three dissenters in the case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, remain on the court. Roberts, a moderating influence on some issues, has been a steadfast vote to limit the use of race in public programs, once writing, "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."

The court's willingness to jump into major cases over abortion and gun rights also appear to turn on the new, more conservative composition of the court because similar appeals had been turned away in the past.

Like the abortion case, the Harvard case lacks a split among appellate courts that often piques the high court's interest in a case.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on college admissions several times over more than 40 years. The current dispute harks back to its first big affirmative action case in 1978, when Justice Lewis Powell set out the rationale for taking account of race even as the court barred the use of racial quotas in admissions.

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Powell approvingly cited Harvard as "an illuminating example" of a college that takes "race into account in achieving the educational diversity valued by the First Amendment."

Twenty-five years later, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor likewise invoked the Harvard plan in her opinion upholding the University of Michigan's law school admissions program.

Now it's Harvard program in the crosshairs of opponents of race-based affirmative action.

The challenge to Harvard is led by Edward Blum and his Students for Fair Admissions. Blum has worked for years to rid college admissions of racial considerations.

The group claims that Harvard imposes a "racial penalty" on Asian American applicants by systematically scoring them lower in some categories than other applicants and awarding "massive preferences" to Black and Hispanic applicants.

Harvard flatly denies that it discriminates against Asian American applicants and says its consideration of race is limited, pointing out that lower courts agreed with the university.

In November, the federal appeals court in Boston ruled that Harvard looked at race in a limited way in line with Supreme Court precedents.

The class that just finished its freshman year is roughly one-quarter Asian American, 15% Black and 13% Hispanic, Harvard says on its website. "If Harvard were to abandon race-conscious admissions, African-American and Hispanic representation would decline by nearly half," the school told the court in urging it to stay out of the case.

The Trump administration backed Blum's case against Harvard and also filed its own lawsuit alleging discrimination against Asian Americans and whites at Yale.

The Biden administration already has dropped the Yale suit and almost certainly will take Harvard's side at the Supreme Court if the case goes forward.

The lead attorney on the appeal is William Consovoy, who also represented Trump in his unsuccessful bid to shield his tax returns from the Manhattan district attorney.

When the court upheld the Michigan's law school program in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, O'Connor took note of the quarter-century that had passed since the Bakke decision.

"We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today," O'Connor wrote.

O'Connor's timeline set 2028 as a potential endpoint for racial preferences. A more conservative court than the one on which she served could advance that expiration date by several years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justices defer Harvard case on race in college admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (AP) - With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue - whether to ban consideration of race in college admissions. The justices on Monday put off a decision about whether they will hear an appeal claiming that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants, in a case that could have nationwide repercussions.

# data[].attributes.body
This article tackles the controversial topic of standardized testing discriminating against minority, low socio economic students.

The fight specifically for black students in America has been on going since 1968, as the wealth gap between black families and white families clearly highlighted how some students were not able to financially afford test-prep courses and private counseling services as they prepared for college(Inside Higher Ed, 2020).

As colleges begin to implement programs narrowing in on a more diverse campus, many professionals are suggesting optional standardized testing and "legacy admissions" be omitted.

42.6% of schools do consider race as limited influence in college admissions decisions, while 58.4% of colleges stated that race and ethnicity has no influence on admissions decisions (Inside Higher Ed, 2020).

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will conversation turn to action when it comes to issues of racial equity in college admission?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is now the moment when college admission professionals will start breaking down known barriers to admission for Black students?

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Statutory Law
Link to full text: Civil Rights Act of 1964 (please click text)

This law passed by the Senate states that segregation was banned in all places. While this included schools, colleges, and other educational entities, this was also including any other establishment in the U.S.

No citizen in America could be segregated on the grounds of race, religion, and even national origin (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq).

This law followed the Supreme Court case ruling and has forever changed the United States creating an equal and more inclusive environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Judicial Law
Link to full text: Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 (please click text)

Prior to Admissions Cases debating race being a factor, Black Americans were fighting for basic rights to attend schools, use public playgrounds, bathrooms, etc. During this movement, a monumental case ruled in favor of omitting segregation in public schools.

This Supreme Court Case, Brown v. Board of Education (1954), ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.

This court case shed light on the fact that separating students by their race was detrimental. This was one of the many victories in creating true equal opportunities for all students.

Connecting thought: Only 70 years ago, times when our grandparents and loved one were alive, people witnessed segregation which stripped minorities of basic human rights. Now in 2021, movements like the BLM and the pandemic have shown there are still changed that need to be made in order to truly give students resource and access to a fair education.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Constitutional Law
Link to full text: 10th Amendment link (please click text)

This Amendment was created so that the powers are reserved to the States respectively (U.S. Const. amend. X).

This delegates powers to the states including educational decisions.

The law states that public education is a state's right to control.

Connecting thought: If system schools such as University of Texas System, Texas A&M System, Texas Tech System, Texas State System, etc., can the state of Texas make a decision about whether or not it is legal to allow state schools to make admissions decisions off based off of race/ethnicity?

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Administrative Law
Link to full text:  § 100.3 Discrimination prohibited (please click text)

The Code of Federal Regulation states, "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 to which this part applies." (34 C.F.R. § 100.3)

This law prohibits discriminatory action against denying any individual service, financial aid, etc. (34 C.F.R. §100.3).

Prohibits treating an individual differently from others in determining whether they satisfy admission, enrollment, quota, eligibility, etc.

Connecting thought: Initially, the Code of Federal regulations was created following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now are other races feeling oppressed or discriminated against when applying for admissions?

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
UTSA has provided their students, faculty, and staff the Handbook of Operating Procedures or HOP in order to provide the federal rules and regulations the institution is abiding by. For the topic of "Race and Admissions," section 9.01 in the HOP is regarding the institutions zero tolerance for Nondiscrimination. This section regarding the policies of nondiscrimination state this institution prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of color, race, gender, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, citizenship, gender identity, and veteran status (University of Texas at San Antonio, 2021). These statements prohibit discrimination at any capacity (i.e. visitors, APPLICANTS, faculty, staff, students, etc.). This was selected to show how serious this matter is at this state institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I. POLICY STATEMENT

It is the policy of The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) to provide an educational and working environment that provides equal opportunity to all members of the UTSA community. In accordance with federal and state law, UTSA prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, citizenship, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran status in all aspects of employment and education. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also prohibited pursuant to this policy.

II. RATIONALE

This policy is the principal prohibition of all forms of discrimination regardless of where it occurs, including both on and off university property, if it potentially affects the alleged victim's education or employment with the following exceptions: discrimination based upon disability (which is controlled by the Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP) policy 9.02 Persons with Disabilities), and Sexual Harassment/Sexual Misconduct (which is controlled by the HOP policy 9.24).

III. SCOPE

This policy and its complaint procedure apply to all UTSA administrators, faculty, staff, students, visitors and applicants for employment or admission.

IV. WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY

http://www.utsa.edu/hop/chapter9/9-1.html

V. RELATED STATUTES, POLICIES, REQUIREMENTS OR STANDARDS

Relevant Federal and State Statutes (This list is not inclusive of all laws prohibiting discrimination.)

1. The United States Constitution, First Amendment

2. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

3. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

4. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

5. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

6. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

7. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975

8. Texas Labor Code Chapter 21

UTSA or UT System or the Board of Regents' Rules & Regulations

1. UTSA HOP policy 2.34, Faculty Grievance Procedure

2. UTSA HOP policy 3.03, Discipline and Dismissal of Classified Employees

3. UTSA HOP policy 3.04, Grievances of Non-Faculty Employees

4. Student Code of Conduct Section 701, et seq.

5. UT System Regents Rules and Regulations, Rule 10701 Policy Against Discrimination

6. UT System Regents Rules and Regulations, Rule 30107 Veteran's Employment Preferences

7. UT System Administrative Policy UTS105 Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Policy

Other Policies & Standards

1. U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Discrimination

2. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

VI. CONTACTS

If you have any questions about HOP policy 9.01, Nondiscrimination, contact the following office:

Office of Equal Opportunity Services/ EEO Officer/Title IX Coordinator
210-458-4120

VII. DEFINITIONS

Discrimination, including harassment, is defined as conduct directed at a specific individual or a group of identifiable individuals that subjects the individual or group to treatment that adversely affects their employment or education on the basis of race, color, gender, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, citizenship, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran status in all aspects of employment and education. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also prohibited pursuant to this policy.

Harassment, as a form of discrimination, is defined as verbal or physical conduct that is directed at an individual or group because of basis of race, color, gender, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, citizenship, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran status in all aspects of employment and education. Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is also prohibited pursuant to this policy.

Retaliation is defined as any adverse action threatened or taken against an individual because the individual has filed, supported, provided information in connection with a complaint of discrimination or engaged in other legal protected activities. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to, intimidation, threats or harassment against any complainant, witness or third party.

VIII. RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Applicants/Employees/Students/Visitors

1. Any person who believes that he or she has been subjected to prohibited discrimination should immediately file a complaint with UTSA's Office of Equal Opportunity Services (the "EOS Office") and utilize the procedures set forth in this policy.

2. Individual(s) who witness or are aware of suspected incidents of prohibited discrimination are strongly encouraged to immediately report the incident to the EOS Office.

2. Supervisor/Administrator/UTSA official
Every supervisor, administrator and UTSA official is responsible for promptly reporting incidents of prohibited discrimination that come to their attention to the EOS Office.

3. EOS Office

1. Determines what immediate and effective steps can be taken to end prohibited discrimination and protect the alleged victim.

2. Advises alleged victims of their right to file a complaint and/or to participate in the applicable student, faculty or staff discipline process. The EOS Office also must assess the best way to proceed in the event an alleged victim does not wish to file a complaint and/or participate in an investigation or subsequent disciplinary process so as to protect the alleged victim while also ensuring that UTSA maintains an environment free from prohibited discrimination and harassment.

3. Reviews and processes complaints of alleged prohibited discrimination.

4. Consults with the UTSA Police Department (UTSAPD), as appropriate, in cases involving potential criminal conduct to determine if criminal authorities need to be notified.

5. Advises the alleged victim of the right to file a criminal complaint in cases involving potential criminal conduct.

6. Explains the resolution options available under the Informal and Formal processes, as outlined under Section IX of this policy, and proceeds accordingly.

4. The Director of Equal Opportunity Services serves as UTSA's EEO Officer and Title IX Coordinator. The EEO Officer/Title IX Coordinator may be reached at 210-458-4120. The Director of Equal Opportunity Services:

1. Investigates complaints based on discrimination.

2. Meets with students, faculty and staff wanting to file compliants or seeking information.

3. Ensures that UTSA has robust notice practices and education programs for students, faculty, and staff in accordance with Department of Education regulations and guidelines.

5. UTSA Police Department

1. Advise alleged victims of their right to file a discrimination complaint under this policy in cases where an incident is reported to UTSAPD.

2. Provides UTSA officials investigating discrimination complaints access to any related UTSA law enforcement records as permitted by state and federal law and so long as it does not compromise any criminal investigation.

6. Student Counseling Services
Is available to all UTSA students, including victims of unlawful discrimination, to provide support for such individuals and to advise them of their options under UTSA policy and procedures.

IX. PROCEDURES

1. Reporting Responsibilities
UTSA encourages any person who believes that he or she has been subjected to prohibited discrimination to immediately file a complaint with UTSA's Office of Equal Opportunity Services and to utilize the procedures set forth in this policy. Every supervisor, administrator and UTSA official is responsible for promptly reporting incidents of prohibited discrimination and harassment that comes to their attention. Students, faculty, staff and visitors who witness or are aware of suspected incidents of prohibited discrimination are strongly encouraged to immediately report the incident to:

Suzanne Patrick
Director and Title IX Coordinator
Office of Equal Opportunity Services
North Paseo Building
Suzanne.Patrick@utsa.edu
210-458-4120
https://www.utsa.edu/eos/

Individuals shall not be penalized, disciplined, or prejudiced who in good faith report a violation of policy, procedure or law.

Complaints and reports of any prohibited discrimination should be filed as soon as possible after the conduct giving rise to the complaint. Delay in filing or reporting can greatly limit UTSA's ability to stop the harassment/discrimination and take effective action against the alleged respondent. Complaints regarding unlawful discrimination or harassment should be filed within thirty (30) calendar days after the event occurred.

2. Resolution Options
A person who believes that he or she has been subjected to prohibited discrimination or harassment in violation of this policy and seeks to take action may use either the Informal Resolution process or the Formal Complaint process, or both. Both processes are administered by the EOS Office. The Informal Resolution and Formal Complaint processes described in this policy are not mutually exclusive and neither is required as a pre-condition for choosing the other; however, they cannot both be used at the same time.

1. Informal Resolution Process
This process may be used as a prelude to filing a Formal Complaint or as an alternative. It is not necessary that this option be used. Anyone who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination or harassment may immediately file a Formal Complaint as described in Subsection (2) below. Informal Resolution may be an appropriate choice when the conduct involved is not of a serious or repetitive nature and disciplinary action is not required to remedy the situation.

1. Informal Assistance - The individual is provided assistance in attempting to resolve possible harassment or discrimination if the individual does not wish to file a Formal Complaint. Such assistance includes strategies for the individual to effectively inform the offending party that his or her behavior is unwelcomed and/or offensive and should cease, action by an appropriate UTSA official to stop the unwelcomed and/or offensive conduct and modification of the situation in which the unwelcomed and/or offensive conduct occurred. However, UTSA may take more formal action, including disciplinary action, to ensure an environment is free of unlawful harassment and discrimination.

2. Timeframe - Informal Resolutions will be completed within 60 (sixty) work days from receipt of a request for Informal Resolution.

2. Formal Complaint Investigation Procedures
This complaint procedure also constitutes the grievance procedure for complaints alleging unlawful gender discrimination (excluding sexual harassment) required under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. As used herein, "complaint" is synonymous with "grievance."

1. Formal Complaint - In order to initiate the investigation process, the complainant should submit a signed, written statement setting out the details of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint, including the complainant's name, signature, and contact information; the name of the person directly responsible for the alleged violation; a detailed description of the conduct or event that is the basis of the alleged violation; the date(s) and location(s) of the occurrence(s); the names of any witnesses to the occurrence(s); the resolution sought; and any documents or information that is relevant to the complaint. While an investigation may begin on the basis of an oral complaint, the complainant is strongly encouraged to file a written complaint. When a UTSA employee, supervisor or University office receives a complaint with a written statement, the individual receiving the complaint shall immediately notify the EOS Office. EOS Complaint Forms are located on the EOS website located at www.utsa.edu/eos.

2. Complaint Investigation

1. The EOS Office is responsible for investigating Formal Complaints. If the complaint is not in writing, the investigator should prepare a statement of what he or she understands the complaint to be and seek to obtain verification of the complaint from the complainant.

2. Within ten (10) work days of receipt of a complaint, the EOS investigator, as appropriate, may either dismiss the complaint or authorize an investigation of the complaint. A complaint may be dismissed if the facts alleged in the complaint, even if taken as true, do not constitute prohibited harassment or discrimination or retaliation under the policy; the complaint fails to allege any facts that suggest prohibited harassment or discrimination occurred; or the appropriate resolution or remedy has already been achieved, or has been offered and rejected.

If it is determined that a complaint will not be investigated, the EOS Office will contact the complainant and/or send the complainant a notification letter explaining the reason for the dismissal and informing the complainant that, within 15 (fifteen) work days of the notification, he or she may appeal the decision not to proceed with a complaint investigation to the Appellate Officer named in the notification letter. The written appeal must explain why the decision to dismiss the complaint was in error. The Appellate Officer named in the notification letter will respond within twenty (20) work days of receipt of the appeal. The Appellate Officer's decision is final. If the decision to dismiss is overturned, the complaint is sent back to the EOS Office for investigation in accordance with the procedures outlined below.

3. As part of the investigation process, the accused individual shall be provided with a copy of the complaint and allegations or a statement from the EOS Office that explains the allegations as the EOS office and the complainant understand them to be. The accused will be allowed a reasonable time to respond in writing as determined by EOS.

4. The complainant and the accused individual may present any document or information that is believed to be relevant to the complaint.

5. Any persons thought to have information relevant to the complaint will be interviewed and such interviews will be appropriately documented.

6. Both the accused individual and the complainant may recommend witnesses for interview and suggest questions that should be asked. Neither the complainant nor the accused individual may attend investigation interviews of witnesses or the gathering of evidence.

7. The investigation of a complaint will be conducted as soon as possible after receipt of the written complaint. In investigations exceeding ninety (90) work days, a justification for the delay will be presented to and reviewed by the Compliance Officer overseeing the investigative office. The complainant, accused individual and appropriate supervisor will be provided an update on the progress of the investigation and issuance of the report.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, a written report will be issued. The report shall include: a recommendation of whether a violation of the policy occurred, an analysis of the facts discovered during the investigation, any relevant evidence, recommended disciplinary action if a violation of the policy occurred. Factual conclusions shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard. The EOS Office may also make recommendations to resolve any workplace issues it may discover during the investigation process regardless of whether prohibited harassment or discrimination can be substantiated.

4. A copy of the report will be provided to the complainant, the respondent, and the vice president or dean who has authority over the respondent. (The vice president may delegate responsibility for reviewing the EOS report and any submitted comments and taking the actions identified in (e) below.) The complainant and respondent have seven (7) work days from the date of the report to submit written comments regarding the report to the appropriate vice president or dean. For cases with student respondents and in accordance with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Texas Education Code, Section 51.971, the complainant and the respondent will receive a redacted copy of the report and a letter stating the findings and recommendations included in the report provided to the Dean of Students (DOS).

5. Within ten (10) work days of receiving any comments submitted by the complainant or respondent, or, if no comments were submitted, within seven (7) work days of the date of the report, the appropriate vice president who has authority over the respondent will take one of the following actions:

1. Notify both the complainant and respondent that a review is in progress;

2. Request the EOS Office to do further investigation into the complaint;

3. Dismiss the complaint if the results of the completed investigation are inconclusive or there is not a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., there is insufficient reasonable, credible evidence to support the allegation(s)); or

4. Find that the policy was violated.

1. A decision that this policy was violated shall be made upon the record provided by the investigator and any comments submitted by the complainant or respondent; and shall be based on the totality of circumstances surrounding the conduct complained of, including but not limited to: the context of that conduct, its severity, frequency, whether it was physically threatening, humiliating, or was simply offensive in nature. Facts will be considered on the basis of what is reasonable to persons of ordinary sensitivity and not on the particular sensitivity or reaction of an individual.

2. If the appropriate vice president or dean who has authority over the respondent determines that this policy was violated, he or she will refer the matter for disciplinary action in accordance with UTSA's applicable disciplinary procedures. Implementation of disciplinary action against faculty and staff will be handled in accordance with UTSA's policy and procedures for discipline and dismissal of faculty and employees. Disciplinary actions can include, but are not limited to, written reprimands, the imposition of conditions, reassignment, suspension, and dismissal. Implementation of disciplinary action against students will be referred to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards for processing in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct. The Student Code of Conduct is located in the UTSA Information Bulletin at www.utsa.edu/infoguide. Student disciplinary actions may include, but are not limited to, probation, suspension, or expulsion.

6. The complainant and the respondent shall be informed in writing of the appropriate vice president's or dean's final decision and be provided a copy of the final statement of findings. However, if a complaint is filed against a student, information sent to the complainant will be in compliance with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

7. Both the complainant and the respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to appeal any disciplinary action imposed by utilizing the established policies governing such appeals:

1. Faculty: HOP policy 2.34, Faculty Grievance Procedure

2. Staff: HOP policy 3.03, Discipline and Dismissal of Classified Employees, or HOP policy 3.04, Grievances of Non-Faculty Employees;

3. Students: Student Code of Conduct Section 701, et seq.

3. Veteran's Employment Preference Complaint Procedure
The University of Texas System Board of Regents has delegated authority to the president to review all written complaints from individuals who believe they did not receive a veteran's employment preference relating to hiring or to retention of the individual if the institution reduced its work force. The president has delegated review of all written complaints to the University EEO officer. UTSA has adopted the following grievance procedure in order to provide prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action in violation of state provisions for veteran's preference.

1. Complaints should be submitted to EOS within 60 (sixty) working days from the date after the applicant or employee received notification of non-selection or reduction in force status, or became aware of the disputed decision. In computing the 60th working day filing deadline, the next working day after the decision or notification is counted as the first day.

2. Applicants or employees must complete the Intake Form from EOS and may submit to EOS by mail, fax or e-mail.

3. The complaint will be processed in accordance with the complaint procedures set in paragraph Section B "Resolution Options" above, except that Handbook of Operating Procedures deadlines set forth in that paragraph do not apply. A written decision will be mailed by the appropriate vice president to the complainant no later than the 15th work day after the complaint is received by EOS. The appropriate vice president (or his/her designee) will make a final determination concerning whether an individual was denied a Veteran's Employment Preference.

4. Pay Transparency Nondiscrimination Provision
UTSA will not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against employees or applicants because they have inquired about, discussed, or disclosed their own pay or the pay of another employee or applicant. However, employees who have access to the compensation information of other employees or applicants as a part of their essential job functions cannot disclose the pay of other employees or applicants to individuals who do not otherwise have access to compensation information, unless the disclosure is (a) in response to a formal complaint or charge, (b) in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, including an investigation conducted by the University, or (c) consistent with the University's legal duty to furnish information.

5. Provisions Applicable to all Complaints
Assistance - During the complaint process, a complainant, respondent or witness may be accompanied by an uninvolved person of his or her choice, including an attorney, unless doing so would violate FERPA; however, this individual may not actively participate in the meeting or interview. In addition, this individual must not have any personal knowledge regarding the facts surrounding the complaint.

1. Retaliation - An administrator, faculty member, student or employee who retaliates in any way against an individual who has brought a complaint pursuant to this policy or an individual who has participated in an investigation of such a complaint is subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal.

2. Confidentiality and Documentation - UTSA shall document complaints and their resolution. The EOS Office shall retain such documentation in accordance with State and Federal records laws and UTSA policy. To the extent permitted by law, complaints and information received during the investigation will remain confidential. Relevant information will be provided only to those persons who need to know in order to achieve a timely resolution of the complaint. Where the individual's desire to maintain anonymity constrains attempts at establishing facts and eliminating the potential harassment or discrimination, UTSA will attempt to find the right balance between the individual's desire for privacy and confidentiality with the responsibility of UTSA to provide an environment free of prohibited harassment and discrimination.

3. No recording devices are allowed during EOS interviews or meetings and no recording is allowed of telephone conversations.

4. Deadlines - Deadlines in this procedure may be modified by the EOS Office upon a written showing of good cause by either party or UTSA.

5. Concurrent Criminal or Civil Proceedings. Police and criminal or civil justice procedures, findings, or outcomes are not determinative of either these complaint/investigation procedures or UTSA disciplinary procedures. UTSA does not wait for criminal or civil justice outcomes to take action as it has an independent duty to respond to complaints of prohibited discrimination and harassment.

6. Dissemination of Policy and Education

1. The policy will be made available to all faculty, employees and students online and in publications. Regular compliance training will provide guidance to employees and faculty about UTSA's Nondiscrimination Policy and will include information about complaint procedures and will refer individuals to designated offices or officials for additional information. Periodic notices will be sent to students, faculty, and staff about UTSA's Nondiscrimination Policy. The notice will specify the right to file a complaint under this policy and will refer individuals to designated offices or officials for additional information.

2. UTSA may periodically educate and train employees and supervisors regarding the policy and conduct that could constitute a policy violation. Preventive education and training programs will be provided to students, faculty and staff.

3. In accordance with Texas Labor Code 21.010, all UTSA employees, including faculty, are required to complete discrimination training no later than the 30th calendar day after the date the employee is hired and shall complete supplemental training every two years. The electronic training record is the acknowledgement and verification that the training has been conducted.

4. Each vice president, dean or designee will periodically assess their area of authority to make sure a climate is maintained that promotes an educational and working environment that provides equal opportunity to all members of the UTSA community. If problems are noted or if the circumstances surrounding a complaint are not remedied, the EOS Office shall be notified immediately for assistance in taking corrective actions.

7. Title IX Coordinator Information

Suzanne Patrick
Director and Title IX Coordinator
Office of Equal Opportunity Services
North Paseo Building - Suite 5.130
Suzanne.Patrick@utsa.edu
210-458-4120
https://www.utsa.edu/eos/

X. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION

None

XI. FORMS AND TOOLS/ONLINE PROCESSES

None

XII. APPENDIX

APPENDIX A - List of possible remedies for student complainants and the broader student population:

1. Depending on the specific nature of the problem, remedies for the complainant might include, but are not limited to those listed below. arranging for the complainant to re-take a course or withdraw from a class without penalty, including ensuring that any changes do not adversely affect the complainant's academic record; and

2. reviewing any disciplinary actions taken against the complainant to see if there is a causal connection between the harassment and the misconduct that may have resulted in the complainant being disciplined. (For example, if the complainant was disciplined for skipping a class in which the harasser was enrolled, the school should review the incident to determine if the complainant skipped the class to avoid contact with the harasser.)

XIII. Dates Approved/Amended

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The University of Texas at San Antonio, Web and Multimedia Services - 2010

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is the policy of The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) to provide an educational and working environment that provides equal opportunity to all members of the UTSA community.

# data[].attributes.body
One item in my professional code of ethics is Autonomy. According to the  Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2015), autonomy is defined as taking responsibilities for our actions and supporting the empowerment to and individual or group's freedom of choice.

Link:  http://standards.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?PDF=D67207DB-A711-46AA-86038F4A48ACF434

# data[].attributes.body
The Chronicle of Higher Education is a website I highly recommend professional utilize to learn more about this topic. This website has a free subscription and send daily emails with new research, news articles, and current events happening at higher education institutions in the U.S.

Link: https://www.chronicle.com/

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Race and Admissions has been widely discussed among professionals. As Higher Education Institutions begin to modify and shift their processes to align more closely with their goals and missions, I do have a few recommendations for legal compliance along this topic:

1. Continue to create equal opportunities within the admissions process that has nothing to do with race/ethnicity. This would include allowing auto entry for certain GPAs or Ranks. Something that can solely be based on academics.

2. If an institution is attempting to diversify their campus, consider standardized testing being an optional submission.

3. Holistic Review on college applications. This would take things such as academics, extracurricular activities, statements of intent, etc. into consideration.

4. Make it a priority and a point to recruit in places where there is an underrepresented population of students. Often times these students are not as exposed to higher education opportunities because of where they reside.

5. When Diversity is the goal of a campus, it is of utmost importance to hire faculty/staff who are diverse as well. They are not only a critical piece of the goal to diversity but they are more relatable for students who are considering a school.

6. Consider prioritizing funding to promote a more inclusive education. This can be applicable to all races and ethnicities but puts Americans with financial need as a priority.