# data[].attributes.body
I am the Assistant Director of Admissions at Texas State University for this Legal Guide in higher education. The Legal Guide is intended to provide more information about the use of race in college admissions to other higher education professionals as we delve into the credibility of using race as a factor in the admissions process. This topic was chosen for it's relevancy at this time as many college admissions policies are adjusted to the lack of SAT/ACT tests available for students.

# data[].attributes.body
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused institutions across the country to rethink their admissions policies as students are unable to test for SAT/ACT. Many institutions have turned to holistic admissions to admit students, while they try to increase diversity in their student body. The use of race as a factor in college admissions is hotly debated as prospective students fear they will be discriminated against in the college application process due to their race/ethnicity. As courts and institutions across the nation decide whether it is discriminatory or beneficial to use race in college admissions, admissions professionals need to be aware of ongoing litigation and judicial rulings regarding the use of race of admissions.
Admissions professionals interested in the topic of race in admissions should make sure to stay on top of the current court cases as rulings are made. Fisher v Texas (2016) is the most recent court case but currently UNC and Harvard have cases in appeals waiting on higher courts to make decisions. In addition to court cases, admissions professionals should be alert to any statewide bans, such as the affirmative action ban in Washington State that prevents the institutions from using race as a factor in admissions. Changes in admissions policy come from many different places and admissions professionals must be aware of new updates.

# data[].attributes.body
Clinedinst, M. (2019). 2019 State of College Admission. National Association for College Admission Counseling. https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/2018_soca/soca2019_all.pdf

This annual report from NACAC (National Association for College Admission Counseling) goes over the admissions trends and data from both the institutions and college applicants. From 2019, the report notes what factors are used in admissions decisions, including race and how much influence the institutions place on it.

# data[].attributes.body
Gluckman, N. (2020). UNC trial opens with dispute over its ‘holistic’ admissions policies. The Chronicles of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/unc-trial-opens-with-dispute-over-its-holistic-admissions-policies?cid=gen_sign_in

·  This article introduces one of the newest court cases about the use of race in admissions. The case is University of North Carolina vs Student for Fair Admissions (SFFA) and SFFA alleges that UNC discriminated against Caucasian and Asian American applicants during the admissions process. It is also a possibility that this court case could end up in front of the Supreme Court as the previous cases concerning race in admissions have previously.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoover, E. (2020). Harvard doesn’t discriminate against asian american applicants, U.S. appeals court rules. The Chronicles of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/harvard-doesnt-discriminate-against-asian-american-applicants-u-s-appeals-court-rules?cid=gen_sign_in

·  Informs audience of U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in case of Harvard vs. SFFA. SFFA alleged Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans in admissions process, used quotas to create cohort, and ignored race-neutral admissions processes.

·  Ruled Harvard was not discriminating against Asian American applicants and is in line with previous rulings on using race in admissions processes

·  Court emphasized Harvard uses race in context with the rest of the student’s application, and doesn’t use it to boost one over the other automatically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Harvard University just won another round in a closely watched legal bout over the use of race-conscious admissions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Thursday ruled that the Ivy League institution does not discriminate against Asian American applicants. The university's consideration of race and ethnicity, the court said in a lengthy opinion, is consistent with precedents affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling was a defeat for Students for Fair Admissions, or SFFA, which sued Harvard in 2014. The group alleged that the university had intentionally discriminated against Asian American applicants; illegally sought to "balance" its incoming classes by race through the use of quotas; considered race as more than a "plus" factor in admissions decisions; and ignored the existence of race-neutral alternatives for achieving diversity.

Lawyers for Harvard and SFFA squared off during an exhausting three-week trial at a federal courthouse in Boston two years ago. Then last fall, Allison D. Burroughs, the federal district judge who heard the case, ruled that Harvard's race-conscious admissions practices were constitutional, finding no evidence of racial animus.

"Ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race-conscious admissions," she wrote in her opinion. "The use of race benefits certain racial and ethnic groups that would otherwise be underrepresented at Harvard and is therefore neither an illegitimate use of race or reflective of racial prejudice."

SFFA appealed that decision. A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court heard the group's arguments in September. It also heard from the Justice Department, which has thrown its weight behind SFFA. During the proceedings, an assistant attorney general told the court that Harvard's use of race was "expansive" and "pervasive," in contrast with the University of Texas at Austin's race-conscious admissions program, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2016.

The appeals court was not convinced by those arguments. Its detailed opinion affirms the federal district judge's finding that Harvard did not violate federal civil-rights laws barring racial discrimination. The university's narrowly tailored use of race, the court wrote, furthers its compelling interest in student diversity and passes the " strict scrutiny " standard.

Moreover, the court rejected SFFA's assertion that Harvard uses race in a "mechanical" way, giving a predefined boost to some applicants but not others. "Harvard's use of race in admissions is contextual, and it does not consider race exclusively," the court's opinion says. "Harvard's process does not weigh race so heavily that it becomes mechanical and decisive in practice." In other words, the university's holistic review of applicants is sufficiently holistic.

The appeals court also agreed with the lower court's conclusion that there was no evidence of racial bias in Harvard's use of personal ratings of applicants - and that the university had shown that race-neutral alternatives would not be workable.

Harvard officials applauded the court's ruling. "Today's decision once again finds that Harvard's admissions policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and lawfully and appropriately pursue Harvard's efforts to create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding in our community," Rachael Dane, a spokeswoman for Harvard, said in a written statement. "As we have said time and time again, now is not the time to turn back the clock on diversity and opportunity."

But the legal saga will almost certainly continue. SFFA, which is also challenging the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's admissions program in a trial that opened in federal court this week, intends to once again push the debate over race-conscious admissions through the doors of the nation's highest court.

"While we are disappointed with the opinion of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, our hope is not lost," Edward J. Blum, SFFA's president, said in a written statement. "This lawsuit is now on track to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we will ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities."

Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the limited use of race in admissions, its ideological balance has shifted over the last few years. If it heard this case on appeal, the court's conservative majority could undo race-conscious programs at selective colleges - or it could once again defy the pundits who have long predicted affirmative action's demise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
university of north carolina at chapel hill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harvard Doesn't Discriminate Against Asian American Applicants, U.S. Appeals Court Rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harvard University just won another round in a closely watched legal bout over the use of race-conscious admissions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Thursday ruled that the Ivy League institution does not discriminate against Asian American applicants.

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional Law - 14th Amendment of the US Constitution
·   The 14th amendment states all citizens of the US and its states shall not be discriminated against in the Equal Protection Clause. It originally started with racial discrimination, but it has also come to protect other types of discrimination (gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.)

U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fourteenth Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Constitution Annotated provides a legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution based on a comprehensive review of Supreme Court case law.

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Law - Fisher v University of Texas (2013)
·   This Supreme Court Case argued that Fisher was racially discriminated against for being Caucasian when she applied to the University of Texas and ultimately was denied. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Texas that their admissions policy, which used race as a factor in holistic reviews, was allowed as long as this was a necessary way to bring diversity to campus for students to benefit from and there wasn’t a race-neutral alternative to use instead.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 US ___ , (2016) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-981_4g15.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Statutory Law - Texas Education Code § 51.805
·   This section details that universities may use a set of 18 characteristics to determine admissions for a student. Race is not explicitly listed but the last characteristic is one that the institution determines is necessary to help fulfill the universities mission, which could be argued race is necessary to promote diversity.

Other Admissions, Tex. Educ. Code § 51.805 (1997). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.51.htm#51.805

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EDUCATION CODE CHAPTER 51. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO HIGHER EDUCATION

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EDUCATION CODE TITLE 3. HIGHER EDUCATION SUBTITLE A. HIGHER EDUCATION IN GENERAL CHAPTER 51. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO HIGHER EDUCATION SUBCHAPTER A. CONTROL OF FUNDS Sec. 51.001. INSTITUTIONS TO WHICH APPLICABLE. The provisions of this subchapter apply to each institution of higher education, as that term is defined by Section 61.003 of this code, including each public junior college to the extent possible.

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative Law - Dear Colleague Letter

·  The Dear Colleague Letter provides colleges guidance to properly use race in the admissions process by discontinuing use of quotas, stating race is essential to the institution, consider race individually for each student, and not let it be used detrimentally for other students. These guidelines clarify what is considered discrimination and that schools must explore race-neutral admissions practices.

Monroe, S. J. (2008, Aug 28). Dear Colleague Letter. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/raceadmissionpse.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AUG 28 2008

Dear Colleague:

I am writing to clarify how the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education evaluates whether the use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter "Title VI"). OCR is responsible for enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance, including public, and most private, postsecondary institutions.

OCR has received numerous inquiries, from postsecondary institutions, individuals and private organizations, about the impact of the Supreme Court's 2003 decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (" Gratz "), and Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306, (2003) (" Grutter "). In Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the Supreme Court (hereinafter "the Court") concluded, "student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions." The Court therefore found lawful the way that the Law School at the University of Michigan had sought to achieve diversity. In contrast, the Court found the use of race in the related case of Gratz v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 244 (2003), to be unlawful. In Gratz , which involved the undergraduate college of the University of Michigan, the Court found unlawful the way the undergraduate school had made race "a decisive factor for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant." Id . at 274. The undergraduate school had failed to consider "each applicant's individualized qualifications, including the contribution each individual's race or ethnic identity will make to the diversity of the student body, taking into account diversity within and among all racial and ethnic groups." Id. at 277.

The Court's response to the different approaches chosen by the Law School and undergraduate college provides broad parameters to guide postsecondary institutions through the constitutional and Title VI issues that arise if race (as well as color or national origin) is used in admissions. Specifically, the Court applies "strict scrutiny" to admissions policies in order to ensure that burdens placed on individuals because of their race are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

Consistent with these decisions, OCR's policy continues to be that racial classifications in admissions policies are impermissible unless they are "narrowly tailored" to meet a "compelling governmental interest" such as the remediation of past discrimination or, in the context of higher education, to achieve appropriate student body diversity. Due to their highly suspect nature, racial classifications will only be permitted if there exists "the most exact connection between justification and classification." Id. at 270 (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 902, 100 S. Ct. 2758 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting))

As a result, if a postsecondary institution seeks to use racial classifications in admissions, it will bear the burden of providing sufficient detail about its process to enable OCR to determine whether the institution is complying with Title VI. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a public educational institution is the government actor that must be able to justify its decision to use racial classifications. Both public and private institutions receiving Federal financial assistance are required under Title VI to be able to justify these decisions. The Title VI regulations require recipients to keep records and to submit "timely, complete and accurate compliance reports" when such a report is necessary to enable OCR to ascertain whether the recipient is in compliance with the Title VI regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(b).

When developing admissions policies, postsecondary institutions must comply with the constitutional principles of equal protection. OCR is available to provide more detailed technical assistance to individual postsecondary institutions on a case-by-case basis.

The parameters outlined below describe factors that have been and will continue to be used by OCR in assessing whether the particular use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution receiving Federal financial assistance is permissible. OCR will apply these parameters when undertaking Title VI investigations and in OCR's other applicable enforcement activities:

Use of race must be essential to an institution's mission and stated goals;

The diversity sought by the postsecondary institution must be broader than mere racial diversity;

Quotas are impermissible;

Providing individualized consideration is paramount and there must be no undue burden on other-race applicants;

Before using race, there must be serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives; and

Periodic reviews are necessary and the use of race must have a logical end point.

I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of America's students.

Sincerely,

Stephanie J. Monroe
Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AUG 28 2008 Dear Colleague: I am writing to clarify how the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education evaluates whether the use of race in admissions by a postsecondary institution is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter "Title VI").

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative Law - University of Texas at Austin Handbook of Operating Procedures

·   Within UT’s handbook of operating procedures, UT clarifies the university will prohibit discrimination based on a variety of characteristics but most importantly, race. They further state the policy is to be extended to applicants for UT but it is crucial to note that UT states in their admissions webpage they are using race/ethnicity as an admissions factor in the admissions process.

University of Texas at Austin. (2018, October 12). Handbook of Operating Procedures, Nondiscrimination Policy. Retrieved from https://policies.utexas.edu/policies/nondiscrimination-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A person who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination or harassment in violation of this policy should report the incident to any University official, administrator, supervisor or any other employee who as the authority to take action to redress an alleged violation and/or has the duty of reporting such allegations as defined under "responsible employee" in HOP 3-3031. Students are encouraged to report such incidents to the Office of the Dean of Students; employees and campus visitors are encouraged to report to the Office for Inclusion and Equity ("OIE"). Incidents should be reported as soon as possible after the time of their occurrence. No person is required to report discrimination or harassment to the alleged offender.

Every supervisor, administrator, University official or any other employee who has the authority to take action to redress an alleged violation and/or has the duty of reporting such allegations as defined under "responsible employee" in HOP 3-3031 is responsible for promptly reporting incidents of discrimination and harassment in violation of this policy that come to their attention to either the Office of the Dean of Students or OIE.

Faculty, staff, and students must cooperate with University investigations concerning allegations of discrimination or harassment. Refusal to cooperate with an investigation may result in disciplinary action.
Informal Resolution Procedure
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. No formal investigation is involved in the informal resolution process and no finding is made.

A request for informal resolution should be made within 180 calendar days of the date of the alleged incident to either the Office of the Dean of Students or OIE, who will determine whether the nature of the problem is such that it can be resolved by agreement on an informal basis, and if so, which office will do so.

Methods for informal resolution may include, but are not limited to: coaching the person on how to directly address a situation which is causing a problem; mediating the dispute with the parties; aiding in the modification of a situation in which the offensive conduct occurred; assisting a department or division with the resolution of a real or perceived problem; or arranging a documented meeting with the alleged offender that involves a discussion of the requirements of the Nondiscrimination Policy.

The University will document any informal resolution. Such documentation will be retained by the Office of the Dean of Students or OIE as appropriate and will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law.
Formal Complaint Resolution Procedure

Complaint. A complaint alleging discrimination or harassment must be submitted to the Office for Inclusion and Equity or the Office of the Dean of Students. The complaint should contain the following information:

Name and UT Identification Number of the Complainant(s);

Contact information, including address, telephone, e-mail;

Name of person(s) directly responsible for alleged violation(s);

Date(s) and place(s) of alleged violation(s);

Nature of alleged violation(s) as defined in this policy;

Detailed description of the specific conduct that is the basis of alleged violation(s);

Copies of documents pertaining to the alleged violation(s);

Names of any witnesses to alleged violation(s) and witnesses' contact information;

Action requested to resolve the situation;

Complainant's signature and date of filing; and

Any other relevant information.

While an investigation may begin on the basis of an oral complaint, the complainant is strongly encouraged to file a written complaint. 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.

Time Limit. A signed complaint must be filed within 180 calendar days of the occurrence of the alleged violation in order to ensure prompt and efficient handling and resolution. At the discretion of OIE or the Office of the Dean of Students, the 180 day filing period may be extended for good cause.

Acknowledgement. Within five (5) calendar days after receipt of a signed complaint, OIE or the Office of the Dean of Students, as appropriate, will send the complainant a brief acknowledgment of the complaint, stating that the complaint will be evaluated, and advising the complainant(s) that he or she will be contacted within a given time. The acknowledgment letter will include a copy of these complaint procedures.

Complaint Evaluation. A formal investigation will be initiated if a complaint is complete, within the scope of this policy and articulates sufficient specific facts, which, if determined to be true, would support a finding that this policy was violated. The University may not proceed with a complaint investigation under a variety of circumstances, for instance:

a complaint fails to describe in sufficient detail the conduct that is the basis of the complaint;

the conduct described in the complaint is not covered by this policy;

the complaint has been withdrawn; or

an appropriate resolution or remedy has already been achieved, or has been offered and rejected.

In the event that a Formal Complaint has been filed and if it is determined that the University will not proceed with a complaint investigation, OIE or the Office of the Dean of Students, as appropriate, will send a notification letter explaining the reason(s) to the complainant. The notification letter will also include a statement informing the complainant that, within seven (7) calendar days of the notification, he or she may appeal the determination not to proceed with a complaint investigation to the vice president for the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement or the vice president for Student Affairs, as appropriate. The request for appeal must be a signed, written document articulating why the decision to dismiss the complaint was in error. The appropriate vice president will respond within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the appeal. If the decision to dismiss is upheld, that decision is final. If the decision to dismiss is overturned, the complaint is sent back to OIE or the Office of the Dean of Students, as appropriate, for investigation in accordance with the procedures outlined below.

Notwithstanding the above, OIE may initiate an investigation at the request of Human Resources representatives, deans, directors, department heads, or vice-presidents, or at OIE's sole discretion when the facts or circumstances warrant such.

Notification of Respondent. If it is determined that the University will proceed with a complaint investigation, OIE or the Office of the Dean of Students will give the respondent written notification of the complaint investigation. The notification letter will include a statement of the allegations to be investigated. The notification letter will provide the respondent an opportunity to submit a written response to the allegations within seven (7) calendar days, unless unusual circumstances warrant additional time. The notification letter will include a statement advising the respondent that retaliation against the complainant is prohibited and will subject the respondent to appropriate disciplinary action.

Investigation Responsibility. The Office of the Dean of Students is responsible for conducting formal investigations of complaints against students alleging discrimination and harassment in violation of this policy [4]. OIE is responsible for conducting formal investigations of complaints against non-students alleging discrimination and harassment in violation of this policy. In the event that a respondent is a student and an employee, OIE will make a determination whether the alleged discriminatory act(s) relates to the respondent's employment. OIE will only initiate an investigation and/or informal resolution if OIE determines that the alleged discriminatory act(s) relates to the respondent's employment. If a complaint is directed against an individual who would otherwise play a role in investigating and attempting to resolve the complaint, the function assigned to that person by these procedures will be delegated to another person.

Investigative Process and Findings. The investigator will interview both the complainant and the respondent(s) and persons who are considered to have pertinent factual information related to the complaint. The investigator will also gather and examine documents relevant to the complaint. 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. Findings will 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, and whether it was physically threatening, humiliating, or was simply offensive in nature.

Advisor. During the complaint process, the complainant(s) and the respondent(s) may designate and thereafter be accompanied by an advisor of his or her choosing at meetings and interviews at which he or she is present; however, no advisor may examine witnesses or otherwise actively participate in a meeting or interview. An individual may only have one advisor present at a time.

Submission of Evidence. During the complaint investigation process, the complainant(s) and the respondent(s) should provide OIE or the Office of the Dean of Students, as appropriate, with all documents and the identity of witnesses with a summary of the information the witness can provide regarding the issues raised in the complaint.

Report of Findings and Recommendation - Complaints Against Non-Students and Student Employees

The investigator will provide a proposed statement of findings, copies of relevant documents and any physical evidence considered to the appropriate vice president or designee within sixty (60) days of receipt of the respondent's statement, unless unusual circumstances require more time. The appropriate vice president to act on complaints against faculty and staff will be the vice president or designee over for the area where the respondent is employed. The appropriate vice president to act on complaints against contractors and visitors will be the vice president for the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement or designee. If a complaint is directed against a vice president who would otherwise act on a complaint, the function assigned to that vice president will be delegated to another person.

The appropriate vice president or designee will promptly notify the complainant and the respondent that the investigation has been completed and attach a copy of the proposed statement of findings. Student identifiable information, if any, which is confidential by law, will be redacted. Within ten (10) calendar days from the date of notification, the complainant and respondent may each submit, for consideration by the appropriate vice president or designee, such comments and corrections as they may have.

Within fifteen (15) working days of the notification to the complainant and respondent that the investigation has been completed, the appropriate vice president or designee and the investigator should discuss the findings, and review the record, along with any comments and proposed corrections submitted by the complainant and respondent, if necessary. Further, the appropriate vice president or designee will take one of the following actions: a) request further investigation into the complaint; b) dismiss the complaint if the results of the completed investigation are inconclusive or there is insufficient reasonable, credible evidence to support the allegation(s); or c) find that this policy was violated.

If the appropriate vice president or designee determines that this policy was violated, he or she, following consultation with the investigator or other knowledgeable persons as appropriate, shall determine a disciplinary action that is appropriate for the severity of the conduct, and take whatever other action is necessary to end the discrimination or harassment. Disciplinary actions can include, but are not limited to, written reprimands, the imposition of conditions, reassignment, suspension without pay, and termination.

The appropriate vice president or designee will inform the complainant and respondent, and the appropriate unit head in writing of his or her decision, and will attach a copy of the final statement of findings. Copies of the vice president's or designee's letter, the attached statement of findings, and relevant documents will also be sent to the Office of the Dean of Students or OIE as appropriate.

Report of Findings and Recommendation - Complaints Against Students:

The investigator will provide a proposed statement of findings, copies of relevant documents and any physical evidence considered to the Dean of Students, or his or her designee, within thirty (30) working days of receipt of the respondent's statement, unless unusual circumstances require more time.

The Dean of Students or designee and the investigator will meet within fifteen (15) working days to discuss the findings, and review the record.

Within fifteen (15) working days from that meeting, the Dean of Students or designee shall take one of the following actions: a) request further investigation into the complaint; b) dismiss the complaint if the results of the completed investigation are inconclusive or there is insufficient reasonable, credible evidence to support the allegation(s); or c) find that this policy was violated.

If the Dean of Students or designee determines that this policy was violated, the dean, following consultation with the investigator or other knowledgeable persons as appropriate, will determine whether to initiate a disciplinary action appropriate to the severity of the conduct pursuant to the General Information Catalog, Appendix C, Chapter 11 - Institutional Rules on Student Services and Activities. Disciplinary actions can include, but are not limited to, a documented warning, the imposition of conditions, probation, suspension, and dismissal.

As required by federal law, any disclosure of the findings and decision of the Office of the Dean of Students will be governed by the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Miscellaneous

Grievance of a Disciplinary Action

Any employee disciplined pursuant to this policy, except faculty, teaching assistants, assistant instructors or members of the University of Texas Police Department (each of whom are subject to separate procedures[2]), may grieve that action by submitting a written grievance, within ten (10) working days of the imposition of the disciplinary action, to the President's Office. Ordinarily, the president will assign responsibility for review and action on the appeal of the vice president's action to another vice president; however, when required by unusual circumstances, the president may review and handle a grievance pursuant to this policy.

If the disciplinary action that is being grieved does not involve termination, demotion, or suspension without pay, the vice president will thoroughly review and finally decide the matter within thirty (30) calendar days of its receipt unless unusual circumstances require more time.

If the disciplinary action that is being grieved involves the termination, demotion or suspension without pay of an employee who is covered by the Handbook of Operating Procedures, HOP 5-2420 the vice president who is assigned to review the grievance will follow the procedures for appealing such actions contained in that section. Complainants will be required to appear and testify at hearings that may be a part of such proceedings.

Any student disciplined under this policy has the right to appeal as provided in General Information Catalog, Appendix C, Chapter 11- Institutional Rules on Student Services and Activities.

A student, faculty, or staff member who retaliates in any way against an individual who has brought a complaint pursuant to this policy or participated in good faith in an investigation of such a complaint is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the University.

Any person who knowingly and intentionally files a false complaint under this policy is subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from the University.

Effect on Pending Personnel Actions

The filing of a discrimination or retaliation complaint will not stop or delay any evaluation or disciplinary action related to the complainant who is not performing up to acceptable standards or who has violated University rules or policies.

Relationship of Complaint Process to Outside Agency Time Limits

The filing of a discrimination or harassment complaint under this policy does not excuse the complainant from meeting the time limits of outside agencies.

Relationship to Grievance Procedure

This complaint procedure will also constitute the grievance procedure for complaints alleging unlawful discrimination. As used herein, "complaint" is synonymous with "grievance."

Time frames mentioned in these procedures may be extended for good cause, such as holidays or when classes are not in session, or when it is necessary to complete an investigation due to difficulties reaching witnesses or parties to the complaint.

Documentation and Confidentiality

The University will maintain documents related to complaints under this policy as required by law. The Office of the Dean of Students will be responsible for records related to complaints against students. The Office for Inclusion and Equity will be responsible for records related to complaints against non-students. The confidentiality of a complaint under this policy and all documents, correspondence, interviews and discussions relating to the investigation of the information contained in a complaint will be maintained on a need to know basis to the extent permitted by law. Any person who knowingly and intentionally makes an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information contained in a complaint or otherwise relating to the investigation of a complaint under this policy is subject to disciplinary action.

For Assistance: Questions regarding this policy should be directed to the Office of the Dean of Students or the Office for Inclusion and Equity.

Sources: Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Equal Pay Act of 1963; Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008; Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974; Executive Order of 11246; Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21; BOR 2.I.6; Previous policies: HOP 7.01 and 7.16

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A person who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination or harassment in violation of this policy should report the incident to any University official, administrator, supervisor or any other employee who as the authority to take action to redress an alleged violation and/or has the duty of reporting such allegations as defined under "responsible employee" in HOP 3-3031.

# data[].attributes.body
National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2020). Guide to ethical practice in college admission. Retrieved from https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/advocacy-and-ethics/nacac_guide-to-ethical-practice-in-college-admission_sept.-2020_final.pdf

"Access and Equity - We believe we should strive to increase access and eliminate from the education system bias based on race, ethnicity, religion or creed, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, political affiliation, national origin, or disability. We view this as fundamental to our responsibility as educators."

One of the core values of NACAC's Guide for Ethics is access and equity as it is integral to our mission as admissions professionals to provide opportunities for all of our students. Ensuring they are not discriminated against within the admissions process is essential to overcoming racial issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Tatum, B. D. (2017). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?: And other conversations about race. Basic Books.  (Original work published in 1997)

The book covers racial identities, how it currently impacts our society, and ways to have conversations to resolve the racial issues. The newest edition includes information regarding Barack Obama as the first black president, racial segregation in schools, as well as the author's thoughts about police brutality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The classic, New York Times -bestselling book on the psychology of racism that shows us how to talk about race in America.

Walk into any racially mixed high school and you will see Black, White, and Latino youth clustered in their own groups. Is this self-segregation a problem to address or a coping strategy? How can we get past our reluctance to discuss racial issues?

Beverly Daniel Tatum, a renowned authority on the psychology of racism, argues that straight talk about our racial identities is essential if we are serious about communicating across racial and ethnic divides and pursuing antiracism. These topics have only become more urgent as the national conversation about race is increasingly acrimonious. This fully revised edition is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand dynamics of race and racial inequality in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?: And Other Conversations About Race

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?: And Other Conversations About Race [Tatum, Beverly Daniel] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?: And Other Conversations About Race

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
·  The universities need to establish consistent and clear support of diversity and inclusion in their student body and mission statement and goals.

·  Universities can create admissions policies promoting a diverse incoming cohort which use race as just one factor of admissions, amongst many more factors.

·  Research race-neutral admissions policies that can create a diverse cohort without using race in the admissions process. If such an admissions policy is possible, the institution should move to adopt the race-neutral policy.

·  Be clear to students about the factors considered in the admissions process and explain clearly how race will be used.

·  Communicate with the institutional legal department to maintain legally compliant admissions policies as rulings and laws come into effect.

·  Continue to promote a diverse campus not only by working on admissions policies to admit students, but cultivate a campus where all students are encouraged and supported through their college journey.