|
|
The Access and Diversity Collaborative's Quarterly Update |
News and Developments of Note
October 2019 | | | | | |
|
College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative (ADC) quarterly newsletter informs members on the happenings in federal education policy and national news, with emphasis on matters of access, enrollment, diversity and inclusion. Each quarter, we highlight best practices among members and provide updates on ADC publications and events, and periodically include insight from an ADC sponsor on a topic of interest. |
|
Federal Court Litigation Involving Enrollment Issues of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender
Landscape
Admissions Practices and Campus Policies
Financial Aid and Cost of College
Student Enrollment, Experience, and Outcomes
Title VI and Title IX
ADC in Action Sponsor Spotlight—Welcome New Sponsors: APLU, IHEP, University of Richmond, and Rowan University |
|
|
|
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On September 30, 2019, the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts rendered a decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The plaintiff in that case (Students for Fair Admissions) challenged Harvard's admissions policies and practices designed to advance its diversity goals as unlawfully discriminatory under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin by recipients of federal funds. The district court addressed and rejected four claims of discrimination by the plaintiff that Harvard unlawfully: |
|
• |
Pursued racial balancing; |
|
• |
Considered the race of applicants in a mechanical way; |
|
• |
Failed to pursue viable race-neutral alternatives in lieu of its consideration of race; and |
|
• |
Engaged in intentional discrimination against Asian Americans. | |
|
Although this decision is important in the landscape of cases addressing challenges to diversity-related admissions policies that consider race and ethnicity, this decision is highly-fact based, only reflects the conclusion of a single federal district (trial) court judge, and binds only the parties involved. This decision has been appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals (binding only on institutions in the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico). The full decision is here. A more detailed preliminary analysis produced by the ADC and EducationCounsel is available here. The ADC will also host a webinar to discuss the decision on October 23 from 2–3:30 PM EST. Register here. |
|
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, U.S. District Court for the North Carolina Middle District. On January 18, 2019, the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) each filed motions for summary judgment asking the court to rule in their favor based on law and their written filings, rather than going to trial. In these filings, SFFA argued that UNC mechanically considers race as a dominant factor in admissions; acts in a manner that indicates a lack of sincere interest in the educational benefits of diversity; and fails to use race neutral alternatives that UNC admitted in its Fisher amicus brief are workable, rendering UNC's consideration of race unnecessary. UNC denies SFFA's claims and argues that it actively engages diversity to gain research-based educational benefits for students; has a rigorous, high-quality admission program in which readers are unaware of the racial composition of the class; and over a 10-year period, two committees and the Admissions Office considered many neutral alternatives and has been unable to find any neutral alternative that would provide the same diversity and academic quality as the current model. (See the January 2019 newsletter for more detail.) As in the Harvard case, SFFA and UNC present experts with conflicting findings.
On September 30, 2019, the federal district court issued an order denying summary judgment to both parties. In this order, three key issues were discussed: |
|
1) |
the sufficiency of UNC's articulation of goals/objectives and definition of critical mass; |
|
2) |
whether race is a "plus" or "dominant" factor in admissions; and |
|
3) |
whether UNC pursued all workable race-neutral alternatives. | |
|
In discussion on the sufficiency of UNC's articulation of goals/objectives and definition of critical mass, the judge recognized UNC's compelling interest in diversity, but did not grant summary judgement. In discussion on how race was considered in admissions and whether UNC pursued all workable race-neutral alternatives, the judge also concluded that each of these areas were triable issues of fact, recognizing that they will depend on the competing arguments of the experts retained by SFFA and UNC, as well as the credibility of the witnesses for both sides and underlying evidence. No trial date has yet been set. |
|
Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences v. Harvard Law Review et al. (US District Court for Massachusetts) and Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences v. New York University Law Review et al. (US District Court for the Southern District of New York). In October 2018, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP) filed lawsuits in federal trial courts against both Harvard University's and New York University's Law Schools, Law Reviews, and the universities themselves with nearly identical complaints. In the complaints for both cases, FASORP asserts that both law reviews violate Title VI and Title IX by discriminating against whites and males and illegally giving preference to women and students/authors of color in the member/editor selection and the article selection processes. See the December 2018 newsletter for further detail. In August 2019, the federal judge in the Harvard case dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds; this does not foreclose the lawsuit from being brought again in the future. Additionally, a motion to dismiss FASORP's lawsuit against NYU on procedural grounds is still pending and FASORP has opposed dismissal. The federal trial court in the NYU case has set a June 24, 2019 deadline for the parties to complete their technical motion-related filings before any hearing or decision on that lawsuit's sustainability occurs. |
|
|
|
The College Board recently announced updates Landscape™, previously called the Environmental Context Dashboard. Landscape™ provides consistent high school and neighborhood information for all applicants to help admissions officers fully consider every student, no matter where they live.
The resource will no longer display a single "score" combining high school and neighborhood information. The College Board is also sharing new details on how Landscape works, including a comprehensive description of the data, methodology, and appropriate usage guidelines that participating colleges must follow. Beginning next year, schools, students, and families will be able to see the same information about high schools and neighborhoods that colleges see. More than 100 colleges are piloting Landscape during the 2019-2020 pilot year.
To learn more about Landscape, please visit collegeboard.org/landscape. |
|
Relevant Articles |
|
• |
On August 27, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article titled "Facing Criticism, College Board Backs Away from 'Adversity Score,'" which discusses the updates to Landscape, and the rationale behind them. Several other news outlets also published articles on this change including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, Forbes, and Huffington Post. |
|
• |
On September 5, The Washington Post published an opinion piece titled "The college admissions process is 'unconscionably unjust.' Here's one way to help change that." in which Brennan Barnard and Richard Weissbourd discuss the role of contextual tools like Landscape and highlights the inequities in the college admissions process. | |
|
|
|
Relevant Articles |
|
• |
The September/October 2019 edition of the Washington Monthly magazine, an article titled "The Pre-College Racket" discusses the role (or lack thereof) of participation in costly pre-college programs for high school students as a factor in the college admissions process. |
|
• |
On August 28, The New York Times Magazine published an article titled "Where Does Affirmative Action Leave Asian-Americans?," which discusses perspectives of several Asian-Americans on the SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit and its impact on the Asian-American community. |
|
• |
On August 28, The New York Times published an article titled "International Students Face Hurdles Under Trump Administration Policy," which discusses the ways the Trump Administration's treatment of international students seeking visas to study in the United States have impacted both students and colleges. |
|
• |
On June 25, The Pennsylvania Gazette published an interview with Eric Furda, Dean of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania titled "College Admissions in Crisis," which includes his reflections on the current state of college admissions in the United States, the potential implications of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard lawsuit, the Varsity Blues investigation, and changing perceptions on the important factors when making admissions decisions. | |
|
|
|
• |
On August 14, NCES published a report titled Trends in Undergraduate Nonfederal Grant and Scholarship Aid by Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics, which summarizes information from four administrations of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Key findings show that the average amount of a nonfederal grant was $4,600 in 2003-04 and $6,900 in 2015-16; that the percentage of undergraduates who received state grant aid increased to 22 percent in 2015-16 from 16 percent in 2003-04; and that the percentage of undergraduates receiving employer aid decreased from 9 percent in 2003-04 to 6 percent in 2015-16. |
|
• |
On June 26, the ACT published a report titled, "Dollars Rule Everything Around Me: College-Bound Students' View on Paying for College," which summarizes findings from a survey of students and their perceptions of how to pay for postsecondary education. The report shows that two-thirds of students were eligible for Pell Grants; that two-thirds of students were averse to education-related debt; and that most students do not understand basic information about student financial assistance and repayment processes. | |
|
|
|
• |
On July 10, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released a report titled, "Baccalaureate and Beyond: A First Look at the Employment and Educational Experiences of College Graduates, 1 Year Later." The report examines outcomes (e.g. degree completion time, amount borrowed, employment status, earnings, etc.) for individuals who earned their bachelor's degree in the 2015-2016 academic year. | |
|
Relevant Articles |
|
• |
On September 6, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article titled "The Great Enrollment Crash: Students aren't showing up. And it's only going to get worse," which discusses the ways higher education is experiencing decreases in student enrollment that likely will continue to decrease as a result of many factors including lower fertility rates during the Great Recession. The article also discusses implications of and considerations due to the changing enrollment patterns for institution leaders. |
|
• |
On July 26, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an opinion article titled "How Higher Education Can Atone for Its Long History of Racism," which discusses the role of racism in shaping higher education in the United States and in which the author, Patricia McGuire, argues that "[t]o make real progress in eliminating the structures of racism that depress the enrollment of black students, universities need to move from gestures of good intentions to real transformation." | |
|
|
|
• |
On September 5, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) announced it will be fining Michigan State University (MSU) $4.5 million for failing to implement Title IX and the Clery Act appropriately. The fine comes as a result the Department concluding an investigation into MSU's handling of reports of sexual violence by former employee and adjunct professor Larry Nassar. The investigation was conducted by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the office of Federal Student Aid (FSA). The fine levied against MSU is the highest received by any university regarding Title IX and Clery Act enforcement. Further, the university will only be provisionally approved for federal student aid programs over the next year to ensure the university implements required changes. |
|
• |
On July 10, USED published a statement after the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released data on the completion of civil rights complaints. According to OCR data, the Department has, on average, resolved almost double the number of complaints per year compared to the prior eight fiscal years. In fiscal year (FY) 2018, OCR received 12,435 complaints with 7,019 pending, and the Department resolved 14,074 cases. | |
|
Relevant Articles |
|
• |
On September 5, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article titled "Life Inside the Title IX Pressure Cooker," which discusses experiences of Title IX coordinators on college campuses, as well as the ways in which changes in federal oversight of Title IX enforcement has impacted the role. |
|
• |
On August 27, The College Fix published an article titled "Study finds more than half of colleges 'facially violate' Title IX with women-only scholarships," which reported on a study conducted by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments across institutions in 36 states and found that colleges and universities generally offer more scholarships that are available exclusively for women. | |
|
|
|
Sponsor Spotlight |
|
• |
Welcome New Sponsors: We are pleased to announce that two new organizations have joined the Access and Diversity Collaborative as organizational sponsors: Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). APLU is a membership organization committed to expanding access to and success in higher education that consists of 239 public research universities, land-grant institutions, state university systems, and affiliated organizations. IHEP is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization focused on improving access to and success in higher education, with a particular emphasis on underserved populations. IHEP develops high-impact, innovative policy- and practice-oriented research to guide policymakers and education leaders.
Additionally, two new institutional sponsors have joined the ADC: Rowan University and University of Richmond. With these new additions, the ADC now has 59 intuitional sponsors and 15 organizational sponsors. |
|
• |
From September 24–27, the National Association for College Admission Counseling hosted their National Conference in Louisville, Kentucky. Among the sessions offered were two ADC sponsored sessions. The first was a session focused on "Achieving the Educational Benefits of Diversity--What CEMOS Need to Understand," included as part of a larger Chief Enrollment Officer's Forum co-led by ADC Advisory Council member, Rachelle Hernandez (Senior Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, The University of Texas at Austin).
The second session featured Access and Diversity Collaborative leaders, including Stephanie Dupaul from new ADC Sponsor institution the University of Richmond, Art Coleman from EducationCounsel, David Hawkins from NACAC, and Wendell Hall from College Board. The session spoke to a standing-room only audience and provided an update on federal policy and legal developments associated with higher education diversity issues, with a focus on current legal and Trump Administration policy developments that affect the consideration of race, ethnicity, and sex in admissions and other enrollment decisions. This discussion included an overview of the relevant policy and legal landscape, including pending federal court litigation involving Harvard, and UNC, as well as active OCR investigations. The session was also featured in reporting on the meeting from Inside Higher Ed, available here. | |
|
If you would like your institution/organization to be considered for future Sponsor Spotlights, please send a brief description of your initiative or practice to Emily Webb ([email protected]). |
|
Upcoming Publications |
|
The Playbook: Understanding the Role of Race-Neutral Strategies in Advancing Higher Education Diversity Goals
This fall, College Board and EducationCounsel will publish The Playbook (2d Edition), which will provide a significant update to The Playbook: A Guide to Assist Institutions of Higher Education in Evaluating Race- and Ethnicity-Neutral Policies in Support of the Mission-Related Diversity Goals (2014). In particular, the second edition will amplify and expand on the material in the 2014 version, including by providing numerous additional strategies and examples for institutions to consider when setting or revising diversity-aimed, race-neutral policies. As with the 2014 version, this updated publication will also provide an overview of legal requirements associated with race-neutral practices. |
|
Upcoming Events |
|
• |
Webinar Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard: Understanding What the Court Said and What It Means For Higher Education—The Access & Diversity Collaborative will host a public webinar on October 23, 2019 from 2-3:30 pm EST to further address this decision, as well as the decision in SFFA v. UNC that denied summary judgment to all parties. Registration is required for the webinar; please register here. |
|
• |
College Board Forum—November 6–8, 2019 in Washington, D.C.
As part of Forum, the ADC will be hosting two sessions: | |
|
1) |
Major Federal Developments Affecting Higher Education Diversity and Admission
November 6, 2019, 1:15–2:15 pm
This session will address the federal policy and legal developments associated with higher education diversity issues, with a focus on current legal and Trump administration policy developments that affect the consideration of race, ethnicity, and sex in admissions and other enrollment decisions. Grounded in an overview of the relevant policy and legal landscape, presenters will offer perspectives on the key legal and policy issues that merit focus, with a discussion of key strategies to consider when addressing these issues. Several recent Access and Diversity Collaborative publications will be highlighted. |
|
2) |
Race Neutral Strategies Under Federal Nondiscrimination Law: An Evolving Lens
November 8, 2019, 8–9:15 am
This session will provide attendees an interactive experience grounded in legal baselines, policy guidance, and the articulation of probing questions that should drive institutional action where considerations of race and ethnicity may be present in enrollment policy and practice. |
|
|
The ADC will also hold its annual Sponsor Breakfast on November 6 from 8–9 am.
More details about Forum available here. | |
|
• |
College Board Higher Education Colloquium—January 12–14, 2020, Dana Point, CA
As part of a Post-Colloquium Session, the ADC will be sponsoring a workshop titled, "Beyond the Law: Exploring Systemic Policy Foundations and Advancing Student-Focused Diversity and Inclusion Strategies." In this session, a panel of experts will engage participants in a discussion on the core elements of good diversity- and inclusion-related policy and practice, including: desired outcomes, student experiences, data and evidence, communication and institutional alignment. The workshop will conclude with a crosswalk of takeaways on Colloquium session themes that align with federal nondiscrimination law—making the explicit connection between good policy and legal compliance. This workshop will be held on January 14, 2020 from 12:30 pm until 3:00 pm. More information and complete Colloquium agenda available here. | | | | |
 |
| %%[ SET @encryptedKey = SHA256(LOWERCASE(_subscriberkey)) SET @preferenceCenterURL = Concat("https://subscriptions.collegeboard.org/professional?u=", URLEncode(@encryptedKey,1,1)) ]%% |
|
|
