Monday, September 2, 2013
Information via The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting:
President Obama recently proposed tying federal aid for higher education to graduates’ employment outcomes, but tracking results may be more difficult than the administration anticipates. The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting posted its report Friday that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has not tracked graduation or retention rates for the nearly one million veterans who used GI Bill education benefits since 2009. The VA has provided $30 billion in veteran student aid under the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act for undergraduate and graduate education and vocational training. Because Department of Veterans Affairs does not track student outcomes for veterans who receive student aid, there is little evidence about how the money helped them, making that aid more vulnerable to budget cuts or elimination. Failing to track student aid can also lead to educational institutions profiting from GI Bill money while being largely unaccountable for student veterans’ completion rates or marketable skills. In the first year of Post-9/11 Act payments, a few for-profit schools collected nearly as much funding as all public institutions—more than $639 million for 76,746 veterans, or an average of $8,337 for each student. (Public schools took in more than $696 million to educate 203,790 veterans, with spending averaging about $3,418 a student.) The University of Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute, and the Art Institutes are known for aggressively courting veterans as students, an issue that Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has been investigating for two years.
Part of the problem is that the VA’s records contain duplicate entries for students who transfer schools, so the agency has not released a recent breakdown of payments to individual schools. In response to questions about student outcomes during a May 2013 audit, VA officials told the Government Accountability Office that the VA’s job is to provide benefits, “not to be responsible for veterans’ individual academic performance or goals.” The GAO report countered that the VA should collect outcome data to help students and “inform policymakers about the value veterans are receiving for the government’s substantial investment.” Spending on the Post-9/11 GI Bill is estimated to hit $42 billion next year, according to VA and White House projections. Read more here.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
President Obama unveiled a proposal last week to create a national college performance rating system tied to federal student aid. Speaking at the University of Buffalo, the President said that the rating system is part of a package of higher education reforms to make college more affordable. The rating system, proposed for the 2015 school year, would be based on “metrics like how much debt does the average student leave with, how easy is it to pay off, how many students graduate on time, how well do those graduates do in the workforce,” the President said. Under the plan, students who attend better-rated colleges would be eligible for larger Pell Grants and lower student-loan interest rates. Until more details about the metrics and rating system are revealed it is difficult to evaluate the plan, although Florida Governor Rick Scott has invited the President to look at his state’s college reforms. Read the White House’s fact sheet on the proposal here.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Students and activists delivered a petition to the U.S. Department of Education’s offices last week to demand stiffer sanctions for colleges and universities that suppress information about sexual violence on campus. ED Act Now, a group formed to stop campus gender-based and sexual violence, has collected more than 170,000 signatures on the petition that they presented to Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Citing the “Dear Colleague” letters that ED officials sent to college administrators this spring suggesting that they adopt new sexual harassment standards, the petition asks ED to enforce those standards through levying sanctions and publicly declare offending schools as “noncompliant.” In the petition, the group states that in the past year, “an unprecedented number of survivors of sexual violence have filed Title IX complaints against colleges and universities across the United States, including the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Dartmouth College, Swarthmore College, Occidental College, the University of California - Berkeley, and the University of Southern California.” Members of ED Act Now feel that college and university administrators are breaking federal law by suppressing rape reports and failing to protect victims of sexual violence. The group says that the ED “has only ever publicly found one school to be in noncompliance with the law, even though a recent study suggests nearly two thirds of colleges in America don't comply.” Read the petition here.
Friday, August 2, 2013
On Wednesday, the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce released a study titled "Separate and Unequal: How Higher Education Reinforces the Intergenerational Reproduction of White Racial Privilege." The study begins with the bold finding that: "The postsecondary system mimics the racial inequality it inherits from the K-12 education system, then magnifies and projects that inequality into the labor market and society at large. In theory, the education system is colorblind; but, in fact, it is racially polarized and exacerbates the intergenerational reproduction of white racial privilege." It goes on to emphasize that there is good news, which is that access to higher education over the past 15 years has increased, particulary for minority students. The problem is that, "despite increasing access, there are two separate postsecondary pathways: one for whites and another for Hispanics and African Americans. Whites have captured most of the enrollment growth at the 468 most selective and well-funded four-year colleges, while African Americans and Hispanics have captured most of the enrollment growth at the increasingly overcrowded and under-resourced open-access two- and four-year colleges." Moreover, these different enrollment patterns are not fully explained by different college readiness. Rather, even highly qualified minorities disproportionately enroll in less selective or open access colleges, whereas whites, across the spectrum, disproportionately attend selective colleges. This differential enrollment is also troubling because graduation rates are much lower at less selective and open access colleges. In fact, highly qualified students graduate at a lower rate from these collleges than do less qualified students who attend highly selective colleges. In other words, this so-called "mismatch," whereby minorities attend colleges and universities that do not match their academic potential, decreases their chance of educational success and life opportunities.
Monday, July 1, 2013
In addition to the article Professor Davis posted last week on the blog (For-Profits and the Market Paradox), Omari Simmons, Wake Forest University School of Law, justed posted his new article on higher education access barriers for low-income students to ssrn. The article is fortchoming in the Arizona State Law Journal. In his abstract, he writes:
Keeping higher education affordable and accessible for many Americans is an integral part of furthering the public good. Although legal scholars have given considerable attention to K-12 educational disparities as well as the constitutionality and fairness of admissions practices at selective higher education institutions, they have ignored significant barriers that limit higher education attainment for many low socio-economic status (SES) students. Similarly, the existing regulatory architecture, including federal, state, and institutional policies, inadequately addresses the higher education needs of low-SES students. This article responds to this significant gap in legal scholarship. Advancing higher education attainment for low-SES students presents a rare opportunity for the Obama administration to leave an enduring reform legacy much in the same way Roosevelt achieved with the GI Bill and Lincoln with the Morrill Act. The heightened focus on higher education attainment for low-SES students is also quite timely given the nation’s slow economic growth and the Supreme Court’s imminent decision in Fisher v. Texas. The prospect of the Supreme Court overturning its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger has prompted observers to consider the use of class as an alternative to the use of race in college admissions and beyond. In this legal, economic, and political environment, reforms targeting higher education attainment for low-SES students take on added significance. In response to these challenges, this Article proposes a more comprehensive K-16 framework to guide future reforms targeting higher education attainment for low-SES students. These reforms include: a rigorous K-12 education for a greater number of students; a transitional bridge between secondary school and higher education; and college-level reforms from federal, state, and institutional actors; and a presidential commission exclusively targeting higher education equity.
Dowload the full article here.--db
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Vinay Harpalani has posted his early take on Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin at his institution's website, IIT Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog. Below is an excerpt of Professor Harpalani's assessment of the decision:
Make no mistake about it: given the current composition of the Supreme Court, this is the best realistic outcome for proponents of affirmative action (I consider myself to be a strong one). Otherwise, Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, both of whom support race-conscious admissions policies, would not have voted with the majority. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Fisher pretty much leaves the framework of Grutter v. Bollinger in place. The only change is that the language of “good faith” in Grutter is more restricted, and the meaning of this language was already ambiguous.... Moreover, because most other states do not have such plans such as the Top Ten Percent Law, they are not in the same boat as the University of Texas, and today’s ruling does not compel universities in those states to do anything differently.
Thanks to Professor Harpalani for sending along this post to join Education Law Prof's ongoing conversation about Fisher, starting with Derek Black (South Carolina) and John C. Britton (UDC).Professor Harpalani's comments were originally posted on the American Constitution Society (ACS) blog. He is also quoted here on Fisher in the New York Times.
We welcome contributions from advocates and scholars as we continue to examine what Fisher means for diversity in public higher education.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Court's long awaited opinion in Fisher v. Texas overshadowed most everything else in legal news yesterday, but lest we forget the Court also decided Vance v. Ball State University. For the most part, Vance is an employment case that just happens to arise in the context of higher education. But since a lot of employment cases just happen to happen in schools, it is worth noting. The issue before the Court was what type of employees fall in the category of "supervisor." The meaning of supervisor is important under Title VII cases, as it dictates the employer's liability in harassment cases. The Court explained:
Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for workplace harassment maydepend on the status of the harasser. If the harassing employee is the victim’s co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. In cases in which the harasser is a “supervisor,” however, different rules apply. If the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action (i.e., “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits,” Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.
S. 742, 761), the employer is strictly liable. But if no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may escape liability by establishing, as an affirmative defense, that (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that theemployer provided. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 807; Ellerth, supra, at 765.
In short, "An employee is a 'supervisor' for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if he or she is empowered by the employer totake tangible employment actions against the victim." The Court's holding was at odds with the EEOC's interpretation, as well as that of the some courts of appeals.
Monday, June 24, 2013
As indicated in my first post, the Court neither upheld nor struck down the Texas plan, but rather said the lower court was too deferential in reviewing Texas' admission policy. Thus, the lower cout must take another more rigorous review of the plan. Because the Court did not affirm the lower court and uphold the plan, the result in Fisher suggests hostility to affirmative action. But many, if not most, affirmative action advocates would have expected much worse, particularly if they knew Kennedy would write the majority opinion. With Kagan on the sidelines, there was no way to 5 votes to uphold the plan in its entirety, even if the three liberals could convince Kennedy.
The final opinion, moreover, was not even close. It was 7-1 in overturning the court of appeals and sending it back. That Sotomayor and Breyer signed onto the majority opinion, and only Ginsberg dissented, sends a different message than one would have expected with Kennedy in the majority: Fisher is not the end of affirmative action in higher education. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor would have never signed onto to the end of affirmative action, but they signed onto this opinion. This suggests a lot of jockeying behind close doors to save affirmative action in higher education, but in an indirect way.
My best guess in reading the opinion is that initial vote as to whether to overrule Grutter (even though the Court says that was not before it) and/or strike down the Texas plan on its facts was 4-4, with Kennedy in the dissent, which was my best case scenario heading into the case. This 4-4 initial vote is a relatively solid thesis now. In the case of a 4-4 tie, the lower court would have been upheld and nothing at all would have changed. This clearly would have incensed the 4 most conservative members of the Court. And even though Justice Kennedy may not have been prepared to completely end affirmative action, maintaining the status quo was not his desire either. My hope and intuition was that he would hate the end of affirmative action more than the continuation of the status quo. But, of course, he is smarter than me and the final opinion and vote in Fisher suggests a compromised third position: join the majority and bring 2 dissenting liberals with him, so that he could write the majority. This had the effect of putting Scalia and Thomas in the disgruntled concurring camp, rather than squarely in control of the majority.
And that is how sausage and Supreme Court opinions are made (I assume, since I know nothing of either).
This morning the Supreme Court decided Fisher v. University of Texas, a case dealing with the consideration of race in higher education admissions. The Court neither struck down nor upheld the Texas admissions policy. Instead, it held that the lower court afforded the University too much deference in reviewing this policy. Thus, the Court remanded the case for further, more stringent review. As a result, the Court did not get into the facts of whether Texas' plan is constitutional and did not offer any new specific guidelines for other universities. The Court, at best, expressed one reocurring them: that the consideration of race must be "necessary," meaning that the University's goals could not be achieved with other reasonably available race-neutral alternatives. This, however, is not new.
So what does all of this mean? First, the ability to consider race in university admissions survives. Most notably, the Court refrained from overturning Grutter v. Bollinger and said it took Grutter, along with Gratz v. Bollinger and Bakke v. Regents, "as given." Second, the Fisher case is not over and may well make it back to the Supreme Court at a future date.
The Court's opinion is here.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
NPR reports today on UCLA's experience after California's 1996 ban on affirmative action as an admissions criteria in higher education. In 2006, out of UCLA's freshman class of 5,000 students, 96 were African-American. UCLA tried using other criteria to create diversity, such as considering whether students were the first in their families to attend college, but that criteria got complicated too. Read more at NPR.
Friday, June 21, 2013
In less than two weeks since Change.org launched a petition asking Grace University to forgive the debt owed by a student who was kicked out for being in a same-sex relationship, the list of signatures has grown to more than 64,000.Grace, a Christian college in Omaha, Neb., suspended 24-year-old Danielle Powell in 2011 for "homosexual acts," and subsequently denied her re-enrollment in January 2012. The university revoked her scholarship and then billed Powell just over $6,300 for tuition for the semester she was not allowed to complete. Grace President David Barnes sent a campuswide email on June 14 reaffirming that the administration holds Powell's relationships are "sinful."
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
For-profit institutions are again being taken to task in Congress, this time for aggressively enrolling veterans without assessing if they are ready to take on the level of work required to complete the degrees. Cory Weinberg reports today in the Chronicle of Higher Education that Senators Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jack Reed (D-RI) are urging Congress to place more stringent accreditation standards on for-profits as they believe they are luring veterans in to take advantage of getting a bigger piece of federal dollars. Some for-profit educators are accused of using veterans to increase their enrollment numbers, but are less forthcoming about the percentage of their students who actually finish their degree programs. Sen. Harkin, who has a web page on the subject, calls the military-student graduation rate in for-profit schools "dismal." Law makers are seeking to improve the standards of these for-profits if they want to stay eligible for Department of Defense tuition assistance dollars. Read more here.
-T. R. Paige, MC Law
Thursday, June 13, 2013
This February, the Arkansas legislature passed legislation allowing faculty and staff to carry concealed guns on public college campuses if they had concealed-carry permits. Last week, Arkansas's two major public university systems--the University of Arkansas and Arkansas State University--declined the state legislature’s invitation to permit non-law enforcement staff to carry guns on campus. Several smaller Arkansas colleges have announced plans to follow UA and ASU’s campus gun ban. Arkansas’ right-to-carry law allows schools to opt out if they periodically review the bans. Arkansas is one of 23 states that allow concealed weapons to be carried on a college campus if the institution permits it. To learn more, read the National Conference on State
Legislatures’ report Guns on Campus.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
In doing research for my casebook, I came across a few articles that identified the conflicting and outdated rules that could prevent transgendered athletes from participating in atheletics at all. The NCAA, to its credit, had taken some steps to address the issue. Unfortunately, however, this has been a reletively underdeveloped of the law. I am glad to see that others are continuing to write about it. I just picked up this article yesterday:
Elizabeth M. Ziegler & Tamara Isadora Huntley, “’It Got Too Tough to Not be Me’:
Accommodating Transgender Athletes in Sports”, 39 J.C. & U.L. 467 (2013). Cribbing from its abstract: “This Article will argue that there is a need for standards to ensure that the transgender student-athlete does not encounter problems with participation due to inconsistent rules for state eligibility, conference and tournament eligibility, and national competitive tournaments. Furthermore, inclusion, equal opportunity, and acceptance should be the goals when establishing such standards …. Finally, such standards should be the goal because of the numerous positive effects of athletic participation, including, physical, social and emotional wellbeing, self-discipline, teamwork, and learning how to deal with success and failure.”