[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4010]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 23, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs; Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; Notice
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs; Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final policy guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education issues final policy guidance on
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing
regulations. The final policy guidance discusses the applicability of
the statute's and regulations' nondiscrimination requirement to student
financial aid that is awarded, at least in part, on the basis of race
or national origin.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy guidance takes effect on May 24, 1994,
subject to the transition period described in this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanette Lim, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5036-I Switzer Building,
Washington, DC 20202-1174. Telephone (202) 205-8635. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD
number at 1-800-358-8247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 10, 1991, the Department
published a notice of proposed policy guidance and request for public
comment in the Federal Register (56 FR 64548). The purpose of the
proposed guidance and of this final guidance is to help clarify how
colleges can use financial aid to promote campus diversity and access
of minority students to postsecondary education without violating
Federal anti-discrimination laws. The Secretary of Education encourages
continued use of financial aid as a means to provide equal educational
opportunity and to provide a diverse educational environment for all
students. The Secretary also encourages the use by postsecondary
institutions of other efforts to recruit and retain minority students,
which are not affected by this policy guidance.
This guidance is designed to promote these purposes in light of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), which states that
no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The Department has completed its review of this issue, taking into
account the results of a recent study by the General Accounting Office
(GAO) and public comments submitted in response to the proposed policy
guidance. The Secretary has determined that the proposed policy
guidance interpreted the requirements of Title VI too narrowly in light
of existing regulations and case law. While Title VI requires that
strong justifications exist before race or national origin is used as a
basis for awarding financial aid, many of the rationales for existing
race-based financial aid programs described by commenters appear to
meet this standard.
The recent report by GAO on current financial aid programs does not
indicate the existence of serious problems of noncompliance with the
law in postsecondary institutions. That report found that race-targeted
scholarships constitute a very small percentage of the scholarships
awarded to students at postsecondary institutions. The Secretary
anticipates that most existing programs will be able to satisfy the
principles set out in this final guidance.
The Department will use the principles described in this final
policy guidance in making determinations concerning discrimination
based on race or national origin in the award of financial aid. These
principles describe the circumstances in which the Department, based on
its interpretation of Title VI and relevant case law, believes
consideration of race or national origin in the award of financial aid
to be permissible. A financial aid program that falls within one or
more of these principles will be, in the Department's view, in
compliance with Title VI.1 This guidance is intended to assist
colleges in fashioning legally defensible affirmative action programs
to promote the access of minority students to postsecondary education.
The Department will offer technical assistance to colleges in
reexamining their financial aid programs based on this guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In identifying these principles, the Department is not
foreclosing the possibility that there may be other bases on which a
college may support its consideration of race or national origin in
awarding financial aid. The Department will consider any
justifications that are presented during the course of a Title VI
investigation on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice consists of five simply stated principles and a section
containing a legal analysis for each principle. The legal analysis
addresses the major comments received in response to the notice of
proposed policy guidance.
Summary of Changes in the Final Policy Guidance
Almost 600 written responses were received by the Department in
response to the proposed policy guidance, many with detailed
suggestions and analysis. Many additional suggestions and concerns were
raised in meetings between Department officials and representatives of
postsecondary institutions and civil rights groups. The vast majority
of comments expressed support for the objective of clarifying the
options colleges have to use financial aid to promote student diversity
and access of minorities to postsecondary education without violating
Title VI. Many comments, however, took issue with specific principles
in the proposed policy guidance and questioned whether those principles
would be effective in accomplishing this purpose.
As more fully explained in the legal analysis section of this
document, after reviewing the public comments and reexamining the legal
precedents in light of those comments, the Department has revised the
policy guidance in the following respects:
(1) Principle 3--``Financial Aid to Remedy Past Discrimination''--
has been amended to permit a college to award financial aid based on
race or national origin as part of affirmative action to remedy the
effects of its past discrimination without waiting for a finding to be
made by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a court, or a legislative
body, if the college has a strong basis in evidence of discrimination
justifying the use of race-targeted scholarships.
(2) Principle 4--``Financial Aid to Create Diversity''--has been
amended to permit the award of financial aid on the basis of race or
national origin if the aid is a necessary and narrowly tailored means
to accomplish a college's goal to have a diverse student body that will
enrich its academic environment.
(3) Principle 5--``Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National
Origin''--has been amended to clarify that a college can administer
financial aid from private donors that is restricted on the basis of
race or national origin only if that aid is consistent with the other
principles in this policy guidance.
(4) A provision has been added to permit historically black
colleges and universities (HBCUs) to participate in race-targeted
programs for black students established by third parties if the
programs are not limited to students at HBCUs.
(5) Provisions in the proposed policy guidance for a transition
period have been revised to provide that, as far as the Department's
enforcement efforts are concerned--
(a) Colleges and other recipients of federal financial assistance
will have a reasonable period of time--up to two years--to review their
financial aid programs and to make any adjustments necessary to come
into compliance with the principles in this final policy guidance;
(b) No student who has received or applied for financial aid at the
time this guidance becomes effective will lose aid as a result of this
guidance. Thus, if an award of financial aid is inconsistent with the
principles in this guidance, a college or other recipient of Federal
financial assistance may continue to provide the aid to a student
during the course of his or her enrollment in the academic program for
which the aid was awarded, if the student had either applied for or
received the aid prior to the effective date of this policy guidance.
Principles
Definitions
For purposes of these principles--
College means any postsecondary institution that receives federal
financial assistance from the Department of Education.
Financial aid includes scholarships, grants, loans, work-study, and
fellowships that are made available to assist a student to pay for his
or her education at a college.
Race-neutral means not based, in whole or in part, on race or
national origin.
Race-targeted, race-based, and awarded on the basis of race or
national origin mean limited to individuals of a particular race or
races or national origin or origins.
Principle 1: Financial Aid for Disadvantaged Students
A college may make awards of financial aid to disadvantaged
students, without regard to race or national origin, even if that means
that these awards go disproportionately to minority students.
Financial aid may be earmarked for students from low-income
families. Financial aid also may be earmarked for students from school
districts with high dropout rates, or students from single-parent
families, or students from families in which few or no members have
attended college. None of these or other race-neutral ways of
identifying and providing aid to disadvantaged students present Title
VI problems. A college may use funds from any source to provide
financial aid to disadvantaged students.
Principle 2: Financial Aid Authorized by Congress
A college may award financial aid on the basis of race or national
origin if the aid is awarded under a Federal statute that authorizes
the use of race or national origin.
Principle 3: Financial Aid To Remedy Past Discrimination
A college may award financial aid on the basis of race or national
origin if the aid is necessary to overcome the effects of past
discrimination. A finding of discrimination may be made by a court or
by an administrative agency--such as the Department's Office for Civil
Rights. Such a finding may also be made by a State or local legislative
body, as long as the legislature has a strong basis in evidence
identifying discrimination within its jurisdiction for which that
remedial action is necessary.
In addition, a college may award financial aid on the basis of race
or national origin to remedy its past discrimination without a formal
finding of discrimination by a court or by an administrative or
legislative body. The college must be prepared to demonstrate to a
court or administrative agency that there is a strong basis in evidence
for concluding that the college's action was necessary to remedy the
effects of its past discrimination. If the award of financial aid based
on race or national origin is justified as a remedy for past
discrimination, the college may use funds from any source, including
unrestricted institutional funds and privately donated funds restricted
by the donor for aid based on race or national origin.
A State may award financial aid on the basis of race or national
origin, under the preceding standards, if the aid is necessary to
overcome its own past discrimination or discrimination at colleges in
the State.
Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity
America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people
of a remarkable number of different backgrounds. Many colleges seek to
create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that
diversity. A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many
factors--including race and national origin--in its efforts to attract
and retain a student population of many different experiences,
opinions, backgrounds, and cultures--provided that the use of race or
national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards
reflected in Title VI, i.e., that it is a narrowly tailored means to
achieve the goal of a diverse student body.
There are several possible options for a college to promote its
First Amendment interest in diversity. First, a college may, of course,
use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering
factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin,
diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may
consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding
financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college's interest
in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a
condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is
narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further
its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to
financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility
criteria.
Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether
awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored to the goal
of diversity are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal
have been or would be ineffective; (2) whether a less extensive or
intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a
means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3)
whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and
duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the
institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in
awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to
achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or
national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is
sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on
their opportunity to receive financial aid.
If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is
justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any
source.
Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin
Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is
not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving
scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their
race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.
The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-
targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding
these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is
remedying its past discrimination pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting
to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition,
a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by
their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to
disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.
Additional Guidance
Financial Aid at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), as defined in
Title III of the Higher Education Act (Title III), 20 U.S.C. 1061, are
unique among institutions of higher education in America because of
their role in serving students who were denied access to postsecondary
education based on their race.2 Congress has made numerous
findings reflecting the special role and needs of these institutions in
light of the history of discrimination by States and the Federal
Government against both the institutions and their students and has
required enhancement of these institutions as a remedy for this history
of discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Title III states a number of requirements that an institution
must meet in order to be considered an historically black college or
university, including the requirement that the college or university
was established prior to 1964. 20 U.S.C. 1061. In regulations
implementing Title III, the Secretary has identified the
institutions that meet these requirements. 34 CFR 608.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the extensive congressional findings concerning HBCUs,
and consistent with congressional and Executive Branch efforts to
enhance and strengthen HBCUs, the Department interprets Title VI to
permit these institutions to participate in student aid programs
established by third parties that target financial aid to black
students, if those programs are not limited to students at the HBCUs.
These would include programs to which HBCUs contribute their own
institutional funds if necessary for participation in the programs.
Precluding HBCUs from these programs would have an unintended negative
effect on their ability to recruit talented student bodies and would
undermine congressional actions aimed at enhancing these institutions.
HBCUs may not create their own race-targeted programs using
institutional funds, nor may they accept privately donated race-
targeted aid limited to students at the HBCUs, unless they satisfy the
requirements of any of the other principles in this guidance.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\For example, an HBCU might award race-targeted aid to Mexican
American students or to white students to promote diversity under
Principle 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition Period
Although the Department anticipates that most financial aid
programs that consider race or national origin in awarding assistance
will be found to be consistent with one or more of the principles in
this final policy guidance, there will be some programs that require
adjustment to comply with Title VI. In order to permit colleges time to
assess their programs and to make any necessary adjustments in an
orderly manner--and to ensure that students who already have either
applied for or received financial aid do not lose their student aid as
a result of the issuance of this policy guidance--there will be a
transition period during which the Department will work with colleges
that require assistance to bring them into compliance.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\This transition period also applies to recipients of Federal
financial assistance that are not colleges, e.g., a nonprofit
organization that operates a scholarship program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will afford colleges up to two academic years to
adjust their programs for new students. However, to the extent that a
college does not need the full two years to make adjustments to its
financial aid programs, the Department expects that the adjustments
will be made as soon as practicable.
No student who is currently receiving financial aid, or who has
applied for aid prior to the effective date of this policy guidance,
should lose aid as a result of this guidance. Thus, if a college
determines that a financial aid program is not permissible under this
policy guidance, the college may continue to provide assistance awarded
on the basis of race or national origin to students during the entire
course of their academic program at the college, even if that period
extends beyond the two-year transition period, if the students had
either applied for or received that assistance prior to the effective
date of this policy.
Legal Analysis
Introduction
The Department of Education is responsible for enforcing Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., at
institutions receiving Federal education funds. Section 601 of Title VI
provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C.
2000d.
The Department has issued regulations implementing Title VI that
are applicable to all recipients of financial assistance from the
Department. 34 CFR part 100. The regulations prohibit discrimination in
the administration of financial aid programs. Specifically, they
prohibit a recipient, on the basis of race, color, or national origin,
from denying financial aid; providing different aid; subjecting anyone
to separate or different treatment in any matter related to financial
aid; restricting the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by
others receiving financial aid; and treating anyone differently in
determining eligibility or other requirements for financial aid. 34 CFR
100.3(b)(1); see also 34 CFR 100.3(b)(2).
In addition to prohibiting discrimination, the Title VI regulations
require that a recipient that has previously discriminated ``must take
affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior discrimination.''
34 CFR 100.3(b)(6)(i). The regulations also permit recipients to take
voluntary affirmative action ``[e]ven in the absence of such prior
discrimination * * * to overcome the effects of conditions which
resulted in limiting participation by persons of a particular race,
color, or national origin'' in the recipient's programs. 34 CFR
100.3(b)(6)(ii); see 34 CFR 100.5(i).
The permissibility of awarding student financial aid based, in
whole or in part, on a student's race or national origin involves an
interpretation of the preceding provisions concerning affirmative
action. The Supreme Court has made clear that Title VI prohibits
intentional classifications based on race or national origin for the
purpose of affirmative action to the same extent and under the same
standards as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.5 Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Service Commission of the
City of New York, 463 U.S. 582 (1983); Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Thus, the Department's
interpretation of the general language of the Title VI regulations
concerning permissible affirmative action is based on case law under
both Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Some commenters suggested that Native Americans and Native
Hawaiians--because of their special relationship with the Federal
Government--should be exempt from the restrictions outlined in the
policy guidance. The Department has found no legal authority for
treating affirmative action by recipients of Federal assistance any
differently if the group involved is Native Americans or Native
Hawaiians. Thus, the principles in this policy guidance--including
Principle 2, which states that a college may award financial aid on
the basis of race or national origin if authorized by Federal
statute--apply to financial aid that is limited to Native Americans
and Native Hawaiians. However, the policy does not address the
authority of tribal governments or tribally controlled colleges to
restrict aid to members of their tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion addresses the legal basis for each of the
five principles set out in the Department's policy guidance.
1. Financial Aid for Disadvantaged Students
The first principle provides that colleges may award financial aid
to disadvantaged students. Colleges are free to define the
circumstances under which students will be considered to be
disadvantaged, as long as that determination is not based on race or
national origin.
As some commenters noted, the Title VI regulations prohibit actions
that, while not intentionally discriminatory, have the effect of
discriminating on the basis of race or national origin. 34 CFR
100.3(b)(2); see Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Service Commission of the
City of New York, supra; Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). However,
actions that have a disproportionate effect on students of a particular
race or national origin are permissible under Title VI if they bear a
``manifest demonstrable relationship'' to the recipient's educational
mission. Georgia State Conference of Branches of NAACP v. State of
Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1418 11th Cir. (1985). It is the Department's
view that awarding financial aid to disadvantaged students provides a
sufficiently strong educational purpose to justify any racially
disproportionate effect the use of this criterion may entail. In
particular, the Department believes that an applicant's character,
motivation, and ability to overcome economic and educational
disadvantage are educationally justified considerations in both
admission and financial aid decisions. Therefore, the award of
financial assistance to disadvantaged students does not violate Title
VI.
2. Financial Aid Authorized by Congress
This principle states that a college may award financial aid on the
basis of race or national origin if the use of race or national origin
in awarding that aid is authorized by Federal statute. This is because
financial aid programs for minority students that are authorized by a
specific Federal law cannot be considered to violate another Federal
law, i.e., Title VI. In the case of the establishment of federally
funded financial aid programs, such as the Patricia Roberts Harris
Fellowship, the authorization of specific minority scholarships by that
legislation prevails over the general prohibition of discrimination in
Title VI.6 This result also is consistent with the canon of
construction under which the specific provisions of a statute prevail
over the general provisions of the same or a different statute. See 2A
N. Singer Sutherland Statutory Construction section 46.05 (5th ed.
1992); Radzanower v. Touche Ross and Co., 426 U.S. 148, 153 (1976);
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-51 (1974); Fourco Glass Co. v.
Transmira Products Corp., 353 U.S. 225, 228-29 (1957).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Of course, an individual may challenge the statute under
which the aid is provided as violative of the Constitution. The
statute would then be evaluated under the constitutional standards
for racial classifications authorized by Federal statute that were
established in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
and Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980). However, as
explained previously, such a suit would not be viable under Title
VI, for which the Department has enforcement responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters argued that the existence of congressionally
authorized race-targeted financial aid programs supports the position
that all race-targeted financial aid programs are permissible under
Title VI. However, the fact that Congress has enacted specific Federal
programs for race-targeted financial aid does not serve as an
authorization for States or colleges to create their own programs for
awarding student financial aid based on race or national origin.
3. Financial Aid To Remedy Past Discrimination
Classifications based on race or national origin, including
affirmative action measures, are ``suspect'' classifications that are
subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. at 292. The use of those classifications
must be based on a compelling governmental interest and must be
narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,
488 U.S. 469 (1989); Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267
(1986).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring the elimination of discrimination on
the basis of race or national origin. To further this governmental
interest, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the use of race-conscious
measures to eliminate discrimination. United States v. Fordice, ______
U.S. ______ (1992); United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 167
(1987); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1,
15-16 (1971); McDaniel v. Barresi, 402 U.S. 39 (1971); Green v. County
School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 438 (1968). Most
recently, in United States v. Fordice, supra, the Court found that
States that operated de jure systems of higher education have an
affirmative obligation to ensure that no vestiges of the de jure system
continue to have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race.
The implementing regulations for Title VI provide that a recipient
of Federal financial assistance that has previously discriminated in
violation of the statute or regulations must take affirmative action to
overcome the effects of the past discrimination. 34 CFR 100.3(b)(6)(i).
Thus, a college that has been found to have discriminated against
students on the basis of race or national origin must take steps to
remedy that discrimination. That remedial action may include the
awarding of financial aid to students from the racial or national
origin groups that have been discriminated against.
The proposed policy guidance provided that a finding of past
discrimination could be made by a court or by an administrative agency,
such as the Department's Office for Civil Rights. It also could be made
by a State or local legislative body, as long as the legislature
requiring the affirmative action had a strong basis in evidence
identifying discrimination within its jurisdiction for which that
remedial action is required.
A number of commenters argued that colleges should be able to take
remedial action without waiting for a formal finding by a court,
administrative agency, or legislature. The Department agrees. The final
policy guidance provides that, even in the absence of a finding by a
court, legislature, or administrative agency, a college--in order to
remedy its past discrimination--may implement a remedial race-targeted
financial aid program. It may do so if it has a strong basis in
evidence for concluding that this affirmative action is necessary to
remedy the effects of its past discrimination and its financial aid
program is narrowly tailored to remedy that discrimination. Permitting
colleges to remedy the effects of their past discrimination without
waiting for a formal finding is consistent with the approach taken by
the Supreme Court in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, supra. In
Wygant, the Court clarified that a school district's race-conscious
voluntary affirmative action plan could be upheld based on subsequent
judicial findings of past discrimination by the district. Wygant v.
Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 277.
In the Wygant case, teachers challenged their school board's
adoption, through a collective bargaining agreement, of a layoff plan
that included provisions protecting employees from layoffs on the basis
of their race. The school board contended, among other things, that the
plan's race-conscious layoff provisions were constitutional because
they were adopted to remedy the school board's own prior
discrimination. Id., at 276, 277. Justice Powell, in a plurality
opinion, stated that a public employer must have ``convincing
evidence'' that an affirmative action plan is warranted by past
discrimination before undertaking that plan. Id., at 277. If the plan
is challenged by employees who are harmed by the plan, the court must
then make a determination that the employer had a ``strong basis in
evidence for its conclusion that remedial action was necessary.'' Id.
In a concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor agreed that a
``contemporaneous or antecedent finding of past discrimination by a
court was not a constitutional prerequisite to a public employer's
voluntary agreement to an affirmative action plan.'' Id., at 289. She
explained that contemporaneous or antecedent findings were not
necessary because ``A violation of Federal statutory or constitutional
requirements does not arise with the making of findings; it arises when
the wrong is committed.'' Moreover, she explained that important values
would be sacrificed if contemporaneous findings were required because
``a requirement that public employers make findings that they engaged
in illegal discrimination before they engage in affirmative action
programs would severely undermine public employers' incentive to meet
voluntarily their civil rights obligations.'' Id., at 289, 290
(citations omitted).
In Richmond v. J.A. Croson, supra, the Court again emphasized that
remedial race-conscious action must be based on strong evidence of
discrimination. That case involved the constitutionality of a city
ordinance establishing a plan to remedy past discrimination by
requiring prime contractors awarded city construction contracts to
subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount of each contract to
minority-controlled businesses. The Court found that the city council
had failed to make sufficient factual findings to demonstrate a
``strong basis in evidence'' of racial discrimination ``by anyone in
the Richmond construction industry.'' Richmond v. J.A. Croson, 488 U.S.
at 500.
Evidence of past discrimination may, but need not, include
documentation of specific incidents of intentional discrimination.
Instead, evidence of a statistically significant disparity between the
percentage of minority students in a college's student body and the
percentage of qualified minorities in the relevant pool of college-
bound high school graduates may be sufficient. Such an approach is
analogous to cases of employment discrimination where the courts accept
statistical evidence to infer intentional discrimination against
minority job applicants. See Hazelwood School District v. United
States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977).
Based on this case law, Principle 3 provides that a college may
award race-targeted scholarships to remedy discrimination as found by a
court or by an administrative agency, such as the Department's Office
for Civil Rights. OCR often has approved race-targeted financial aid
programs as part of a Title VI remedial plan to eliminate the vestiges
of prior discrimination within a State higher education system that
previously was operated as a racially segregated dual system. As
indicated by the Croson decision, a finding of past discrimination also
may be made by a State or local legislative body, as long as the
legislature has a strong basis in evidence identifying discrimination
within its jurisdiction. The remedial use of race-targeted financial
aid must be narrowly tailored to remedy the effects of the
discrimination.
As revised, Principle 3 also allows a college to award student aid
on the basis of race or national origin as part of affirmative action
to remedy the effects of the school's past discrimination without
waiting for a finding to be made by OCR, a court, or a legislative
body, if the college has convincing evidence of past discrimination
justifying the affirmative action. The Department's Title VI
regulations, like the Fourteenth Amendment, do not require that
antecedent or contemporaneous findings of past discrimination be made
before remedial affirmative action is implemented, as long as the
college has a strong basis in evidence of its past discrimination.
Allowing colleges to implement narrowly tailored remedial affirmative
action if there is strong evidentiary support for it--without requiring
that it be delayed until a finding is made by OCR, a court, or a
legislative body--will assist in ensuring that Title VI's mandate
against discrimination based on race or national origin is achieved.
4. Financial Aid To Create Diversity
The Title VI regulations permit a college to take voluntary
affirmative action, even in the absence of past discrimination, in
response to conditions that have limited the participation at the
college of students of a particular race or national origin. 34 CFR
100.3(b)(6)(ii); see 34 CFR 100.5(i). In Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke, supra, the Supreme Court considered whether the
University could take voluntary affirmative action by setting aside
places in each medical school class for which only minority students
could compete.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\The Court noted that the University ``does not purport to
have made'' a determination that its affirmative action plan was
necessary to remedy any past discrimination at the medical school.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. at 309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court considered four rationales provided by the University of
California for taking race and national origin into account in making
admissions decisions: (1) To reduce the historic deficit of
traditionally disfavored minorities in medical schools and the medical
profession. (2) To counter the effects of societal discrimination. (3)
To increase the number of physicians who would practice in communities
lacking medical services. (4) To obtain the educational benefits of a
diverse student body. Similar arguments have been advanced in response
to the Department's proposed policy guidance on student financial
assistance awarded on the basis of race or national origin.
The Court rejected the first three justifications. The first reason
was rejected as facially invalid because setting aside a fixed number
of admission spaces only to ensure that members of a specified race are
admitted was found to be racial ``discrimination for its own sake.''
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. at 307. In
rejecting the second contention that the effects of societal
discrimination warranted the racial preferences, the Court recognized
that the State had a substantial interest in eliminating the effects of
discrimination, but that interest was found to be limited to
``redress[ing] the wrongs worked by specific instances of
discrimination.'' Id. The third contention, concerning the provision of
health care services to underserved communities, was rejected by the
Bakke Court as an evidentiary matter because the State had ``not
carried its burden of demonstrating that it must prefer members of
particular ethnic groups over all other individuals in order to promote
better health-care delivery to deprived citizens.'' Id., at 311.
With respect to the final objective, the ``attainment of a diverse
student body,'' Justice Powell found that--
This clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal for an
institution of higher education. Academic freedom, though not a
specifically enumerated constitutional right, long has been viewed
as a special concern of the First Amendment. The freedom of a
university to make its own judgments as to education includes the
selection of its student body.
Id., at 311, 312. Thus, colleges have a First Amendment right to seek
diversity in admissions to fulfill their academic mission through the
``robust exchange of ideas'' that flows from a diverse student body.
Id., at 312-313.8 However, the means to achieve this
``countervailing constitutional interest'' under the First Amendment
must comport with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Medical School's policy of setting aside a fixed number of admission
spaces solely for minorities was found not to pass the Fourteenth
Amendment's strict scrutiny test, because the policy's use of race as a
condition of eligibility for the slots was not necessary to promote the
school's diversity interest. Id., at 315-316. Justice Powell found that
the Medical School could advance its diversity interest under the First
Amendment in a narrowly tailored manner that passed the Fourteenth
Amendment's strict scrutiny test by using race or national origin as
one of several factors that would be considered as a plus factor for an
applicant in the admissions process. Id., at 317-319.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\The Secretary believes that a college's academic freedom
interest in the ``robust exchange of ideas'' also includes an
interest in the existence of a diverse faculty and, more generally,
in diversity of professors nationally, since scholars engage in the
interchange of ideas with others in their field, and not merely with
faculty at their particular school. A university could contribute to
this interest by enrolling graduate students who are committed to
becoming professors and who will promote the overall diversity of
scholars in their field of study, regardless of the diversity of the
students who are admitted to the university's own graduate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Bakke decision, the Department reexamined its Title
VI regulations to determine whether any changes were necessary. In a
policy interpretation published in the Federal Register (44 FR 58509),
the Department concluded that no change was warranted. The Department
determined that the Title VI regulatory provision authorizing voluntary
affirmative action was consistent with the Court's decision and that
the provision would be interpreted to incorporate the limitations on
voluntary affirmative action announced by the Court.9 Thus, if a
college's use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid
meets the Supreme Court's test under the Fourteenth Amendment for
permissible voluntary affirmative action, it will also meet the
requirements of Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The present policy guidance on student financial assistance
supplements the 1979 policy interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Department's proposed policy guidance on financial aid, a
principle was included permitting the use of race or national origin as
a ``plus'' factor in awarding student aid. The basis for the principle
was the Bakke decision and the Department's assessment that using an
approach that had been approved by the Supreme Court as narrowly
tailored to achieve diversity in the admissions context also would be
permissible in awarding financial aid.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\0The Department will presume that a college's use of race or
national origin as a plus factor, with other factors, is narrowly
tailored to further the compelling governmental interest in
diversity, as long as the college periodically reexamines whether
its use of race or national origin as a plus factor continues to be
necessary to achieve a diverse student body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the proposed policy, many colleges submitted
comments arguing that the use of race or national origin as a plus
factor in awarding financial aid may be inadequate to achieve
diversity. They contended that, in some cases, it may be necessary to
designate a limited amount of aid for students of a particular race or
national origin. According to those commenters, a college's financial
aid program can serve a critical role in achieving a diverse student
body in at least three respects: First, the availability of financial
aid set aside for members of a particular race or national origin
serves as a recruitment tool, encouraging applicants to consider the
school. Second, it provides a means of encouraging students who are
offered admission to accept the offer and enroll at the school.
Finally, it assists colleges in retaining students until they complete
their program of studies.
The commenters argued that a college--because of its location, its
reputation (whether deserved or not) of being inhospitable to minority
students, or its number of minority graduates--may be unable to recruit
sufficient minority applicants even if race or national origin is
considered a positive factor in admissions and the award of aid. That
is, the failure to attract a sufficient number of minority applicants
who meet the academic requirements of the college will make it
impossible for the college to enroll a diverse student body, even if
race or national origin is given a competitive ``plus'' in the
admissions process. In addition, a college that has sufficient minority
applicants to offer admission to a diverse group of applicants may find
that, absent the availability of financial aid set aside for minority
students, its offers of admission are disproportionately rejected by
minority applicants.
Furthermore, commenters were concerned that, while there may be
large amounts of financial aid available for undergraduates at their
institutions, there may be insufficient aid for graduate students,
almost all of whom are able to demonstrate financial need. Thus, it is
possible that a college that is able to achieve a diverse student body
in some of its programs using race-neutral financial aid criteria or
using race or national origin as a ``plus'' factor may find it
necessary to use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility
in awarding limited amounts of financial aid to achieve diversity in
some of its other programs, such as its graduate school or particular
undergraduate schools.
The Department agrees with the commenters that in the circumstances
they have described it may be necessary for a college to set aside
financial aid to be awarded on the basis of race or national origin in
order to achieve a diverse student body. Whether a college's use of
race-targeted financial aid is ``narrowly tailored'' to achieve this
compelling interest involves a case-by-case determination that is based
on the particular circumstances involved. The Department has
determined, based on the comments, to expand Principle 4 to permit
those case-by-case determinations.
The Court in Bakke indicated that race or national origin could be
used in making admissions decisions to further the compelling interest
of a diverse student body even though the effect might be to deny
admission to some students who did not receive a competitive ``plus''
based on race or ethnicity.11 However, the use of a set-aside of
places in the entering class was impermissible because it was not
necessary to the goal of diversity. In cases since Bakke, the Supreme
Court has provided additional guidance on the factors to be considered
in determining whether a classification based on race or national
origin is narrowly tailored to its purpose. These factors will be
considered by the Department in assessing whether a college's race-
targeted financial aid program meets the requirements of Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\1Bakke was the Supreme Court's first decision in an
affirmative action case. Since that time, the Court has decided a
number of affirmative action cases, none of which have invalidated
Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke that the promotion of diversity in
the higher education setting is a compelling interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it is necessary to determine the efficacy of alternative
approaches. United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. at 171. Thus, it is
important that consideration has been given to the use of alternative
approaches that are less intrusive (e.g., the use of race or national
origin as a ``plus'' factor rather than as a condition of eligibility).
Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. F.C.C., 497 U.S. at 583; Richmond v. J.A.
Croson, 488 U.S. at 507. Financial aid that is restricted to students
of a particular race or national origin should be used only if a
college determines that these alternative approaches have not or will
not be effective.
Second, the extent, duration, and flexibility of the racial
classification must be addressed. Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. F.C.C.,
497 U.S. at 594; United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. at 171. The extent
of the use of the classification should be no greater than is necessary
to carry out its purpose. Richmond v. J.A. Croson, 488 U.S. at 507.
That is, the amount of financial aid that is awarded based on race or
national origin should be no greater than is necessary to achieve a
diverse student body.
The duration of the use of a racial classification should be no
longer than is necessary to its purpose, and the classification should
be periodically reexamined to determine whether there is a continued
need for its use. Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. F.C.C., 497 U.S. at 594.
Thus, the use of race-targeted financial aid should continue only while
it is necessary to achieve a diverse student body, and an assessment as
to whether that continues to be the case should be made on a regular
basis.
In addition, the use of the classification should be sufficiently
flexible that exceptions can be made if appropriate. For example, the
Supreme Court in United States v. Paradise found that a race-conscious
promotion requirement was flexible in operation because it could be
waived if no qualified candidates were available. 480 U.S. at 177.
Similarly, racial restrictions on the award of financial aid could be
waived if there were no qualified applicants.
Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit
conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e.,
non-minority students) must be considered. Id., at 171. A use of race
or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular
individuals--for example, eliminating scholarships currently received
by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for
minority students--that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly
tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283
(use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of
identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse
the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification
based on race or national origin will address this factor
satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student's
opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by
the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted
financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not
eligible for that aid.
A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a
minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more
limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-
targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the
admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award
could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest
in diversity.
The Department agrees that there are important differences between
admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program
struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the
university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted
financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate
that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on
the basis of race. Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions
slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not
necessarily fixed. For example, a college's receipt of privately
donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase
the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent
the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide
any aid at all.
Even in the case of a college's own funds, a decision to bar the
award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate
into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds
for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed
as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of
recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words,
unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount
of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is
perceived to promote.
In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote
diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin,
such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic
background. In addition, a college may take race or national origin
into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial
aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race
or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial
aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.
5. Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin
The fifth principle sets out the circumstances under which a
recipient college can award financial aid provided by private donors
that is restricted on the basis of race or national origin.
As noted by many commenters, pursuant to the Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1987, all of the operations of a college are covered
by Title VI if the college receives any Federal financial assistance.
42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a(2)(A). Since a college's award of privately donated
financial aid is within the operations of the college, the college must
comply with the requirements of Title VI in awarding those
funds.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\2Similarly, other organizations that receive Federal
financial assistance must comply with Title VI in their award of
student financial aid. On the other hand, individuals or
organizations not receiving Federal funds are not subject to Title
VI. They may thus, as far as Title VI is concerned, directly award
financial aid to students on the basis of race or national origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A college may award privately donated financial aid on the basis of
race or national origin if the college is remedying its past
discrimination pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a
diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In other words,
Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of privately donated funds and may
justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin in
accordance with the wishes of the donor. Similarly, under Principle 1,
a college may award privately donated financial aid that is restricted
to disadvantaged students.
Some commenters were uncertain whether it is permissible under
Title VI for a college to solicit private donations of student
financial aid that are restricted to students of a particular race or
national origin. If the receipt and award of these funds is permitted
by Title VI, that is, in the circumstances previously described, it is
similarly permissible to solicit the funds from private sources.
Financial Aid at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
To ensure that the principles in this policy guidance do not
subvert congressional efforts to enhance historically black colleges
and universities (HBCUs), these institutions may participate in student
aid programs established by third parties for black students that are
not limited to students at the HBCUs and may use their own
institutional funds in those programs if necessary for
participation.13 See 20 U.S.C. 1051, 1060, and 1132c
(congressional findings of past discrimination against HBCUs and of the
need for enhancement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\3This provision is limited to HBCUs as defined in Title III
of the Higher Education Act. It does not apply generally to
predominantly black institutions of higher education. The reason for
this distinction is that Congress has made specific findings
concerning the unique status of the HBCUs that serve as the basis
for this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This finding is based upon congressional findings of past
discrimination against HBCUs and the students they have traditionally
served, as well as the Department's determination that these
institutions and their students would be harmed if precluded from
participation in programs created by third parties that designate
financial aid for black students. That action would have an unintended
negative effect on their ability to recruit excellent student bodies
and could undermine congressional actions aimed at enhancing these
institutions.
Congress has repeatedly made findings that recognize the unique
historical mission and important role that HBCUs play in the American
system of higher education, and particularly in providing equal
educational opportunity for black students. 20 U.S.C. 1051, 1060, and
1132c. Congress has created programs that strengthen and enhance HBCUs
in Titles II through VII of the Higher Education Act, as amended by
Public Law 99-498, 20 U.S.C. 1021-1132i-2. It has found that ``there is
a particular national interest in aiding institutions of higher
education that have historically served students who have been denied
access to postsecondary education because of race or national origin .
. . so that equality of access and quality of postsecondary education
opportunities may be enhanced for all students.'' 20 U.S.C. 1051. ``A
key link to the chain of expanding college opportunity for African
American youth is strengthening the Nation's historically Black
colleges and universities.'' House Report No. 102-447, 1992 U.S. Code
Cong. and Adm. News p. 353.
Congress has found that ``the current state of HBCUs is partly
attributable to the discriminatory action of the States and the Federal
Government and this discriminatory action requires the remedy of
enhancement of Black postsecondary institutions to ensure their
continuation and participation in fulfilling the Federal mission of
equality of educational opportunity.'' 20 U.S.C. 1060. See also, House
Report No. 102-447, 1992 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News p. 353; House
Report No. 99-383, 1986 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 2592-2596. This
includes providing access and quality education to low-income and
minority students, and improving HBCUs' academic quality. 20 U.S.C.
1051.
For these same reasons, every Administration in recent years has
recognized the special role and contributions of HBCUs and expressed
support for their enhancement. See ``Revised Criteria Specifying the
Ingredients of Acceptable Plans to Desegregate State Systems of Public
Higher Education,'' 43 FR 6658 (1977); Exec. Orders Nos. 12232, 45 FR
53437 (1980); 12320, 46 FR 48107 (1981); 12677, 54 FR 18869 (1989); and
12876, 58 FR 58735 (1993). The Department's own data indicate that
HBCUs continue to play a vital role in providing higher education for
many black students. In 1989 and 1990, more than one in four black
bachelor's degree recipients received their degree from an HBCU
(26.7%). See, ``Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 1976-90''
(U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, July 1992).
This policy guidance is not intended to limit the efforts to
enhance HBCUs called for by Congress and the President. The Department
recognizes, however, that Principle 3 (remedying past discrimination)
and Principle 4 (creating diversity) may not provide for HBCUs the same
possibility of participating in race-targeted programs of financial aid
for black students established by third parties as are provided for
other colleges and universities. As some commenters pointed out, HBCUs
continue to enroll a disproportionate percentage of black students and
need to be able to compete for the most talented black students if they
are to improve the quality and prestige of their academic environments
and, therefore, enhance their attractiveness to all students regardless
of race or national origin.
HBCUs' abilities to recruit, enroll and retain talented students
will be undermined unless HBCUs are permitted to attract talented black
students by participating in aid programs for black students that are
established by third parties in which other colleges, i.e., those that
meet Principle 3 or 4, participate. Limiting or precluding HBCUs'
participation in private programs, such as the National Achievement
Scholarship program, would have an unintended negative effect on their
ability to recruit a talented student body. Under this scholarship
program, which is restricted to academically excellent black students,
one type of National Achievement Scholarship is funded by the
institution. If HBCUs were unable to participate in this program, some
top black students might be forced to choose between (1) receiving a
National Achievement Scholarship to attend a school that met Principle
3 or 4 and (2) attending an HBCU. For these reasons, the Department
interprets Title VI to permit HBCUs to participate in certain race-
targeted aid programs for black students, such as the National
Achievement Scholarship program.
The Department reads Title VI consistent with other statutes and
Executive orders addressing the special needs and history of HBCUs. In
particular, the Department notes congressional findings of
discrimination against black students that are the basis for
enhancement efforts at HBCUs. Additionally, the Department interprets
Title VI to permit limited use of race to avoid an anomalous and absurd
result, i.e., penalizing HBCUs and students who seek admission to
HBCUs, and putting HBCUs at a disadvantage with respect to other
schools precisely because of the special history and composition of the
HBCUs.
The use of race-targeted aid by HBCUs that the Department is
interpreting Title VI to permit under this provision is narrowly
tailored to further the congressionally recognized purpose of
enhancement of HBCUs. HBCUs may not discriminate on the basis of race
or national origin in admitting students. They may not create their own
race-targeted financial aid programs using their own institutional
funds unless they satisfy the requirements of any of the other
principles in this guidance. Nor may they accept private donations of
race-targeted aid for black students that are limited to students at
the institution unless otherwise permitted by the guidance. Because
HBCUs have traditionally enrolled black students, it should not subvert
the goal of enhancing the institutions to require that they not
restrict aid to black students if using their own funds or funds from
private donors that wish to set up financial aid programs at these
institutions. However, because the applicant pool that is attracted to
HBCUs presently consists primarily of black students, HBCUs would be
placed at a distinct disadvantage with regard to other colleges in
attracting talented students if they could not participate in financial
aid programs set up by third parties for black students. Thus, the
Department interprets Title VI to permit an HBCU to participate in
race-targeted financial aid programs for black students that are
created by third parties, if the programs are not restricted to
students at HBCUs.
The participation by HBCUs in those race-targeted aid programs will
be subject to periodic reassessment by the Department. The Department
will regularly review the results of enhancement efforts at HBCUs,
including the annual report to the President on the progress achieved
in enhancing the role and capabilities of HBCUs required by Section 7
of Executive Order 12876. If an HBCU has been enhanced to the point
that the institution is attractive to individuals regardless of their
race or national origin to the same extent as a non-HBCU, then that
institution may participate in only those race-targeted aid programs
that are consistent with the other principles in this policy guidance.
Transition Period
The proposed policy guidance would have provided a four-year
transition period for individual students to ensure that they did not
lose their financial aid as a result of the guidance. Commenters
pointed out that, in some cases, four years may not be a sufficient
time for a student to complete his or her academic program at a
college. In addition, commenters expressed concern that revising the
policies and procedures used in recruiting minority students and in
providing student financial assistance would require time to develop
and implement. The revisions that have been made to the final policy
guidance should result in far fewer instances in which colleges will be
required to change their financial aid programs. However, the
Department recognizes that colleges may need to conduct extensive
reviews of their current programs and that in some cases adjustments to
those programs may be necessary. As a result, the Department is
expanding the proposed transition period.
The Department is providing colleges a reasonable period of time to
review and, if necessary, adjust their financial aid programs in an
orderly manner that causes the least possible disruption to their
students. Colleges must adjust their financial aid programs to be
consistent with the principles previously set out no later than two
years after the effective date of the Department's policy guidance.
However, colleges may continue to provide financial aid awarded on the
basis of race or national origin to students who had either applied for
or received that assistance prior to the effective date of this
guidance during the full course of those students' academic program at
the college, even though, in many cases, this will extend beyond the
two-year period and, in some cases, the four-year period identified in
the proposed policy.
Although some commenters questioned the Department's authority to
create a transition period, such a period for adjustments is consistent
with the Department's approach in the past under other civil rights
statutes it enforces. See 34 CFR 106.41(d) (transition period to permit
recipients to bring their athletic programs into compliance with Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972); 34 CFR 104.22(e) (transition
period to permit recipients to make facilities accessible to
individuals with disabilities, as required by Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973). It is based on the Department's
recognition of the practical difficulties that some colleges may face
in making changes to their recruitment and financial aid award
processes.
The transition period also is consistent with the Department's
policy, in approving plans for the desegregation of State systems of
higher education, that students who have been the beneficiaries of past
discriminatory conduct not be required to bear the burden of corrective
action. For example, while the Department requires State higher
education systems to take remedial action to increase the enrollment of
previously excluded students, it does not require the expulsion of any
student in order to permit admission of those previously excluded. See
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 282-85.
Finally, the transition period is consistent with the Department's
obligations under Title VI to seek voluntary compliance by recipients
that have been found in violation of the statute. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1.
During the transition period, the Department will provide colleges with
technical assistance to help them make any necessary changes to their
financial aid programs in order to achieve compliance with Title VI.
Program Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000d.
Dated: February 17, 1994.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 94-4010 Filed 2-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
