U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

December 6, 2017

Mr. Charlie Savage
The New York Times
1627 I Street, NW
Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20006
savage@nytimes.com

Re:

DOJ-2017-006008 (ASG)
17-cv-07439 (S.D.N.Y)
VRB:BPF

Dear Mr. Savage:
This is a final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated and
received in this Office on August 10, 2017, in which you requested (1) communications to or
from named Office of the Associate Attorney General (OASG) and Civil Rights Division
(CRT) officials containing specific listed terms, (2) communications pertaining to the CRT
detail opportunity 17-CRT-DTL-012, and (3) resumes submitted in response to detail
opportunity 17-CRT-DTL-012. This response is made on behalf of OASG.
By email dated October 27, 2017, a representative of your organization clarified the
scope of item (1) of your request as seeking both investigatory records and, more broadly,
records relating to affirmative action admissions practices and policies.
Please be advised that records you have requested related to investigations of
admissions policies are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 7(A) of the FOIA,
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A), which pertains to records or information compiled for law
enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings. Additionally, certain information within these records would also be
exempt pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which pertains to certain
inter- and intra-agency communications protected by the deliberative process and attorney
work-product privileges.
With respect to your request for communications relating to affirmative action
admissions practices and policies, searches have been conducted in OASG and in the electronic
database of the Departmental Executive Secretariat, which is the official records repository for
OASG, and no records responsive to your request were located.
Regarding the remaining items in your request, including communications of CRT
officials and records related to CRT detail 17-CRT-DTL-012, CRT is the component most
likely to maintain such records. I understand that you have separately submitted your request
to CRT, and that CRT provided you with a response by letter dated November 14, 2017.
For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement
and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2015)

 -2(amended 2016). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements
of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be
taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Sai Mohan of the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at (212) 637-2737.
Sincerely,

Vanessa R. Brinkmann
Senior Counsel

 From: Dawinder S. Sidhu

Sent: 4 Aug 2017 11:04:52 -0400
To: Jackson, Candice
Subject: Affirmative Action Initiative

Assistant Secretray Jackson,

I hope this email ?nds you well. I am an attorney in private
practice and a law professor. From 2004-2001?, I served as a staff
attorney in OCR's Program Legal Group. I am writing because,
according to numerous reports, the Department of Justice will be
scrutinizing af?rmative action programs across the country.

To the extent that you may be part of this initiative, I wish to share
with you an essay I published in the Chronicle of Higher Education on
the problems with the critical mass component of affirmative action
theory. I hope this essay may be helpful to you and your colleagues
moving forward.

The essay is available here:
1 373-59

 

any thanks,
Dave

ED1

From: Fox, Wendella

 

 

Sent: 16 Aug 2017 18:17:48 +0000

To: Jackson, Candice

Cc: Henderson, Chelsea

Subject: (W5)

complaint

Attachments: OCR-



Dear Candice
(W5)

 

 

 

 

I am headed out of the country and wanted to be sure that you had these 2 documents
before I left.

Thanks
Wendella

ED2

Higher Education Desegtegation
Presentation

 

 

December 13, 2005

ED3

 

Contents

1. Map of the United States showing the effects of higher
education desegregation initiatives.

 



 

Appendix A:

REVISED CRITERIA SPECIFYING INGREDIENTS
OF ACCEPTABLE PLANS TO DESEGREGATE
STATE SYSTEMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

 



 

 

Appendix C:

1994 Federal Register Notice

ED4

 

 

 

The shaded states have implemented higher education desegregation plans. These states
are:

I.



u?nr?tr?nr??Hr?nx?j


Map of the United States showing the effects of higher
education desegregation initiatives.

Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi

. Missouri

. North Carolina
. Ohio

. Oklahoma

. 

. South Carolina

16. Tennessee
17. Texas

18. West Virginia

19. Virginia

ED5

 

 

Page DUE M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED6

 

 

 

 

Page M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED7

 

 

 

 

Page 008 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED8

 

 

 

 

Page 009 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED9

 

 

 

 

Page 010 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED10

 

 

 

 

Page U110f130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED11

 

 

APPENDIX A: REVISED CRITERIA SPECIFYING
INGREDIENTS OF ACCEPTABLE PLANS TO
DESEGREGATE STATE SYSTEMS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION

Document is 43 FR. 6658 (Feb. 15, 1978), setting forth elements of acceptable plans for
desegregating state systems of higher education. Elements concern traditionally black
institutions, student enrollment, and employment. Document includes history of legal
proceedings and legal and educational principles. Revised Criteria direct adoption of numerical
goals for student and employment desegregation. In evaluating state progress under the plans,
the Department has emphasized implementation of measures and deemphasized achievement of
numerical goals.

[41 10-12]

REVISED CRITERIA SPECIFYING THE INGREDIENTS 0F ACCEPTABLE PLANS
TO DESEGREGATE STATE SYSTEMS OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

In late 1969 and early 1970, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)
noti?ed ten states that they had not dismantled their statewide dual systems of public higher
education. The letters sent by HEW at that time advised each state of its failure to adopt
measures necessary to overcome the effects of past segregation and notified the states of their
obligation to ?le a statewide plan for the desegregation of their public systems of higher
education.

For the past seven years the Court reviewed HEW's efforts to dcsegregate these systems
of higher education. In 1977, this Court found that the Department's effort had not been
adequate and ordered the Department to require six of the original ten states to submit new
desegregation plans and to set speci?c standards for those plans.

The Court found that "specific commitments (were) necessary for a workable higher
education desegregation plan . . . concerning admission, recruitment and retention of students,
concerning the placement and duplication of program offerings among institutions, the role and
the enhancement of black institutions, and concernng changes in the racial composition of the
faculties involved.

Speci?cally, this Court entered a Second Supplemental Order on April 1, 1977 directing
the Department to transmit to the six states of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, and Virginia as well as the Court and the plaintiffs criteria specifying the ingredients
of acceptable desegregation plans for their institutions of public higher education. Accordingly,
on July 5, 1977, the Department published criteria which were amended one month later to take
into account suggestions offered by some of the states.

The Court further directed that HEW require each state to submit, within 60 days of
receipt of the criteria, a revised desegregation plan and to accept or reject such plans within l20

ED12

days thereafter. In September 1977, in response to HEW's request, the six states submitted
desegregation plans. After months of intensive negotiations, the Department announced on
February 2, 1978, that it was accepting the plans of Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma, and not
accepting plans submitted by Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. On the same date, the
Department announced that it would publish in the Federal Register, revised criteria which are
substantially similar to the criteria published in July.

Where HEW has found that a state has not eliminated the remaining vestiges of
segregation in its formerly dual system of public higher education and is, therefore, in violation
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is required ?rst to attempt to secure compliance by
voluntary means. When those efforts fail, HEW is required to seek enforcement either
administratively or through the courts. 42 U.S.C. 200-1; 45 CFR 2000d-l, 45 CFR 
80.8. These revised criteria are issued to assist such states in the preparation of desegregation
plans as part of the process of securing voluntary compliance.

HEW originally developed the criteria mindful of the instructions of the Court that they
comply with constitutional standards and Title VI, conform with sound educational practices,
and take into account the unique importance of black colleges. Based on its experience in
applying the criteria to six state systems of higher education over the past months, HEW has
determined that the criteria provide speci?c and effective guidance to the states and at the same
time, are suf?ciently ?exible to provide for circumstances which may vary from state to state.

PREAMBLE
l. HISTORY OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The criteria set forth below initially were developed by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW) pursuant to the speci?c direction of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in Adams v. Califano, Civil Action No. 3095-70, Second
Supplemental Order (D.D.C. April I, 1977). The Court's Order arose from a lawsuit initiated in
1970 to require HEW to take action to enforce the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of19649

In 1969, the Of?ce for Civil Rights (OCR) determined that ten States? were continuing to
operate segregated higher education systems in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. Although the States were noti?ed of this ?nding and were requested to submit corrective
plans, no administrative enforcement actions were taken when the States failed to submit plans
or submitted plans unacceptable to HEW. In February 1973, the Adams litigation resulted in a
ruling requiring that HEW take appropriate enforcement action, Adams v. Richardson, 356 F.
Supp. (D.D.C. I973). That ruling was unanimously af?rmed by the full United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, although the Court of Appeals modi?ed the
District Court?s order and directed HEW to attempt to secure acceptable desegregation plans

 

3 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race. color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in. be denied the bene?ts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activityr receiving Federal financial assistance."
42 U.S.C. 

4 Arkansas, Florida. Georgia, Louisiana. Maryland, Mississippi. North Carolina. Oklahoma. and Virginia.

ED13

from the ten States before commencing enforcement proceedings. Adams v. Richardson, 480
F.2d 1159 (DC. Cir. 1973).

 

In 1974, HEW accepted desegregation plans from eight of the ten States.5 Reports
covering the first year of implementation were submitted to HEW in 1975. Subsequently, the
plaintiffs in the Adams case sought further relief and on April 1, 1977, the Court ruled that the
1974 plans did not comply with the criteria previously announced by HEW and that as
implemented the plans had failed to achieve signi?cant progress toward higher education
desegregation. Based on these ?ndings, the Court ordered HEW to develop and issue within 90
days speci?c criteria to guide the six States?i' in the preparation of revised desegregation plans.

11. LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL PRINCIPLES
A. ju_re segregation

These criteria will be applied to a state which formerly operated a dual system of public
higher education under state law, if the Of?ce for Civil Rights determines after investigation that
the state has failed to remove the vestiges of racial segregation in its system in violation of Title
VI.

B. Affirmative duty to take effective steps to eliminate jure segregation

Where there has been past d_e jure segregation, states are required to take affirmative
remedial steps and to achieve results in overcoming the effects of prior discrimination. HEW's
regulation implementing Title VI provides that

In administering a program regarding which the recipient has previously discriminated
against persons on the ground of race the recipient must take affirmative action to
overcome the effects of prior discrimination. 45 CFR 80.3 

The 14th Amendment also calls for more than mere abandonment of discrimination
through the state's adoption of passive or neutral policies. The United States Supreme Court has
held that public school officials have "the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be
necessary to convert to a unitary system in which discrimination would be eliminated root and
branch." Green v. Countv School Board of New Kent County, 391 US 430, 437-38 (1968).

The af?rmative duty to desegregate applies with equal force to higher education. Norris
v. State Council of Higher Education, 32'? F. Supp. 1368 (ED. Va. 1971), aff?d per curiam, 404
U.S. 907 (1971); Lee v. Macon Countv Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 (MD. Ala. 1967),
369 US. 215 (1967); Geicr v. Dunn, 337 F. Supp. 573 (MD. Tenn. 1972). Additionally,

 

 

5 Louisiana refused to submit a plan and was referred to the Department of Justice. which ?led a lawsuit (United States v. Louisiana, Civil Action No.
int-EB (MD. La.) in January 1974. The plan submitted by Mississippi was deemed unacceptable by HEW and the matter was referred to the
Department of Justice. which ?eld a lawsuit. Ayers and United States v. Finch. Civil Action No. 11C. 759K (ND. Miss.) in March 19?5.

5 The April 1. 19?7, Order excludes (by agreement of the parties to the Adams lawsuit) and Maryland. which commenced a separate
iniunctive suit against enforcement proceedings now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Mandel v. HEW. No.
as well as Louisiana and Mississippi.

ED14

the Supreme Court has made it clear that desegregation plans are not adequate unless they are
effective. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, supra; Swarm v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US. I (1971).

 

 

Consistent with the requirements of Title VI, these criteria set forth the elements of a
desegregation plan which would eliminate the effects of past discrimination.

C. Statewide approach
The Court of Appeals in its en banc opinion in Adams directed HEW to undertake a

statewide approach and noted the serious problem created by the lack of viable statewide
coordinated planning in higher education:

 

The problem of integrating higher education must be dealt with on a statewide rather than
a school-by-school basis.1n

10 It is important to note that we are not here discussing discriminatory admission policies
of individual institutions. To the extent that such practices are discovered, immediate
corrective action is required, but we do not understand HEW to dispute that point. This
controversy concerns the more complex problem of systemwide racial imbalance.

Adams v. Richardson, supra, 480 F. 2d at 1 164-1 165 (footnote in original).

 

The Department has followed this approach since 1969 because we believe statewide planning is
consistent with sound educational policy. Thus, these criteria require not only that each
institution pursue nondiscriminatory student admission and faculty and staff employment
practices, but also that the state system as a whole develop a comprehensive and coordinated
statewide desegregation plan embodying those speci?c af?rmative, remedial steps which will
prove effective in achieving signi?cant progress toward the disestablishment of the structure of
the dual system and which address the problem of ?systemwide racial imbalance."

D. Speci?city -- goals and timetables

The District Court in Adams concluded that the plans previously adopted by the states
had failed to achieve adequate desegregation progress and lacked speci?c commitments for
change as concerns the desegregation of student bodies and faculties, enhancement of
traditionally black institutions, and desegregation of the governing boards in higher education
systems.

The District Court directed HEW to prepare criteria which would identify for the states
the speci?c elements to be included in their revised desegregation plans. As the District Court
stated in response to plaintiffs' oral argument on January 17, 1977:

What I do want them to do though is be under the compulsion of a court order to submit

to the states certain specific requirements which the states must respond to and they
should be given a timetable for communicating with the states, and the states should be

ED15

given some kind of timetable within which to make response. [Transcript, January 17th
ruling; emphasis supplied]

In Geier v. Blanton, 427 F. Supp. 644 (MD. Tenn. 1977), the Court quoted its Order of
December 23, 1969, expressing its dissatisfaction with a state submitted desegregation plan in
that the plan as submitted "lacks specificity, in that there is no showing of funds to be expended,
no statement of the number of students to be involved, and most importantly, no time schedules

for either the implementation of the projects or the achievement of any goals." 427' F. Supp. at
646.

The Supreme Court has maintained that in a system with a history of segregation there is
a need for remedial criteria of suf?cient speci?city to assure compliance with the law. See
Swarm, supra, at 25-26.

In keeping with the Court's view that the Department should submit specific requirements
to the states, numerical goals and timetables are set forth in the criteria. The goals are established
as indices by which to measure progress toward the objective of eliminating the effects of
unconstitutional d_e ju_re racial segregation and of providing equal educational opportunity for all
citizens of these states. They are benchmarks and provide the states the clear and speci?c
guidance called for by the Court.

These goals are not quotas. The Department is opposed to arbitrary quotas. Failure to
achieve a goal is not suf?cient evidence, standing alone, to establish a violation of Title In
addition, the Of?ce for Civil Rights upon a showing of exceptional hardship or special
circumstances by a state, may modify the goals and timetables. Nevertheless, the states are
under a statutory obligation to devise and implement plans that are effective in achieving the
desegregation of the system.

Most importantly, under these criteria and the goals they set, all applicants must be able
to compete successfully. States' efforts under these criteria need not and should not lead to
lowering academic standards. States may need to innovate in seeking out talented students who
will pro?t from higher education. They may need to broaden de?nitions of potential; to discount
the effects of early disadvantage on the development of academic competence; and to broaden
the talents measured in admissions tests. But new and different yardsticks for measuring
potential are not lower standards. They can be more valid measures of true potential and talent
taken as a whole, these criteria seek to preserve and protect academic standards of excellence.

E. Special considerations in developing criteria for desegregation in higher education

A state system of higher education, as with an elementary and secondary school district,
is held to an af?rmative duty to take remedial action to correct past practices of segregation and
discrimination. However, the nature of the remedial action required of a higher education system

will differ from that required of a local education district. The court of Appeals in Adams noted:

However, we are also mindful that desegregation problems in colleges and universities
differ widely from those in elementary and secondary schools, and that HEW admittedly

ED16

lacks experience in dealing with them. As regrettable as these revelations are, the
stark truth is that HEW must carefully assess the signi?cance of a variety of new factors
as it moves into an unaccustomed area. 480 F.2d at 1164.

In Norris v. State Council of Higher Education, 327 F. Supp. 1368, I373 (ED. Va.
1971), affd per curiam, 404 U.S. 907, (1971), the court held:

 

The means of eliminating discrimination in public schools necessarily differ from its
elimination in colleges, but the state's duty is as exacting.

And in Sanders v. Ellington, 288 F. Supp. 937', 943 (MD. Tenn. 1968), the court stated:

 

Now in considering the time element for presentation of a plan, I have thought of the
complexities of the problem. I recognize that the simple remedies which might be
available to a county school board where there is involved a compulsory system of
education, a free system of education, and assignment of students, are not available here.
Colleges are not compulsory and everyone can testify that they?re not free.

Higher education differs form elementary and secondary education in many other ways.
Besides being voluntary rather than compulsory, higher education operates on a statewide or
regional basis, not local; there are no "attendance zones" in higher education; higher education
programs vary from institution to institution and are not uniform; students are free to leave the
state or to attend private colleges in pursuit of a higher education.

Furthermore, from state to state significant differences are to be found and must be taken
into consideration. In some states strong centralized "system? exists including four year and two
year institutions; in others, the four year and two year institutions report to separate boards; in
yet others, each institution operates under its own independent board. While none of these
differences relieves a state of its obligations under Title VI or its constitutional duties, they must
be taken into account in fashioning an appropriate set of criteria to be applicable to six states.

Accordingly, while desegregation cases involving individual elementary and secondary
school districts are a guide to a state's duty to take corrective action, they are not dispositive of
the particular methods to be designed for the dismantling of a dual system of higher education,
for the desegregation of a statewide system, for the removal of the vestiges of racial segregation,
and for the correction of "systemwide racial imbalance." As the courts in Adams have noted,
these are indeed "complex" issues. These criteria are designed speci?cally for the higher
education systems of these six states based on a careful consideration of relevant statutes and
court opinions and with due consideration to the unique characteristics of higher education?

F. The unique role of the traditionally black colleges
In keeping with the instructions of the Court, the criteria recognize the unique importance

of traditionally black colleges in meeting the educational needs of black students. More than 80
percent of all black college graduates have been trained at3 black colleges. In the mid-seventies,

 

3' For a useful discussion of these issues see Note, "The Affirmative Duty To integrate Higher Education" 70 Yale Law Journal 666 (1970).

ED17

black colleges continue to graduate almost forty percent of all blacks who receive9 college
degrees.

Thus, it is with good reason that the Court of Appeals in Adams recognized the need to
take into account "the special problems of black colleges."

Perhaps the most serious problem in this area is the lack of state-wide planning to provide
more and better trained minority group doctors, lawyers, engineers and other
professionals. A predicate for minority access to quality post-graduate programs is
viable, co-ordinated state-wide higher education policy that takes into account the special
problems ofminority students and of Black colleges. (T)hese Black institutions
currently ful?ll a crucial need and will continue to play an important role in Black higher
education. 430 F.2d 1 l64-l 165.

Again in 1977, the District Court in its Second Supplemental Order, p. 4, quoted the
above language of the Court of Appeals and went on to state:

The process of desegregation must not place a greater burden on Black institutions or
Black studentsi opportunity to receive a quality public higher education. The
desegregation process should take into account the unequal status of the Black colleges
and the real danger that desegregation will diminish higher education opportunities for
Blacks. Without suggesting the answer to this complex problem, it is the responsibility
of HEW to devise criteria for higher education desegregation plans which will take into
account the unique importance of Black colleges and at the same time comply with the
Congressional mandate.

The Department does not take the language to mean that the traditionally black
institutions are exempt from the Constitution or the requirements of Title VI. To the contrary,
traditionally black and traditionally white institutions are subject to the same constitutional and
congressional mandate to provide an education to all citizens without discrimination or
segregation. White and black institutions are to function as part of a unitary system free of the
vestiges of state imposed racial segregation. However, as the Court has instructed, the transition
to a unitary system must not be accomplished by placing a disproportionate burden upon black
students, faculty, or institutions or by reducing the educational opportunities currently available
to blacks.

To achieve the objectives of Title VI, precise methods will need to be fashioned for
institutions within a state, each appropriate to the task of overcoming the effects of prior
discrimination in the particular instance. Each method will be enforced with equal force and
determination. Each method is designed to achieve the same constitutional standard.

[11. CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

?3 See Elias Blake, Public Policy and the Higher Education of Black Americans." Staff Report. Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the
Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong. 2d Sass. 19m.

9 National Center for Education Statistics, Earned Degrees Survey, 

ED18

In the preparation of the criteria originally promulgated pursuant to court instruction, the
Department undertook an extensive consultation process within the Department and with
interested outside parties. In an effort to assure that these criteria were both legally and
educationally sound, a departmental task force was established to guide their development. The
task force combined the multiple disciplines and varied expertise needed to resolve the complex
issues and educational policies involved in this desegregation process. Serving on the task force
were the General Counsel, the Director of the Of?ce for Civil Rights, the Assistant Secretary for
Education, the Commissioner of Education, and the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation.

The Department also embarked on a program of open dialogue and consultation with
parties of interest. The task force members conferred with representatives of the six states
collectively and individually. The representatives included college presidents, education
of?cials, and aides to Governors. A special meeting was held with students who attend the
public colleges in the six states and representatives of several national student organizations.
Four meetings were held with officials of the amicus curiae, National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education, an association of the presidents of 110 predominantly black
colleges and universities, both state supported and private. Two panels ofnationally recognized
educators met for half day sessions to advise the Department.

Finally, plaintiffs representatives devoted many hours to reviewing and commenting on
drafts of the criteria. They also convened a meeting for the Department with 28 citizens from
these six states who are most familiar with the higher education desegregation efforts in their
respective states.

The Department assumes full and sole responsibility for the content of these criteria. The
consultations enumerated above were exceedingly helpful to the Department in the preparation
of these criteria, but these discussions do not imply concurrence in the criteria in whole or in part
by other parties.

Higher educational systems in these and other states are undergoing difficult adjustments
caused by ?scal and demographic trends beyond the control of individual states. Accordingly,
the criteria developed for the six states under the Adams Order focused on desegregation efforts
to be undertaken within the next five years. Similarly, OCR will seek plans that contain five-
year goals from other states which are found to have a duty to eliminate the vestiges of duality in
their systems of higher education.

 

As each state attains the goals set forth in its plan, OCR will assess, in cooperation with
that state, the progress thereby made in order to determine what additional steps, if any, are
necessary to complete the desegregation process. Furthermore, OCR will periodically review
these criteria to assure their adequacy in meeting constitutional requirements, their consistency
with rulings of the courts in higher education desegregation, and the mandate of Title VI.

ELEMENTS OF A PLAN

ED19

l. DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE DUAL SYSTEM

An acceptable plan shall commit the state to the goal of organizing and operating the
system and institutions of higher education in a manner that promises realistically to overcome
the effects of past discrimination and to disestablish the dual system, and which assures that
students will be attracted to each institution on the basis of educational programs and
opportunities uninhibited by past practices of segregation.

To achieve the disestablishment of the structure of the dual system, each plan shall:

A. De?ne the mission of each institution within the state system on a basis other than
race.

Each mission statement shall include at a minimum:

1. The level, range and scope of programs and degrees offered;

2. Geographic area served by the institution; and

3. The projected size of the student body and staff, for each year of the life of the
plan.

B. Specify steps to be taken to strengthen the role of traditionally black institutions

in the state system.
In support of the speci?c steps required by I.B., the plan shall include:

1. Commitments that necessary improvements will be made to permit the
traditionally black institutions to ful?ll their de?ned mission. These improvements will extend
to physical plant and equipment; quality and range of program offerings; number and quality of
faculty; student, faculty and professional staff services; student ?nancial assistance, and other
?nancial support;

2. Commitments that traditionally black institutions will have the resources
(including those enumerated in item 1 above), which are at least comparable to those at
traditionally white institutions having similar missions;

3. An assessment of the physical plant at traditionally black institutions; and

4. A detailed description of the resources, expressed in dollars and in numbers of
personnel to be assigned, which the state system will provide (and the source for such funds) in
order to implement the steps speci?ed in l. B. reported by year for the life of the step or activity.

C. Commit the state to take speci?c steps to eliminate educationally unnecessary program

duplication among traditionally black and traditionally white institutions in the same service
area.

ED20

To this end, the plan shall identify existing degree programs (other than core curricula)
among institutions having identical or overlapping service areas and indicate speci?cally with
respect to each area what steps the state will take to eliminate such duplication. The elimination
of such program duplication shall be carried out consistent with the objective of strengthening
the traditionally black colleges.

D. Commit the state to give priority consideration to placing any new undergraduate,
graduate, or professional degree programs, course of study, etc., which may be proposed, at
traditionally black institutions, consistent with their missions.

E. Commit the State to withhold approval of any changes in the operation of the state
system or of any institutions that may have the effect of thwarting the achievement of its
desegregation goals.

F. Commit the state to advise OCR of proposed major changes in the mission or the
character of any institution within the state system which may directly or indirectly affect the
achievement of its desegregation goals prior to their formal adoption.

Such proposed changes include but are not limited to: the establishment or major
expansion of programs of study, of departments, or institutions; the alteration of two year to four
year institutions; the conversion of a private to a public institution; or the closing or merger of
institutions or campuses.

G. Specify timetables for sequential implementation of the actions necessary to
achieve these goals as soon as possible but no later than within five years (by the close of the
?fth full academic year after the plan is accepted) unless compelling justi?cation for a longer
period for compliance is provided to and accepted by the Department.

The plan shall include interim benchmarks and goals from which progress toward these
objectives may be measured. These timetables and benchmarks shall be appropriate to the nature
of the action to be taken. For example, studies of physical plant and resources comparability
should be completed corrective actions (including capital construction) will require
longer time periods.

H. Commit the state and all its involved agencies and subdivisions to speci?c
measures for achievement of the above objectives.

Such measures may include but are not limited to establishing cooperative programs
consistent with institutional missions; reassigning specified programs, course offerings,
resources andfor services among institutions; realigning the land grant academic programs so that
research, experiment and other educational services are redistributed on a nonracial basis; and
merging institutions or branches thereof, particularly where institutions or campuses have the
same or overlapping services areas. The measures taken pursuant to this section should be
consistent with the objective of strengthening the traditionally black colleges. A detailed
description of these measures need not be submitted at the time the plan is ?led, but should be

ED21

filed as a supplementary statement within 30 days thereafter for review and comment by OCR.
Measures that offer no reasonable possibility of achieving the goals listed above will be rejected
by OCR. Revised measures will be required before the plan can be accepted.

II. DESEGREGATION OF STUDENT ENROLLMENT

An acceptable plan shall commit the state to the goal of assuring that the system as a
whole and each institution within the system provide an equal educational opportunity, are open
and accessible to all students, and operate without regard to race and on a desegregated basis.

To achieve the desegregation of student enrollment, each plan shall:

A. Adopt the goal that for two year and four year undergraduate public higher education
institutions in the state system, taken as a whole, the proportion of black high school graduates
throughout the state who enter such institutions shall be at least equal to the proportion of white
high school graduates throughout the state who enter such institutions.

1) Adopt the goal that there shall be an annual increase, to be Specified by each state
system, in the proportion of black students in the traditionally white four year undergraduate
public higher education institutions in the state system taken as a whole and in each such
institution; and

(2) Adopt the objective of reducing the disparity between the proportion of black high
school graduates and the proportion of white high school graduates enteringm traditionally white
four year and upper division undergraduate public higher education institutions in the state
system; and adopt the goal of reducing the disparity by at least ?fty per cent by the final
academic year of the plan. However, this shall not require any state to increase by that date
black student admissions by more than 150% above the admissions for the academic year
preceding the year in which the plan is requested by 

C. Adopt the goal that the proportion of black state residents who graduate from
undergraduate institutions in the state system and enter graduate study or professional schools in
the state system shall be at least equal to the proportion of white state residents who graduate
from undergraduate institutions in the state system and enter such schools.

This goal (and interim benchmarks or goals) shall be separately stated for each major
field of graduate and professional study. To assure that this goal can be met in the immediate
future special recruitment efforts should be considered at traditionally black institutions.
Particular attention should be given to increasing black student enrollment and graduation from
those traditionally white four year undergraduate institutions which serve as the feeder
institutions for the graduate and professional schools. Achievement of this goal is of particular

 

?0 For the purposes of this subsection, the term entering includes ?rst-time transfers from two year and other institutions.

?1 Thus, where the present entry by black students in four year traditionally white institutions is at a rate of 1,000 students per year and a fully
proportional rate would be 3,000 students per year. the state's goal would be an entry rate of 2,000 student per year ?ve years thereafter. A state
where the present entry is at a rate of only 500 students per year and full proportionality would be 3,000 student per year would not by that date have


ED22

importance in light of the speci?c concern expressed by the Court of Appeals in Adams. In
assessing progress toward this goal, OCR will give consideration to the number of blacks form
each state who enroll in graduate and professional schools outside the state system.

D. Adopt the goal of increasing the total proportion of white students attending
traditionally black institutions.

Increased participation by white students at traditionally black institutions must be a part
of the process of desegregation of the statewide system of higher education. However, pursuant
to the admonition of the courts in Adams, "The desegregation process should take into account
the unequal status of the Black colleges and the real danger that desegregation will diminish
higher education opportunities for Blacks." Civil Action No. 3095-70, Second Supplemental
Order at p. 4. The following steps are designed to guard against the diminution of higher
educational opportunities for black students, to take into account the unique importance of
traditionally black colleges and to comply with the mandate of Title VI. Establishment of
numerical goals for the enrollment of white students at traditionally black institutions must be
preceded by an increasing enrollment of black students in the higher education system and at the
traditionally white institutions, as is required by Section II of these criteria. It must also be
preceded by the accomplishment of speci?c steps to strengthen the role of traditionally black
institutions, eliminate program duplication, locate new programs at black institutions, and by
such other measures as are set forth in Section 1.

OCR shall annually review the progress made by each state in increasing participation by
black students in higher education and in the disestablishrnent of the dual school system. Two
years after the commencement of the plan, and consistent with such progress, each state system
shall specify annual numerical goals for increasing the participation of white students attending
the traditionally black institutions.

E. Commit the state to take all reasonable steps to reduce any disparity between the
proportion of black and white students completing and graduating from the two year, four year
and graduate public institutions of higher education, and establish interim goals to be specified
by the state system for achieving annual progress.

F. Commit the state to expand mobility between two year and four year institutions as a
means of meeting the goals set forth in these criteria.

G. Specify numeric goals for 11. A, B, and C, and timetables for sequential
implementation of actions necessary to achieve these goals as soon as possible but not later than
within five years unless another date is specified in this section.

H. Commit the state and all its involved agencies and subdivisions to specific measures
to achieve these goals.

Such measures may include, but are not limited to reviewing, monitoring, and revising, as

necessary, procedures for student recruitment, admissions, compensatory instruction, counseling,
financial aid, and staff and faculty development programs. The detailed description of these

ED23

measures need not be submitted at the time the plan is filed, but should be filed as a
supplementary statement within 30 days thereafter for review and comment by OCR. Measures
that offer no reasonable possibility of achieving the numerical goals will be rejected by OCR.
Revised measures will be required before the plan can be accepted.

DESEGREGATION OF FACULTY, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF S,
ONACADEMIC PERSONNEL, AND GOVERNING BOARDS

An acceptable plan shall commit the state system to the goal of increasing the number
and proportion of black employees, academic and non-academic, throughout the system and of
increasing representation of black citizens among appointive positions on the governing boards
of the state system and of individual institutions.

To achieve the desegregation of faculty, administrators, other personnel, and governing
boards, each plan shall:

A. Adopt the goal that the proportion of black faculty and of administrators at each
institution and on the staffs of each governing board, or any other state higher education entity,
in positions not requiring the doctoral degree, shall at least equal the proportion of black students
graduating with masters degrees in the appropriate discipline from institutions within the state
system, or the proportion of black individuals with the required credentials for such positions in
the relevant labor market area, whichever is greater.

B. Adopt the goal that the proportion of black faculty and of administrators at each
institution and on the staffs of each governing board or any other state higher education entity, in
positions requiring the doctoral degree, shall at least equal the proportion of black individuals
with the credentials required for such positions in the relevant labor market area.

C. Adopt the goal that the proportion of black non-academic personnel (by job category)
at each institution and on the staffs of each governing board or any other state higher education
entity, shall at least equal the proportion of black persons in the relevant labor market area.

D. Assure hereafter and until the foregoing goals are met that for the traditionally white
institutions as a whole, the proportion of blacks hired to ?ll faculty and administrative vacancies
shall not be less than the proportion ofblack individuals with the credentials required for such
positions in the relevant labor market area.

B. Specify numeric goals and timetables for sequential implementation of the actions
necessary to achieve these objectives including interim benchmarks from which progress toward
the objectives may be measured.

These goals, timetables, and benchmarks shall be established in light of, and shall
specify, the current and projected rates of vacancies in the various job categories, present and

projected labor market availability, and other relevant factors.

F. Commit the state system to take specific measures to achieve these objectives.

ED24

Such measures may include, but are not limited to employment programs providing
centralized recruitment, vacancy and applicant listings; transfer options; faculty development
programs permitting release time for black faculty to attain the terminal degree; and the
interchanges of faculty on a temporary or permanent basis among traditionally white and
traditionally black institutions within the state system. The detailed description of these
measures need not be submitted at the time the plan is ?led, but should be ?led as a
supplementary statement within 30 days thereafter for review and comment by OCR. Measures
that offer no reasonable possibility of achieving the goals listed above will be rejected by OCR.
Revised measures will be required before the plan can be accepted.

(3. Adopt the goal of increasing the numbers of black persons appointed to systemwide
and institutional governing boards and agencies so that these boards may be more representative
of the racial population of the state or of the area served.

IV. SUBMISSION OF PLANS AND MONITORING

A. After HEW has determined that a state has not eliminated the vestiges of
desegregation in its former dual system ofpublic higher education, the state shall submit to OCR
a desegregation plan for its system of public higher education to implement the foregoing
criteria.

1. The plan shall commit the state to substantial progress toward each of the goals in the
?rst two years of the plan.

2. The plan shall be signed by the governor and by each of?cial or designated person
representing the agencies, associations, commissions, of?ces, andfor institutions responsible for
adopting the systemwide and institutional goals described therein. Such persons or entities must
be authorized under state law to perform all actions necessary to achieve these goals.

3. The plan shall certify that achievement of the goals and interim benchmarks specified
therein has been adopted as official policy of each official or agency.

B. It is recommended that each state establish a biracial citizens advisory/monitoring
committee to assist the state in monitoring the implementation of the plan.

C. Each state shall submit to OCR by August 15 of each year after a plan's acceptance, a
comprehensive narrative assessment of its desegregation efforts in the most recent academic

year. This narrative assessment shall include:

1. A description of the specific measures which have been taken to achieve the
objectives enumerated in the plan and in the criteria;

2. A description of the results achieved, including quantitative indices where appropriate
or required;

ED25

3. An analysis of the reasons why any steps taken proved inadequate or insuf?cient; and

4. A description of the steps the state will take to achieve progress and to maintain the
timetables set forth in the plan.

D. OCR shall review such narrative reports. If good cause for the failure to meet interim
goals is not demonstrated, OCR may impose more stringent requirements, including advance
approval by OCR of desegregation methods, in order to assure achievement of the goals of the
plan. In the alternative, the Department may initiate enforcement proceedings under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if compliance with Title VI cannot be achieved by voluntary
means.

B. Each plan shall provide that the state will furnish to OCR statistical reports,
assessments, and such other information as OCR may deem necessary from time to time in order
to determine the effectiveness of the state's efforts to achieve the goals described in these criteria.
Such information shall include annual statistical reports in substantially the same format used
previously by the affected states pursuant to earlier desegregation plans. Speci?c dates for the
submission of the reports will be established by OCR. In the event that subsequent
developments call for the submission of additional data, such requirements will be announced
after consultation with the states, and the states and institutions shall have suf?cient time to
develop the system needed for the gathering of additional data.

V. DEFINITIONS
As used in these criteria:

A. "Department" refers to the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In
instances where the "Department" is to take certain actions, they may be performed by the Of?ce
for Civil Rights or the Director, Of?ce for Civil Rights, on behalf of the Department.

B. "Institution" means any school, college, junior or community college, university,
professional or graduate school, administered by or as an agency of the state government. Four
year institution means any school, college, or university that offers a baccalaureate or graduate
degree. For the purpose of these criteria, "institution'I does not refer to private schools or
colleges.

C. ?State system" means the aggregate of all state public institutions of higher education
within the state, whether or not under the governance of the same state agency or board.

D. "Student" means any person enrolled in an instructional program, whether full-time or
part-time, subject to exceptions to be speci?ed by the Of?ce for Civil Rights.

E. "Faculty" means all persons employed by an institution as full-time instructional
personnel.

ED26

F. "Labor market area?l means the geographical area in which an institution or campus
traditionally recruits or draws applicants possessing the requisite credentials for vacancies in
faculty, administrative, or non-academic personnel positions.

G. "Governing board" means that appointed or elected body, whether or not responsible
to the governor of a state or to the state legislature, which is charged under state law with the
ultimate responsibility for the administration and operation ofinstitutions within the state system
of public higher education. A "governing board" may be responsible for the entire system, for a
single campus or institution thereof, or for a speci?ed group of campuses or institutions.

Dated: February 2, 1978.

David S. Tatel,
Director
Of?ce for Civil Rights.

ED27

 

 

Page 028 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED28

 

 

 

 

Page 029 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED29

 

 

 

 

Page USU M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED30

 

 

 

 

Page 031 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED31

 

 

 

 

Page 032 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED32

 

 

 

 

Page 033 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED33

 

 

 

 

Page 034 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED34

 

 

 

 

Page 035 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED35

 

 

 

 

Page 036 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED36

 

 

 

 

(W5)

 

 

ED37

Appendix C: 1994 Federal Register Notice

 

Notice of Application of Supreme Court Decision

SUMMARY: In United States v. For-dice, U.S. 112 S. Ct. 2727 (1992), the Supreme Court
held that States that operated dejure segregated higher education systems have an affirmative
duty under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to dismantle those systems and their vestiges. This
notice is published in response to a number of questions the Department has received concerning
the effect of this decision.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanette J. Lim, US. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5036 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 (202) 205-9683 or 1-800-421-3481.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI),
42 U.S.C. 2000d at sea, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in
any program or activity receiving Federal ?nancial assistance. The Department of Education
(Department) has promulgated regulations in 34 CF part 100 to effectuate the provisions of title
VI with regard to programs and activities receiving funding from the Department. Title VI also
guides the Department's enforcement policies regarding State higher education systems that were
previously determined to be segregated pursuant to State law. This notice outlines the
procedures and analysis that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education
will follow when investigating States with a history of dejttre segregated systems of higher
education.

AThis notice is published in response to a number of questions the Department has received
concerning the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. ordt'ce, U.S. 12
S. Ct. 2727 (1992), on the Department's enforcement policies under Title VI regarding State
higher education systems that were segregated pursuant to State law.

In Fordtce, the Supreme Court held that States that operated dejttre segregated higher education
systems have an affirmative duty under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution and Title VI to dismantle those systems and their vestiges. The
Court, while acknowledging the differences between public higher education systems and
elementary or secondary school systems, based this holding on the precedent established in its
1954 decision in Brown v. Board ofEduc:ation ofTopeira and its progeny in elementary and
secondary school desegregation cases. 112 S. Ct. at 2736.

The Supreme Court also held that before a determination can be made that a State has discharged

its affirmative duty to eliminate the vestiges of its dejure system, an examination must be made
of a "wide range of factors to determine Whether State has perpetuated its formerly dejttre

ED38

segregation in any facet of its institutional system." 1 12 S. Ct. 2735. This holding is consistent
with the Department's policy requiring that the vestiges of dejare segregation be eliminated
system-wide in State higher education systems, which is re?ected in the Department's published
"Revised Criteria Specifying the Ingredients of Acceptable Plans to Desegregate State Systems
of Public Higher Education," published in the Federal Register on February 12, 1978 (43 FR
6658) ("Revised Criteria"). The "Revised Criteria" specify a broad range of factors, which
include those addressed in Fordice, that must be included in a statewide higher education
desegregation plan to be acceptable under Title VI.

The Supreme Court made clear in Fordice that a State will not have complied with its
affirmative duty to dismantle the vestiges of segregation if it merely adopts race-neutral policies
and (2) a State perpetuates policies and practices traceable to its prior system that continue
to have segregative effects whether by in?uencing student enrollment decisions or by fostering
segregation in other facets of the university system - and such policies are without sound
educational justi?cations and can be practicably eliminated, the State has not satisfied its burden
of proving that it has dismantled its prior system. 12 S. Ct. 2735, 2737. The Supreme Court
emphasized that the burden of proof falls on each State to establish that it has dismantled its prior
dejure segregated system. 112 S. Ct. at 2741.

In light of the Fordice decision, the Department reaffirms that all States'2 with a history of de
fare segregated systems of higher education have an af?rmative duty to ensure that no vestiges
of the dejare system are having a discriminatory effect on the basis of race. If OCR receives
information indicating that a State has not met this af?rmative duty, OCR will take appropriate
action.

OCR will apply the standard set out in ordt'ce, requiring the elimination of the vestiges of prior
dejare segregation, to all pending Title VI evaluations of statewide higher education systems
with OCR-accepted desegregation plans that have expired. The States with expired plans are
Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Texas, and Virginia. OCR will examine a wide
range of factors to ensure that the vestiges of these States' dejure systems have been eliminated.
The comprehensive array of factors that OCR will consider includes those addressed in Fordice
and those reflected in the ingredients for acceptable desegregation plans specified in the
Department's "Revised Criteria." Accordingly, OCR will ensure that these States have
implemented their OCR-approved desegregation plans and have eliminated the vestiges of their
dejure segregated systems.

Finally, the Department reaffirms its position re?ected in the "Revised Criteria," which is
consistent with ordice, that States may not place unfair burdens upon black students and
faculty in the desegregation process. Moreover, the Department's "Revised Criteria" recognize
that State systems of high er education may be required, in order to overcome the effects of past
discrimination, to strengthen and enhance traditionally or historically black institutions. The

 

?9 included arethe inthe late?IQBU's before the Supreme Ccurtremered its decision in Ferdice, OCR found
in compliance with Titie VT. The States OCR found to have complied with Title VT
were Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
and West Virginia. findings were based on its investiqations that showed that
these States had implemented their OCR?approved desegregation plane, which were
developed pursuant to the "Revised Criteria."

ED39

Department will strictly scrutinize State proposals to close or merge traditionally or historically
black institutions, and any other actions that might impose undue burdens on black students,
faculty, or administrators or diminish the unique roles of those institutions.

Dated: January 26, 1994.

Norma V. Cantu,

Assistant Civil Rights.

ED40

 

 

Page 041 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED41

 

 

 

 

Page 042 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED42

 

 

 

 

Page 043 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED43

 

 

From: reenspah n, Dan

Sent: 2 Oct 2017 21:15:27 +0000

To: Jackson, Candice;Henderson, Chelsea

Cc: Faiella, Matt;Foster, Richard

Subject: Congressional response - racial diversityF in higher education (due 9/1)
Attachments: Congressional - AA and DOJ-ED plans response 8.28.17 

Congressional - AA and DOJ-ED plans 8.18.17 (Jeffries+l.pdf, DeVos Remarks on Affirmative Action
8.9.17.docx

Candice,

 

 



 

 

Thanks,
Dan

ED44

 

 

Page 045 M130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

ofthe Freedom of mformatien and Privacy Act

ED45

 

 

(Empress of the ?niteh ?tatea
Washington, 301 30515

August 18, 2017

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Avenue, NW
Washington, DC. 20530

The Honorable Betsy DeVos
Secretary

US. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC. 20202

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Secretary DeVos:

We write to request information about how the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of
Education (ED) intend to approach cases and matters involving systemic civil rights abuses and
racial diversity in college and university admissions.

Recently, an internal hiring posting from DOJ citing ?investigations and possible litigation
related to intentional race?based discrimination in college and university admissions? caused
public concerns as to whether and ED are launching a new effort to reexamine the values of
racial diversity on campus. This is the latest effort by this Administration to step away from
enforcing the protections provided under the Civil Rights Act and instead promote policies that
undermine civil rights protections and your Departments? Civil Rights Of?ces.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that racial diversity is a compelling state interest and that it
is in our national interest that talented students from a variety of backgrounds get a close look
and a fair chance at overcoming obstacles to higher education. Despite this, on August 1, 2017,
the New York Times reported that ?3 Civil Rights Division is preparing to redirect resources
into investigating and/or pursuing legal action against American colleges and universities over
admissions policies that seek to provide students with racially diverse and inclusive learning
envirorunents.l Following the publication of that report, and substantial public interest, a 
Spokeswoman said, ?The posting sought volunteers to investigate one administrative complaint
?led by a coalition of 64 Asian-American associations in May 2015 that the prior Administration
left unresolved.?2

 

I Justice Dept. to Take On Af?rmative Action in College Admissions, New York Times. Aug. 1, 2017, available at

2 Af?rmative action case a limited one, Politico, Aug. 2, 2017, availabi'e or

hEwaww.politicocomfstoryizo 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ED46

Letter to Attorney General Sessions and Secretary DeVos
August 13, 2017
Page 2

In November 2014, Students for Fair Admissions ?led a lawsuit against Harvard University
seeking declaratory judgment for the use of racially and ethnically discriminatory policies in
administering undergraduate admissions in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.3
In May 2015, a coalition of groups also ?led complaints with Of?ce for Civil Rights and
the Civil Rights Division.4 Of?ce for Civil Rights dismissed the complaint on June
3, 2015 noting that the of?ce ?can dismiss a complaint when the same allegation, against the
same party, seeking the same relief is pending in a court proceeding.?5 The complaint remains
pending before the Civil Rights Division at DOJ.

We have serious outstanding concerns about the Trump Administration?s intention regarding
policies to promote racial diversity in university admissions and the scope of work your agencies
may be undertaking on this issue. First, there is a discrepancy about the scope of the project.
DOJ ?s internal job posting asks for applications to assist with ?investigations,? yet the statement
from describes a single ?investigation.? Merely acknowledging one investigation, however,
does not rule out the possibility of a more expansive probe now or in the future. Nor does it
explain why it would be taking up an investigation into this 2015 complaint at this time.

Moreover, instead of being run out of the ?5 Educational Opportunities Section, which ?is
responsible for enforcing Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,?6 it appears that these efforts
to reexamine admissions practices will be managed by Administration political appointees. The
Washington Post reported that ?the move came after career staffers who specialize in education
issues refused to work on the project out of concerns it was contrary to the of?ce?s long-running
approach to civil rights in education opportunities. As a result, political leadership within the
department decided to run the effort themselves?? Such a move suggests this is a political
maneuver designed to circumvent DOJ Operating procedures and career attorneys, and that 
may be considering launching an attack on racial diversity and inclusion in higher education.

 

3 Complaint, SFVA v. Howard (D. Mass. 2014) (No. 1:14-cv-l4176-ADB) mrail?abt'e at
complaint 2014.ndf.

4 Complaint Against Harvard University and the President and Fellows of Harvard College for Discriminating
Against Asian-American Applicants in the College Admissions Process, Submitted to Of?ce for Civil Rights US.
Department of Education Civil Rights Divisions U.S. Department of Justice, by Coalition of Asian?American
Associations, May 15, 2015, available at
505 lipd
f.

5 Why the Education Dept. dismissed a discrimination complaint against Harvard, PBS, July 3, 2015, available at


?5 Educational Opportunities Section, Department of Justice Website, available at


1 Justice Department plans new project to sue universities over af?rmative action policies, Washington Post, Aug. 1,
2017, available at 
le7-Bt39-

eeb7d3a2d304 storv.html?utm 

ED47

Letter to Attorney General Sessions and Secretary DeVos
August 18, 2017
Page 3

We also have a number of questions about ED's role in setting Administration policy toward
college admissions practices given the importance of racial diversity in higher education and its
importance to our nation?s global economy. It is unclear to what extent, if any, ED has been
involved in decisions about the Harvard University case or any broader effort to set Trump
Administration policy regarding the importance of racial diversity on campus. Both
Departments have worked together on issues of the use of race in admissions programs in the
pasta They have issued joint guidance explaining how educational institutions can lawfully
pursue voluntary policies to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of
Title [v.9 This guidance was based on Supreme Court precedent and described various ways
schools could lawfully meet the goal of achieving a diverse student body.10 Any effort to limit
universities? ability to take students' backgrounds, including their race, into account during the
admissions process is an abrupt and extremely troubling shift in policy for both Departments.

This action is especially suspect given this Administration?s lack of attention to civil rights issues
in our education system thus far. For example, neither DOJ nor ED have publically addressed
the spate of racially charged incidents on college campuses nor the rise in white supremacist
recruiting efforts and incidents on college campuses which the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
describes as unprecedented.ll Such incidents include the stabbing of an African American
student commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Anny by a fan of white supremacist
websites, or bananas hanging from nooses labeled ?Harambe bait.? Additionally, the Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has tracked approximately 250 incidents on more than 150
campuses of distribution of white supremacist ?yers since spring of 201 6, with nearly 200 of
these incidents occurred after the November election.12

In order to understand how the Trump Administration plans to address these issues, we request a
response to the following by September 1, 2017.

l. A description of any new policy currently under consideration at your agencies related to
racial diversity in admissions on college and university campuses.

2. All internal job postings related to education, discrimination, or racial diversity from any
division within the DOJ since January 2017-

 

a Sea 9. g. Questions and Answers About Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, available at

9 Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Postsecondary Education, available at
ll 1 

Id.
ADL: White Supremacists Making Unprecedented Effort on U.S. College Campuses to Spread Their Message,
Recruit, Mar. 6, 201?, available at 


'3 SPLC White Nationalist Campus Flyering, available at 

ED48

Letter to Attorney General Sessions and Secretary DeVos
August 18, 2017

Page 4

3.

A description of any directive given to employees about how to respond to
complaints or cases related to university admissions since January 2017.

A description of any directive given to employees about how to respond to
complaints or cases related to racial diversity in education.

The current number of individuals employed by the Educational Opportunities Section at


Any communication between and any outside group about the Harvard University
case or the topic of university admissions.

Any communication between ED and any outside group about the Harvard University
case or the topic of university admissions.

A copy of any written agreement or arrangement to provide data from the Civil Rights
Data Collection. Ifno written agreement exists, a description of that agreement.

A description of how ED and are coordinating to set policy related to higher
education issues and all communication between ED and about college and
university admissions policies.

Thank you for your cooperation with this matter.

(?Wm

 

 

HAKEEM JEFFR 
Member, US. House Ranking Member, US. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary Committee on Health, Education, Labor

and Pensions

 

sea;

 



EINSTEIN
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate 

   

ing Member, U. S. House

Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary



Ranking Member, US. House
Committee on Education and
the Workforce

ED49

Transcript of Secretary DeVos? Aug. 2017 Interview with AP
Excerpts on Affirmative Action

AP: I?d like to talk higher ed for a minute. In recent days, we had, there was a leak of the internal Justice
job posting related to affirmative action. We see Justice is going ahead and pursuing the case against
Harvard on claims of discrimination filed by Asia n?American students. The Education Department hasn?t
weighed in on this, on the topic of affirmative action. Do you favor affirmative action programs in
college admissions?

Well, I think this has been a question before the courts and the courts have opined. We have
not been involved with the Justice Department?s posting and again I think as they have stated, this was
an internal issue and one that they are continuing to move forward on. I think the bottom line here is
that we want an environment where all students have an opportunity, an equal opportunity to get a
great education whether that?s at the level or the higher-ed level. And it?s our goal to see all
students have the opportunity to succeed, no matter where they come from, no matter their family
background, no matter their family income and that?s my goal, that?s my personal goal and I know that?s
the goal of our team here at the Department.

AP: Just to follow up. I know you said the Department of Education hasn?t been involved in that internal
memo with the Justice Department. Do you personally believe that race should play a role in admissions?
Race, ethnicity?

Well, what I believe is that we have to change the dynamic for kids on the K-12 system that for
all too many kids who are minority students is failing them. It is not fair to think that when students
transit through a K-12 system that is not preparing them for beyond, that somehow we are going to
waive a magic wand and things are going to be perfect for them at the higher-ed level. So I?ve always
said: What we should really be talking about is what are we doing to ensure that every single child no
matter their family income, no matter their racial background, no matter their zip code has equal
opportunities to access a quality education. We have seen decades of top-down mandated approaches
that protect a system at the expense of individual students. I am for individual students. I want each of
them to have opportunity to go to a school that works for them.

AP: When college admissions officers look at students? applications, they look at their scores, their
grades, their credits, their classes, music. Should they also look at their race when deciding whether to
admit them or not?

Well, they are looking at that. That is a factor today. I am not going to debate that, I am not
going to discuss that. What I want to discuss is the process that gets them from kindergarten through
12th grade and the fact that there are not enough choices and there are not enough options for all
students to find the right niche for them. It also feeds into the higher-ed issue is incumbent on 

AP: What will be the department?s role, if any, in that Harvard lawsuit?

I can?t comment to that. We are not really involved in that. I just don?t have anything additional
to add to that right now.

ED50

From: OCR

Sent: 6 Jul 2017 19:39:03 +0000

To: Ferg-Cadima, James;Foster, Richard;Hoogstraten, Anne;Reyes,
Alejandro;Wheeler, Joseph;Faie Ia, Matt;Michaels, Jacqueline

Cc: Butler, Connie;Lee, Michael;Merges, Tamara;Reed, Carla;5cott, Nikisha;Davis,
Sharon 0. (OCR);Jackson, Candice

Subject: Eliminating Affirmative Action from the School System will harm groups that

depend on Equal shot at an education

Attachments: (bile) 05 17-013743 PLG.rtf

Hello

This email communication is assigned to PLG for response.
Due Date: 07?20?17

Thank you for your consideration of this note.


OCR, Customer Service Team

ED51

 



 

 

 

Junc7,2017 
U.S. Department of Education. 
400 Maryland Avenue, sw. it?ll JUL an 9 :1
Washington, DC. 20202. - 

Dear Mrs. Secretary DeVos,

Ever since I was young, I could tell I was different. I didn?t look the same as other kids, didn?t
eat the same food as other kids and didn?t call my grandparents or parents the same thing. At a
very young age I was aware of the fact that I was a different race than classmates. I grew up in a
predominately white community and being one of the only Latino kids in my school race became
I topic that is always present in my head. When the time came to start applying to colleges, the
question of my race came up. I became interested in learning more about af?rmative action and
how it would affect me when applying to college. I soon learned that some states had either
modi?ed or repealed affirmative action. These modi?cations and bans have harmed the minority
populations of many schools within these states (?How Minorities Have Fared in States with
Affirmative Action Bans?) This made me concerned for students of ethnic minorities in these
states, who were no longer had the assurance that they werenft being denied because of their
race. However, when I dove further into this issue I wondered why people of different economic
backgrounds weren included. I saw there was nothing to protect them from being denied due to
their economic status. There needs to be a system in place to aid .__poorer' students of all races
when applying to colleges, giving them a fair chance. Mrs. DeVos, af?rmative action should be
expanded to include socioeconomic. status.

To bring you up to date on. the issue Mrs. DeVos, affirmative action is a system that has been put
in place to ensure marginalized groups aren?t discriminated against. It was implemented in 1961,
thanks to Executive Order 10925 aimed to combat the rampant racism at the time (?Executive
Order 10925?). It doesn' requne schools to have a certain amount of a certain race, .but requires
them to select quali?ed minorities in good faith. Basically, it?s the university?s job to ensure they
are accepting minorities and not turning people away because of their race (Epps). More
recently, however, states have been banning af?rmative action and similar programs. This has
aparked a discussion as to whether af?rmative action is still necessary.

This, however, is hotly debated. Many argue that this practice incentivizes schools to select
more, potentially unquali?ed, minorities as to appear diverse (?Time to Scrap Affirmative
Action?) Others say this practice is meant only to ensure everyone has the same opportunities
(?Executive Order 10925?). Currently, eight states no longer have af?nnative action for all
public universities. These are as follows: California, Washington, Michigan, Florida, Anzona,
Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire (?What Can We Learn from States That Ban 
Af?rmative Action??) California, Washington, Michigan, Arizona, Nebraska and Oklahoma
passed this through a voter referendum (?What Can We Learn from States That Ban Af?rmative
Action??) New Hampshire passed a bill banning af?rmative. action and Florida? former 
governor, Jeb Bush, signed an executive order banning it (?What Can We Learn horn States That
Ban Af?rmative Action??) Conversely, the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions, the
most recent case was ruled on this year, that af?nnative action is lawful (Epps). Hotvever, many
people, such as Dr. Lam, author, state it should be reformed to include in socioeconomic status,

ED52

 

 

 

 

In Michigan, where af?rmative action was banned in 2008, Latino student'enrollment has kept
up with the amount of Latinos in Michigan, however the state?s population of collegeage .
Latinos is only at 6% (?How Minorities Have Fa?red in States Actidn Bans?). 
However black student enrollment fell even though the amount of eligible college-aged blacks 
has raised to the number of enrolled i's'5% at University of MiCh'igan and 

State (?How Minorities Have'Fare'd in States with Aetion Basso. 

Washington hasn?t fared as well as many of the other states. Af?rmative action was banned in
1999, and enrollment'of minorities has dropped overall,_however the ban hasn?t a??ected
Washingttiu State'C?How'Minoritie's Have Fared in States with Affirmative Action Bans?).

For the most part in states where affirmative action has been banned, minority populations
haven?t fared very" well Mrs; Devongheir etirollnient numbers haven?t kept up 
population growth of their states, which means less'of the-population is being properly educated.
Banning af?rmative action doesn?t do any 'good to these minorities, it clearly helps them get into
college. So should the same opportunity be available to students who are "economically
disadvantaged? I I 

In the PBS article, ?Should Af?rmative Action Be Based on'Soc'ioeconornic Status?? by Judy
Woodru?', Dr. Andrew Lam, author, discusses the issue of af?rmative action reform. Dr. Lam
talks about how a?'n'mative action based on race should no longer be used. This is because kids
who are applying to colleges fear that they will be held to a higher standard than applicants of a
different raee. In this case he is'z's'peci?cally talking about Asian students and mentions how new
20% of Yale?s student body is Asian (Woodrof?; He followsthis up with another argument that"
mentions how af?rmative aetion lumps in poorer minorities with the wealthier ones, thus putting-
the poorer students at disadvantage to the richer students, who most likely got a b?ettereducation
(Woodru??). He states that this system puts poor white students at a' disadvantage, because their 
race isn?t included in af?rmative action policies and their economic situation puts them at a
disadvantagemoodm?}. 

This assists-Jigs up some validponits on why af?rmative action should be changed to be solely
based socioeconomic status, Mrs. DeVos. For one, it solves the issue of underprivileged white
students who may not get the same treatment as poor black or poor Latino students. It also shows
that switching to this system of affinnative action that includes economic status Won?t hurt
existing diversity and can only improve it, including economic diversity on college campuses. 

However, getting rid 'of race-based af?rmative action has been detrimental'as we have seen in the
eight states that have outlawed. So rather than get rid of race-based af?rmative action, expanding
it to include socioeconomic status would not only have the advantages that af?rmative action
already brings, but would also include the advantages socioeconomic affirmative action brings;
Despite the fact expansion could help achieve their educational
dreams Mrs. DeVos, some'people believe that a?hrnative action'should be ended nationwide.

In an article written by The Economist entitled ?Time to Scrap Af?rmative rl'icti'on;a the'author
discusses the problems with af?nnative action. The author talks about-how Wealthier minorities
can take advantage of af?rmative action, because their race makes them ?disadvantaged? (?Time

. 

 

ED53

Mrs. DeVos,__ clearly there are advantages to keeping af?rinatiVe action aroundand there are also
advantages to'laiiding socioeconomic status to it. Eliminating it fromour school eystem only
harms these groups that depend on it to ensure they too are getting an equal shot at an education.
Right now students? who are economically disadvantaged aren?t getting the treatment they

deserVe. Mrs. D'eVos, expand' this program will help make sure. thesestudents everywhere I

for them.

aren?t being denied, because of their economic situation, and potentially create a brighter?ltune I.

Sincerely,

 



 

 

 

References I I 
Anderson, Nick. ?Hora"r Harvard: Set the Model for Af?rmative? Action in 
The "WaShington'PoSti WP'Company, 21 June 2016. Web; 13 May 2017. .

. 
Epps, Garrett. ?How A?irmative A'ction'Won the The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company,
23 June 2016. Web."12 May 2017 . 
httpa 1 
?le?day/4885131? . .. 
ExecuuveOrder 
hang). - 

Af?rmative Action 
'BansfheNewYorkTImeS -

- 

.. . . i . . . 


Nenspap?r; 273m; 2913:? 



CenfuwFou?datw 3' 

<h1rpsr?ftcfore/contenticommen 
Woodm?', Judy. ?Should Af?nnative Action Be Based on Socioeconomic Status?? PBS.

Public Broadcasting Service, 31 Mar. 2017. Web. 12 May 2017.





 

  
  

   
  

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

ED54

Of?ce of the Secretary

US. Department of Education
Control Document

 

 

 

 

 

Control 17-013748 Due Date: 7/20/2017
Document Type: Of?ce of the Secretary Bulk Signature: Appropriate individual's
Mail signature
Event Date:
Writer:
(blt?)
(me)

 

 

 

 

Subiect: ELIMINATING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WILL HARM
GROUPS THAT DEPEND ON AN EQUAL SHOT AT AN EDUCATION

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:
Assigned To Action Assigned Due Date Completed Routing
Date Date Notes
OCR Appropriate 7/6/20] 7 7/20/2017
Handling
OCR- Direct 7/6/2017 7/20/2017
PRGLEGL Reply/Appropriate
Individual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Control Numbers:
030:

 

PLEASE NOTE: A principal of?ce has only ?ve working clays to return a misassigned control should it feel
that a letter should be handled by another principal of?ce. After ?ve days, you are responsible for answering the
letter and will need to coordinate with the appropriate of?ce to draft the reply.

 

 

 

Questions about control mail or drafting letters? Check out Exec See?s Well site: hltp://connectedl 
Keyer: MONIQUEEDMONDSON POC File Code: Reader: MONIQUEEDMONDSON

ED55

From: Hill, Elizabeth

Sent: 21 Aug 2017 17:12:36 +0000
To: Jackson, Candice;Bailey, Nathan
Subject: FW: any response to the letter from Dems

Response to Alyson Klein Ed Week on affirmative action:

As the Secretary has said previously, the courts have opined on this issue and nothing has changed at
the Department within OCR as to policies relating to racial preferences. OCR will continue to evaluate
complaints under Title VI according to Supreme Court precedent.

She?s asking because this politico article just came out:

By Michael Stratford

08/21/2017 12:44 PM EDT

The top Democrats on the congressional education and judiciary committees say they're
concerned about the Trump administration's possible efforts to target university af?rmative
action policies and want more information about where the Education and Justice departments
stand on the issue.

The lawmakers write today in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Education Secretary
Betsy DcVos that they have "serious outstanding concerns about the Trump Administration's
intention regarding policies to promote racial diversity in university admissions and the scope of
work your agencies may be undertaking on this issue.

"Any effort to limit universities' ability to take students' backgrounds, including their race, into
account during the admissions process is an abrupt and extremely troubling shift in policy for
both Departments," said the letter, which was signed by Reps. Bobby Scott 

onyers (D-Mich.) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Patty Murray (D?Wash.) and
Dianne Feinstein 

The letter follows reports earlier this month that the Justice Department was preparing to redirect
investigative resources to target university admissions policies that were deemed to discriminate
against applicants based on race. The Justice Department the leaked internal document that
set off those reports did not reflect a broad policy shift but instead referred to a single
investigation of allegations that Harvard University discriminated against Asian?American
applicants.

DeVos the Associated Press earlier this month that her agency was not involved with the
Justice Department's internal posting. She said that affirmative action "has been a question
before the courts and the courts have epined."

From: Alyson Klein 
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 12:38 PM

To: Hill, Elizabeth

Subject: any response to the letter from Dems

On your plans for affirmative action? Thanks! And do you have time to check in today?

ED56

From: Kasior, Anna

Sent: 30 May 2017 15:02:04 +0000
To: Jackson, Candice
Subject: FW: Call with Heather Mac Donald

Hi Candice, I will file this email for you. If there are any of these links that you want to review or have me
print out, just let me know.

Thank you.

Hana KasFOr

Special Assistant to the Dep. Asst. Secretary For Management and Operations
Resource Management Group

Office for Civil Rights

202.453.6613 (0)

 

From: Heather Mac Donald [mailtolibl?il 
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 2:41 PM

To: Kasior, Anna

Subject: RE: Call with Heather Mac Donald

Dear Ms. Kasior:

Thank you for arranging my very illuminating conversation with Assistant Secretary Jackson.

I had mentioned to her ?mismatch theory,? which argues that racial preferences in academic
admissions harm their alleged beneficiaries by placing them in academic environments for which they
are unprepared. I would be happy to put Assistant Secretary Jackson in contact with UCLA law professor
Richard Sander, who is the pioneer of the theory. Here is a brief article i wrote about mismatch theory:


I had also mentioned to her the KIPP schools, which kicked off the "no excuses? charter school
movement. Here is a blog post about such no excuses charter schools:

And here is a book about them:


Finally, I failed to mention during our cenversation that in my opinion it would be a good thing
if the federal government lifted its numerous "anti-bullying? mandates on K-12 schools. Local schools
are perfectly capable of handling bullying themselves; the federal mandates just serve as a gravy train
for grotesquely overpaid consultants and lawyers.

Here is an article I wrote about the "school-to-prison pipeline" conceit which SecretaryJackSOn
discussed with me:


No reSponse expected. You rs. Heather

From: Kasior, Anna 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 5:01 PM

To: Heather Mac Donald

Subject: FW: Call with Heather Mac Donald

Hello Heather, I would like to set up a follow?up call between you and Candice Jackson, is there a good
number she may reach you on?

ED57

Candice requested about an hour of time. She is available Friday at 3.30pm or Tuesday at 11,303m. Do
either of those times work for you?

Thank you.

Hana Kasivbr
Special Assistant to the Dep. Asst. Secretary For Management and Operations
Resource Management Group

Office for Civil Rights
202.453.6613 (0)

 

From: Carolyn Gorrnan I
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:57 PM

To: Kasior, Anna

Subject: RE: Call with Heather Mac Donald

Not a problem at all, Anna.

 

Her email address is: Heather Mac I

Please let me know if you have any issues getting in touch with her and I?d be happy to help you
connect.

Carolyn

From: Kasior, Anna lmailtotAnna.Kasior@ed.qov]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:20 PM

To: Carolyn Gorman

Subject: RE: Call with Healther Mac Donald

Hello Carolyn,

Happy to clarify. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the US Department of Education, Ms.
Candice Jackson, recently spoke to Heather on a conference call that they both participated (NACUA and
Dept ofJustice were also participants). Candice would like to set up a follow?up call but does not have
the direct contact information for Heather. I believe Heather is aware of this call, as they both discussed
having this follow?up discussion.

I was requesting Heather?s contact information so I could set up this call.

Hope that helps a bit, thanks for looping back around to me on this.

Hana Kasr'ar

Special Assistant to the Dep. Asst. Secretary For Management and Operations
Resource Management Group

Ollice for Civil Rights

202.453.6613 (0)

EDS 8

 

From: Carolyn Gorman 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:16 PM

To: Kasior, Anna

Cc: Carolyn German

Subject: Call with Healther Mac Donald

Hi Anna,

I believe we received a call from you to schedule a call between Heather Mac Donald and Candice
Jackson. Could you provide more details? I apologize as some of the details it seems may have gotten

lost in translation. I?d be happy to help coordinate.
Best,
Carolyn

Carolyn D. German

Project Manager

Education Policy. Mental Illness Policy
Manhattan institute for Policy Research
52 Vanderbilt Avenue

New York, NY 10017

2 131-599-7000


.TQMWEARS

 

ED59

From: Eitel, Robert

Sent: 2 Aug 2017 01:50:29 +0000

To: Menashi, Steven

Cc: Venable, Joshua?ackson, Candice;Bai ev, Nathan;Hill, Elizabeth

Subject: Fwd: Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions -

NYTimes.com

Steve:

There is also a story in the Chronicle as well as inquiries to Liz from WSJ and other

outlets.
Bob

 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: ?Hill, Elizabeth" <Elizabeth.Hill@ed.gov>

Date: August 1,2017 at 9:05:54 PM EDT

To: "Jackson, Candice" "Eitel, Robert"
"Bailey, Nathan" <Nathan.Bailey@ed.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Justice Dept. to Take On Af?rmative Action in College
Admissions - NYTimes.com

 

 

 

(W5)

 

 

Can someone give me a call?

 

Sent from my iPhonc

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Camera, Lauren" 

Date: August 1, 2017 at 8:35:46 PM EDT

To: "elizabethhill@ed.gov" <eiizabeth.hill@ed.gov>
Subject: Justice Dept. to Take On Af?rmative Action in
College Admissions - NYTimes.com

 

 

Hi Liz,

Wanted to check in to see if you could con?rm any of this, or
provide details.

Thanks,
Lauren

ED60


af?nnative-action-

na 20 70801&n1=breaking-
news&nlid=63528536&ref=cta& r=0&referer=

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

ED61

From: Hill, Elizabeth

Sent: 8 Aug 2017 19:47:36 +0000

To: Henderson, Chelsea

Cc: Jackson, Candice

Subject: Fwd: The Harvard Crimson Inquiry RE: DOJ's investigation into Harvard's

admissions practices (DEADLINE TODAY 7 P.m. 
I know Kristine is out of town, do you know who could handle a response? See below
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Betaneourt, Alberto" 

Date: August 8, 2017 at 3:37:48 PM EDT

To: "Hill, Elizabeth" 

Subject: FW: The Harvard Crimson Inquiry RE: DOJ's investigation into
Harvard's admissions practices (DEADLINE TODAY ?7 P.m. ET)

 

Hi, Liz,

Please see email below from Hanna Natanson, a student reporter with Harvard?s,
The Crimson, regarding investigation into Harvard?s admissions practices. I
advised her that no one would be available to speak with her and asked her to send
me the questions she had.

Her deadline is today, 7 pm. ET.



Alberto Betaneourt

Press Officer

Media and Customer Relations Office of Communications 8: Outreach
U.5. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SUV. 
Washington, DC. 20202

(phone) 202.453.5753 

 

From: Hannah Natanson 
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:00 PM

To: Betancourt, Alberto

Subject: The Harvard Crimson Inquiry

To Whom It May Concern:

ED62

My name is Hannah and I?m a reporter for The Crimson, Harvard?s student newspaper. I
am working on an article related to the DOJ investigation into Harvard?s admissions
practices and am under deadline for 7 pm EST this evening.

I am reaching out to get DOE perspective on one particular aspect ofthe new investigation.

It is my understanding that, in the course of preparing for this investigation, the has
requested that the DOE send over information gathered during its 1988 investigation into
the University?s admissions practices.

If possible, I would love to connect with someone from the DOE to discuss this before 7 pm
tonight. While I understand if the DOE will not give any on-the-record comments about an

ongoing investigation, I would be happy to chat off the record to ensure my understanding
of the situation is accurate.

lam reachable at 2024508744 and at 

 

Thanks,
Best,
Hannah Natanson

ED63

From: OCR

Sent: 7 Jun 2017 12:51:26 +0000

To: Ferg?Cadima, James;Foster, Richard;Hoogstraten, Anne;Reyes,
Alejandro;Wheeler, Joseph;Faie Ia, Matt;Michaels, Jacqueline

Cc: Butler, Connie;Lee, Michael;Merges, Tamara;Reed, Carla;5cott, Nikisha;Davis,
Sharon D. (OCR);Jackson, Candice

Subject: Group of four High School Seniors from Eden Prairie High School suggest

banning the use of Affirmative Action for Racial Quotas in College Admissions

Attachments: (We) 05 17-011843 PLG.rtf

Hello

This OS correspondence is assigned to PLG for response.
Due Date: 06? 15?20 1'7

Thank you for your consideration of this note.

Sandy Stove-r
OCR, Customer Service Team

ED64

 

 

ibii?)

 

 

 

.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue. SW

Washington. DC. 20202

United States Department of Education.

We are a group of four high school seniors at Eden Prairie High School. As a part
ofour senior AP Literature course. we have researched and taken an unconventional
position upon Af?rmative Action policies in admissions to higher education. Through
this position. we hope to provide greater context to this important issue and positively
influence future legislation in the policy area.

For years. the topics of Af?rmative Action and racial quotas in college
admissions have sparked landmark battleground cases in the Supreme Court. In Regents
ofthe University ofCalifarnia v. Bakke. the usage of racial quotas was banned in the
admissions process. The use of Affirmative ActiOn has had a number of different rulings
including those in Grurter v. Bollinger and Graig v. Bollinger. The most recent decision
regarding Af?rmative Action involves a case in the University of Texas which upheld the
use of Af?rmative Action and race as a factor of college admissions decisions.

We believe in a reformist policy that bans the use of Affirmative Action in higher
education on the basis of racial or cultural diversity. Instead. socioeconomic diversity

should be stressed.
Sincerely.

[iden Prairie High School Students

 

(W6)

 

 

)(tT
V-



ED65

 

 

(bll?l

 

 

 

 

(bll?l

 

 

Advanced Placement Literature and Composition
26 May 2017
Altering Af?rmative Action

Affirmative Action was introduced in 1965 as an effort to address persisting
discrimination in the United States despite recent civil rights advances (Moreno). The policy
focused on job opportunities and education and sought to ensure that minorities had equal
opportunity in terms of school admissions. equal pay. ?nancial aid, and career advancement
(Moreno). Since Affirmative Action was introduced over thirty years ago. much controversy has
risen in its wake. particularly in regard to college admissions (Moreno). However, according to
Kermit L. Hall. President of Utah University. Affirmative Action has fallen short of its intended
goal due to several barriers blocking quali?ed students from attending colleges that have
accepted them. including rising tuition costs and limited scholarship availability (Hall). Rather
than reinforcing racial and cultural borders. af?rmative action policy should operate on a
socioeconomic basis in order to increase the diversity of student bodies and ensure that all
students have access to higher education should they seek it.

The landmark case of Unit?ersin' affair/omit: Regents v. Bakke jump-started the
argument both for and against af?rmative action. Rebecca Stefoff. an author with a BA in

English from Indiana University and an MA in English from the University of 

ED66

 

(bll?l

 

 

et 2

 

records Allan Bakke?s indignation after being rejected twice from the University of California
Davis School of Medicine (Stefoff 16). There. a special task force admitted sixteen students from
disadvantaged backgrounds. a quota that Bakke later described in a letter to the head of medical
admissions as an "attempt to atone for past racial discrimination" (qtd. in Stefoff However.
while Bakke agreed with the group?s ideals. he also argued that ?instituting a new racial bias. in
favor of minorities. is not ajust solution" (qtd. in Stefolf I7). Bakke decided to tile a lawsuit and
take his case to court. and four years later his case would lay in the hands of the highest court in
the land (Stefoff 17).

In their ruling. the Supreme Court ultimately eliminated quotas but condoned the use of
race as a factor of admission. Bakke was accepted and later graduated from the school that had
dominated his legal schedule for the past few years (Stefoff 102). Perhaps most striking was
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?s prediction that ?25 [sic] years from now, the use
of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today? (qtd- in
Stefoff 125). Well over twenty-?ve years later, O'Connor?s statement remains unful?lled.

Furthering the arguments brought abOut by University of?hlyfornia Regents v. Bakke
were two cases involving Michigan Law School's admissions policy. In Grutter v. Boliinger. a
young female asserted to the coach that she was not accepted because the law school "used race
?as a predominant factor. giving minority applicants a signi?cantly greater chance of admission
than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups? (Robinson). The courts
upheld the policy of the Michigan Law School saying it was not a quota as it did not have any set
goal or target (Robinson). The other course. accusing the same Michigan college but this time
the College of Literature. Science. and the Arts. was that of ?rm: v. Bailinger. In this case

Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher challenged the college's point system saying that one ?fth

ED67

-et al. 3

of the points needed for admission (Robinson). In this case. the court again upheld the
admissions policy and concluded that race can indeed be used as a factor of admissions as long
as it is not the sole determinate (Robinson). The most recent case upheld af?n-native action based
on race at the University of Texas ("Af?rmative Action Fast Facts"). These cases. although
resolved with motives of equality. only exasperate racial divisions and widen the socioeconomic
gap.

Although proponents of race-based af?rmative action argue that minority students
tangibly bene?t from race-based af?rmative action. Richard Sander: a law professor at the
University of California in Los AngeIes who earned his BA in Social Studies from Harvard and
an MA in Economics. JD. and in Economics from Northwestern; and Stuart Taylor Jr, a
journalist and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.
discovered that these programs do more harm than good. Minority students were observed to
have been put ?in classes for which they [weren't] prepared. causing them to lose con?dence and
underperform even more while. at the same time. consolidating the stereotype that they are
inherently poor students? (Sander and Taylor Jr). Not only that, a study conducted by Pete
Arcidiacono. a professor of economics at Duke University: Shakeeb Khan. also a professor of
economics at Duke niversity: and Jacob L. Vigdor. a professor of public policy and governance
at the University of Washington: discovered that ?racial admission policies as currently practiced
actually have a mild negative impact on population rates of inter-racial contact" (Arcidiacono. S.
Khan. and Vigdor 34). These unfortunate shortcomings of a race?based system have been

termed the ?mismatch effect" (Sander and Taylor Jr).

ED68

 

(W6)
et at. 4

 

 

 

In addition. retention rates of black students bene?tting from race-based Af?rmative
Action programs droop below rates of their white peers. in STEM ?elds. "mismatch causes
blacks to abandon these ?elds at twice the rate of whites" (Sander and Taylor Jr).

While we may appear to be helping the disadvantaged. we are actually sentencing under
quali?ed students to a college career of academic struggle and social isolation (Sander and
Taylor Jr).

One of the causes ofthe problem with retention rate is the fact that Af'?n?native Action
strengthens stereotypes (Sander and Taylor Jr). When students who are otherwise not quali?ed
for a school enter the stressful environment they often perform poorly (Sander and Taylor Jr).
These minorities that are already treated as if they are inferior are furtherjudged because of their
troubles with school work (Sander and Taylor Jr).

College can be a stressful situation for everyone (Arbona and Jimenez). Being one of a
small proportion of minorities the stress can grow even greater (Arbona and Jimenez). Social
tensions rise among the white students who had little diversity in their hometowns and the
minorities having to work hard to pass their classes. This stress causes stress to mount and
stereotyping to turn into racial slurs. Af?nnative Action based on race is causing minorities to be
put in dif?cult and sometimes dangerous situations (Arbona and Jimenez).

Although af?rmative action has increased minority representation. it has permitted a
severe socioeconomic gap in higher education. Currently. at the most selective universities in the
United States. seventy four percent ot'enrolled students come from the top income quarter. while
a minuscule three percent stem from the bottom quarter (Nankervis). Because the bottom quarter
is largely represented by black and Hispanic families. this disparity between economic statuses

suggests that current Af?nnative Action policy may bene?t those minority students who are not

ED69

 

(filial Et al. 5

 

 

 

?nancially disadvantaged and have had more opportunities (Nankervis). Socioeconomic
af?rmative action would encourage meritocracy and bene?t students who have overcome the
vast array ot?disadvantages associated with low socioeconomic status {Nankervis}. Another
bene?t. explained by Richard Kahlenberg. a Harvard Law School graduate. of having
socioeconomic affirmative action is that it will help to eliminate the "pennanent upper class"
created by racial Af?rmative Action (qtd. ln Judis). Racial af?rmative action creates a
signi?cant advantage for wealthy students. regardless of race. and creates a cycle ot?these
students going on to be successful at higher rates. so their children are successful as well. and so
on (Judis).

The University of Texas is a good example of the potential success of socioeconomic
af?rmative action. Up until 1996. the University of Texas practiced race?based Af?rmative
Action (Judis). When a federal court of appeals shut down the program, they made the switch to
socioeconomic based Affirmative Action (Judis). From I997 to 2004. The University of Texas
actually admitted a higher percentage of blacks and Latinos than it had under the old race-based
program (Judis).

The many problems attributed to race-based af?rmative action can be. overcome by a
shift towards socioeconomic af?rmative action. Because lower socioeconomic levels largely
consist ot'minorities. minorities and economically disadvantages students will become more
frequently represented and help to end the permanent upper class. Socioeconomic af?rmative
action also better represents students who are severely disadvantaged due to the lack of
opportunity for less wealthy students in high school. middle school. and even elementary school.

There are also documented successes of socioeconomic af?rmative action. as seen in the

ED70

 

(DEE)
er al.

 

 

 

demographics of the University of Texas from 1997 to 2004. Af?rmative action would be more
successful in achieving its goals if it were based off of socioeconomic status rather than race.
Ultimately. the bene?ts of diversity and progress promised by socioeconomic models
paired with the drawbacks of a race-based system indicate that for the betterment of students.
educators. and institutions alike. Af?rmative Action must be based on socioeconomic status

rather than race.

6

ED71

(W6)
I et at. 7

 

Works Cited

"Affirmative Action Fast Facts." (ENC-V. Cable News Network. 27 Apr. 2017. Web. 26 May 2017.

Arbona. C.. and C. Jimenez. "Minority Stress. Ethnic Identity. and Depression among Latinofa College
Students." Journal QI'C'ouns'eling US. National Library of Medicine. Jan. 2014.
Web. 25 May 2017.

Arcidiacono. Peter. Shakeeb Khan. and Jacob L. Vigdor. ?Representation versus Assimilation: How Do
Preferences in College Admissions Affect Social interactions?? 2007. Seaphe. Web.
26 May 2017.

Hall. Kermit L. "The Biggest Barrier to College Isn't Race." Chronicle of Higher Education. vol. 49, no.
41, 20 June 2003, p. 320. Web. 25 May 2017.

Judis, John B. "Action Af?rmed." New Republic, vol. 244. no. 11. 15 July 2013. pp. 9-10. 
Web. 25 May 2017.

Moreno. Pamela. ?The History of Af?mtative Action Law.? Journal of College Admission. N.p. 1
March 2003. Web. 25 May 2017.

Nankervis. Bryan. "Economic-Based Affirmative Action in College Admission." Journal of College
Admission. no. 225, Fa112014. pp. 6-10. 

Robinson. Robert K.. et al. "The Supreme Court rulings in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger:
the brave new world of af?rmative action in the 2lst century." Public Personnel Management.
Spring 2007. p. 33+. Educators Re?nance 'ompiere. Accessed 26 May 2017.

Sander. Richard. and Stuart Taylor Jr. "The Painful Truth About Af?rmative Action." The Atlantic.
Atlantic Group. Oct. 2012. Web. 25 May 2017.

Stefoff. Rebecca. The Bakke Case: Challenging Af?rmative Action. Tarrytown: Marshall Cavendish.

2006. Print.

ED72

 

Of?ce of the Secretary

US. Department of Education
Control Document

 

 

Control 17-011843 Due Date: 6/15/2017
Document Type: Of?ce of the Secretary Mail Signature: Appropriate individual's
signature
Event Date:
Writer:
(bra)

 

 

Subject: GROUP OF FOUR HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS FROM EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL
SUGGEST BANNING THE USE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR RACIAL QUOTAS IN COLLEGE
ADMISSIONS

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:
Assigned To Action Assigned Due Date Completed Routing
Date Date Notes?
OCR Direct 6/6/2017 6/15/2017
Reply/Appropriate
Individual
OCR- Direct 6/7/2017 6/15/2017
PRGLEGL Reply/Appropriate
Individual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Control Numbers:
030: 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE NOTE: A principal of?ce has only ?ve working days to return a misassigned control should it feel
that a letter should be handled by another principal of?ce. After ?ve days, you are responsible for answering the
letter and will need to coordinate with the appropriate of?ce to draft the reply.

 

 

 

Questions about control mail or drafting letters? Check out Exec See?s Web site: 
Keyer: TARKISHIAKEGLER POC File Code: Reader: TARKISHIAKEGLER

ED73

From: Savage, Charlie

Sent: 1 Aug 2017 11:50:17 -0400
To: Jackson, Candice
Subject: NYT university admissionslaf?rmative action

Hi Ms Jackson,

l'm working on a story about a new project at DOJ's Civil Rights Division to investigate
college and university admissions programs over race-based discrimination. I was
wondering Whether Civil Rights Of?ce is also going to be involved in that project
or is separately taking a look at the topic. Would it be possible, please, to chat about that?
(I've separately reached out to Liz as well.) I'm on a daily deadline.

Thank you!

 

Charlie Savage
The New York Times

Phone: 202-862-0317
Cell: 202-369-6653

ED74

 

From: Sherman, Brandon
Sent: 3 Jul 2017 21:10:21 +0000

To: Jackson, Candice;Kissel, Adam (W5)
Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL 
I am looking forward to tackling these issues.

From: Jackson, Candice

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:58 PM

To: Kissel, Adam; Sherman, Brandon

Subject: DELIBERATIVE: ?Regulations

Adam and Brandon,
(W5)

 

 

 

Brandon is taking the lead on this for OCR, but I?d like the three of us to meet up in person {and perhaps
including Steve Menashi) to touch bases on it after you two have had a chance to delve into this a bit.
Thanks all!

Candice

Candice Jackson

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Dep. Ass. See. for Strategic Operations Outreach
Of?ce for Civil Rights

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave. SW

Washington, DC 20202

ED75

From: Eitel, Robert

Sent: 2 Aug 2017 12:56:42 +0000

To: Menashi, Steven

Cc: Venable, Joshua?ackson, Candice;Bai ey, Nathan;Hill, Elizabeth
Subject: Re: Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions -

NYTimes.com

Steve:

 

 

{bll5l

 

 

Bob
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Eitel, Robert wrote:

Steve:
libll?l 
There is also a story in the Chronicle as well as inquiries to Liz from WSJ
and other outlets.
Bob

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: ?Hill, Elizabeth" <Elizabeth.Hill@ed.gov>

Date: August 1, 2017 at 9:05:54 PM EDT

To: "Jackson, Candice" <Candicelackson?edeov>, "Eitel,
Robert" <Robert.Eitel wed.uov>, "Bailey, Nathan"
<Nathan.Bailey@ed.gov>

Subject: Fwd: Justice Dept. to Take On Af?rmative Action
in College Admissions - VYTimesxom

 

 

 



 

 

Can someone give me a call?

 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: ?Camera, Lauren"
<LCamera?iJusnewscom>

 

ED76

Date: August 1, 201? at 8:35:46 PM EDT

To: "elizabeth.hill@ed.gov"
<elizabeth.hill@ed.gov>

Subject: Justice Dept. to Take On Af?rmative
Action in College Admissions - NYTimes.c0m

 

 

Hi Liz,

Wanted to check in to see if you could con?rm any
of this, or provide details.

Thanks,
Lauren



 

rump-af?rmative-action-
na 20170801&nl=brea
mg:

news&n1id=63528536&ref=cta& r=0&refereF

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

ED77

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:
NYTimes.com

I agree.

Eitel, Robert

2 Aug 2017 01:16:02 +0000

Hill, Elizabeth

Jackson, Candice;Venable, Joshua;Bailey, Nathan

Re: Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions -

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Hill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Hill@ed.gov> wrote:

 

We need to circle up on 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin

forwarded message:

From: ?Camera, Lauren" <LCameraG??usnewscom>

Date: August 1, 2017 at 8:35:46 PM EDT

To: "e1izabethhill?ledeov" <elizabeth.hill@ed.20v>
Subject: Justice Dept. to Take On Af?rmative Action in
College Admissions - NYTimes.com

 

Hi Liz,

Wanted to check in to see if you could con?rm any of this, or
provide details.

Thanks,
Lauren

Ius/politics/trump?
affirmative?action-

na 20170801&n1=breakina-
news&nlid=63528536&ref=cta& r=0&referer=

Sent from my iPhone

ED78

From: Venable, Joshua

Sent: 2 Aug 2017 01:17:02 +0000

To: Eitel, Robert

Cc: Hill, Elizabeth;Jackson, Candice;Bailey, Nathan

Subject: Re: Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions -

NYTimes.com
Are folks available for a call now? I?ll send a conf line.
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 21: 16, Eitel, Robert wrote:

I agree.
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Hill, Elizabeth <E1izabeth.Hill@ed.gov>
wrote:

We need to Circle up on 
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Camera, Lauren"
<LCamera@.usnews.com>

Date: August 1, 2017 at 8:35:46 PM EDT

To: "elizabeth.hill@ed.gov"
<elizabeth.hill@ed.gov>

Subject: Justice Dept. to Take On Af?rmative
Action in College Admissions - NYTimes.com

 

 

Hi Liz,

Wanted to check in to see if you could con?rm any
of this, or provide details.

Thanks,
Lauren

ED79

 7/08101fus/politics/t

 

mmp?a?irmative-action-
n3 20170801&nl=brea
kin -

news&n1id=63528536&ref=cta& r=0&referer=

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

ED80

From: Eitel, Robert

Sent: 2 Aug 2017 01:17:21 +0000

To: Venable, Joshua

Cc: Hill, Elizabeth;Jackson, Candice;Bailey, Nathan

Subject: Re: Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions -

NYTirnes.com
I am
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Venable, Joshua wrote:

Are folks available for a call now? I'll send a conf line.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 21:16, Eitel, Robert <Robert.Eitel@ed.gov> wrote:

1 agree.
Sent from my iPhone

011 Aug 1, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Hill, Elizabeth
<E1izabeth.Hill@ed.gov> wrote:

 

We need to circle up on 
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Camera, Lauren"
<LCamera@usnews.eom>

Date: August 1, 2017 at 8:35:46 PM
EDT

To: 
<elizabeth.hill@ed.eov>

Subject: Justice Dept. to Take On
Af?rmative Action in College
Admissions - NYTimes.com

 

ED81

Hi Liz,

Wanted to check in to see if you could
con?rm any of this, or provide details.

Thanks,
Lauren



 


na 201708

news&nlid=63528536&ref=cta& r=0
&referer=

 

Sent from my iPhone

ED82

From: Hill, Elizabeth

Sent: 2 Aug 2017 01:18:07 +0000

To: Eitel, Robert

Cc: Venable, Joshua?ackson, Candice;Bailey, Nathan

Subject: Re: Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions -

NYTimes.com
I am and am on the phone with a dice who says she is available as well
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Eitel, Robert wrote:

I am
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Venable, Joshua 
wrote:
Are folks available for a call now? I'll send a conf line.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2017, at 21:16, Eitel, Robert <Robert.Eite1@ed.gov>
wrote:
I agree.
8th from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Hill, Elizabeth
wrote:

 

We need to circle up on 
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Camera, Lauren"
<LCamera@usnews.com>

ED83

Date: August 1, 2017 at
8:35:46 PM EDT

To:

<elizabeth.hill@ed.gov>
Subject: Justice Dept. to
Take On Af?rmative
Action in College
Admissions -

YTimes.com

 

Hi Liz,

Wanted to check in to see
if you could con?rm any
of this, or provide details.

Thanks,
Lauren


f2017/08/01fus/Dolitics/tru
mp-af?rmative-action?

na 20170801&nl=breaki


=cta& I=0&referel=

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

ED84

From: Hill, Elizabeth

Sent: 2 Aug 2017 01:18:39 +0000

To: Eitel, Robert

Cc: Venable, Joshua?ackson, Candice;Bai ey, Nathan

Subject: Re: Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions -

NYTimes.com
Obviously I mean Candice

Sent from my iPhone

 

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Hill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Hill(a3ed.gov> wrote:

I am and am on the phone with a dice who says she is available as well
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Eitel, Robert <Robert.Eitelgd)ed.gov> wrote:

I am
Sent from my iPhone
011 Aug 1, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Venable, Joshua
<Joshua.Venable@ed.gov> wrote:
Are folks available for a call now? I'll send a conf
line.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2017, at 21:16, Eitel, Robert
wrote:
1 agree.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Hill,

Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Hill(cDed.gov>
wrote:

 

ED85

We need to circle up on


Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From:
?Camera,
Lauren"
<LCamerachu
w>
Date: August
1, 2017 at
8:35:46 PM
EDT

To:
?elizabethhill

@edgov"
<elizabeth.hi]1

gwed.gov>
Subject:
Justice Dept.
to Take On
Affirmative
Action in
College
Admissions -
NYTimes.co
[11

Hi Liz,

Wanted to
check into see
if you could
con?rm any of
this, or
provide
details.

Thanks,
Lauren

ED86



017/08/0 llus/
politics/trump?
af?nnative-
action-
Lmiversitiesht
ml?emc=edit
na 2017080]
&n1=breaking-
news&n1id=63
52853 6&ref=c
ta& r=0&refe


Sent from my
iPhone

ED87

From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Hello,

Reyes, Alejandro
28 Sep 2017 15:22:10 +0000
Jackson, Candice
Faiella, Matt

RE: Outstanding Murray Letters in OCR

Here are the updates. Please let us know if you have any questions. As a flag, I have weekly staff leyel
check?ins with OLCA, but for the last two weeks they were cancelled.

The you,
Alejandro

17-014140 -Title IX Guidance (7f12/17]

 

 

17-
014140

 

7l25r'20
1?

 

Patty
Murray

 

Title IX

 

EXPRESSES CONCERN THAT
ED MAY BE PREPARING TO
CHANGE GUIDANCE ON TITLE
IX COMPLIANCE, WHICH SHE
BELIEVES WILL UNDERMINE
THE RIGHTS OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT SURVIVORS. SHE
URGES THE SECRETARY TO
MEET WITH SURVIVORS

 

 

17-014275 - Title IX Compliance (7/14/17)

lbll5)

 

 

 

(W5)

 

17-
014275

 

 

 

Patty
Murray

 

Title IX
Trans

 

FOLLOW UP TO A PREVIOUS
LETTER, REQUESTING INFO.
ABOUT THE 
ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL CIVIL
RIGHTS LAWS. SHE STATES THAT
OUR RESPONSE TO THE
PREVIOUS LETTER DID NOT
INCLUDE THE INFO. REQUESTED
8; RE-SUBMITS NINE QUESTIONS
FOR RESPONSE

 

 

 

 

 

17-016510 - Racial Diversity (9/1/17)

ED88

 

 

 

17-
016510

911201


 

 

Hakeem
Jeffries

 

Title VI

 

REQUEST INFORMATION
ABOUT HOW THE
DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE
AND EDUCATION INTEND TO
APPROACH CASES AND
MATTERS INVOLVING CIVIL
RIGHTS ABUSES AND RACIAL
DIVERSITY IN COLLEGE AND
UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS.
THEY FORWARD NINE
QUESTIONS FOR A RESPONSE
BY SEPTEMBER 1

 

17-017446 - Title IX DCL (9/21/17)

 

(W15)

 

 

 

(W5)

 

 

17-
01 7448

9I21r?20
1T

 

 

Patty
rray

 

Title IX

 

WROTE TO URGE THE
SECRETARY TO LEAVE IN
PLACE THE CURRENT DEAR
COLLEAGUE LETTER ON TITLE
IX AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT.
FURTHER ASKS THE
SECRETARY TO CLARIFY
THAT THE CURRENT
GUIDANCE REMAINS IN PLACE
AS ED DEVELOPS A PATH
FORWARD.

 

 

17?017852 Title IX Guidance Process (9/26/17)

 

 

 

 

(W5)

 

 

17-
017852

91?26i'20
17

 

 

Patty
rray

 

Title IX

 

WROTE REGARDING
ANNOUNCEMENT TO RESCIND
CURRENT TITLE IX GUIDANCE.
REQUEST THE SECRETARY
UPHOLD A FULLY
TRANSPARENT PROCESS, AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
IN POTENTIAL CHANGES.
REQUEST RESPONSE BEFORE
ED RESCINDS EXISTING TITLE
IX GUIDANCE

 

From: Jackson, Candice
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:51 AM

To: Reyes, Alejandro; FaielIa, Matt

Subject: Fwd: Outstanding Murray Letters in OCR

Let's talk about this, soon. Thanks!

 

 

 

ED89

Candice Jackson

Office for Civil Rights
US. Dept. of Education
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Oppenheim, Peter" <Peter.0ppenheim@ed.gov>
Date: September 26, 2017 at 10:36:25 AM EDT

To: "Jackson, Candice" (Candice.lackson@ed.gov>

Cc: "Petersen, Molly? 
Subject: Outstanding Murrayr Letters in OCR

 

 

 

Hi Candice?

Our records have identified the following outstanding letters from (or co-signed by}
Senator Murray that were assigned to OCR.

0 17-014140 Title IX Guidance (7/12/17)

I 17-014275 Title IX Compliance (7/14/17)

0 17?016510 - Racial Diversity (Bil/17}

I 17?017446 Title IX DCL (9/21/17)

0 17-017852 - Title IX Guidance Process {9/26/17)

 

(bli5l

 

 

 

Thanks so much,
Peter

ED90

 

From: Battle, Sandra

Sent: 3 Aug 2017 23:37:13 +0000

To: Jackson, Candice

Subject: Re: [press question] Christian Science Monitor


 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Jackson, Candice <CandiceJackson?iedgoxD wrote:

 

 

{bii

 

5)This came up in twine to answer a press in 

Thanks Sandy.

 

 

Candice Jackson

Of?ce for Civil Rights
U.S. Dept. of Education
Sen t?'om my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: ?Minami, Kristine" <Kristine.Mina1ni@ed.gov>
Date: August 3, 2017 at 11:57:26 AM EDT

To: "Jackson, Candice" <Candicc..iackson@cd.aov>
Subject: FW: [press question] Christian Science Monitor

From: Wang, Ting-Ting

Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 8:01 AM

To: Minami, Kristine

Cc: Barton, A

Subject: RE: [press question] Christian Science Monitor

Kristine,

gcases currently under investigation involving Specific Bases (03, 07, 09) on
Race-based {100.3-18) and Race-based admission [1003-181] as of August 2,

2107.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket 1* Recipient Name State Case Open Investigation
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF

03041053 EDUCATION KY 12/17/2003

06052022 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY TX 11/23/2004

 

ED91

From: Minami, Kristine

Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 3:41 PM

To: Barton, Wang, Ting-Ting

Subject: [press question] Christian Science Monitor

Hi Ting?Ting 

Can you pull for me the number of open investigations that OCR has for
Basis 03 or 07 or 09

and
Issue 100.3?18.1or 100.3?18

Thank you!
Kristine

From: Bradshaw, Jim

Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 2:45 PM
To: Minami, Kristine

Cc: Yi, Kenny

Subject: Christian Science Monitor

Hi, Kristine,

Stacy Teicher Khadaroo with the Christian Science Monitor

would like to know:

. How many cases are under investigation by OCR for issues related to
"white students or Asian students (who) alleged discrimination under
Title VI related to college or university admissions policies." And,

0 Where there is ?any discussion between the Department of Ed and
the Department of Justice about a need for investigating such claims
more or in any different way than they have been in the past.?

Any preference on a response? Thanks.

Jim/202-401-2310

ED92

From: Menashi, Steven

 

Sent: 14 Jul 2017 02:16:31 +0000
To: Jackson, Candice
Subject: 

 

(W5)

 

 

 

On Jul 13, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Jackson, Candice <Candico.Jackson((Bcd.gov> wrote:

 



 

 

 

Candice Jackson

Of?ce for Civil Rights
U.S. Dept. of Education
Semfrom my iPhone

On Jul 13, 2017, at 9:1 I PM, Monashi, Steven <Stcvon.Mcna5hi@cd.gov>
wrote:

 

(W5)

 

 

 

ED93

From: Menashi, Steven

 

Sent: 14 Jul 2017 15:30:00 +0000
To: Jackson, Candice
Subject: 

 

Or maybe 12:30? I still have not ?gured out the calendar system.

On Jul 14, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Menashi, Steven <Steven.Menashi@ed.eoy> wrote:

Do you want to talk perhaps before or after the Policy Committee meeting?

From: Menashi, Steven
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:45 PM

To: Jacks -
Subject: M5)

 



 

 

 

ED94

From: Reyes, Alejandro

Sent: 7 Aug 2017 21:46:25 +0000

To: Sherman, Brandon

Cc: Jackson, Candice;Faiella, Matt;l<arvonides, Mia
Subject: RE: Regulatory Review 

Attachments: RRTF PLG 8.7.17.docx

 

Attached is our latest draft. 

 

 

 

Thank you,
Alejandro

From: Sherman, Brandon

Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 5:28 PM
To: Faiella, Matt; Reyes, Alejandro
Subject: Regulatory Review

Matt 8: Alejandro,
What is the status of your portion of the chart?

Thank you,
Brandon

Brandon S. Sherman

Senior Counsel to the Assistant Secretaryr
Office for Civil Rights

U.S. Department of Education

Office: 202-260-1115

Mobile: 202-264-9830
Brandon.Sherman@ed.gov

ED95

ED96

 

 

Page 098 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED97

 

 

Page 09? 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED98

 

 

Page 098 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED99

 

 

Page 099 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED100

 

 

Page 100 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED101

 

 

Page 101 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED102

 

 

Page 102 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED103

 

 

Page 103 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED104

 

 

Page 104 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED105

 

 

Page 105 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED106

 

 

Page 108 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED107

 

 

Page 10? 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED108

 

 

Page 108 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED109

 

 

Page 109 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

ED110

 

 

Page 110 0T13U
Withheld pursuant to exemption
033(5)

of the Freedom of Information and Privacyr Act

 

 

 

From: Faiella, Matt

Sent: 31u  2017 22:34:16 +0000

To: Jackson, Candice;Sherman, Brandon

Cc: Reyes, Alejandro;Henderson, Chelsea
Subject: RE: RRTF materials for modification/rescission

Also, my apologies?I realize now that the meeting on this is from 9:30-10:30am, so we will look forward
to talking at 9:3{lam on Wednesday, Thanks!

From: Faiella, Matt

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:22 PM

To: Jackson, Candice; Sherman, Brandon

Cc: Reyes, Alejandro; Henderson, Chelsea

Subject: RE: RRTF materials for modi?cation/rescission

Great, thanks! I?ll let the team leaders know!

From: Jackson, Candice

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:20 PM

To: Faiella, Matt; Sherman, Brandon

Cc: Reyes, Alejandro, Henderson, Chelsea

Subject: RE: RRTF materials for modi?cation/rescission

Wow! I?m impressed and thankful for such quick, comprehensive work on this. It?s greatly appreciated.

 

(W5)

 

 

Thank you!!
Candice

Candice Jackson

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Dep. Ass. See. for Slralcgic Operalions 8.: Outreach
Office for Civil Rights

Department of Education

400 aryland Ave. SW

?i-?r?ashington, DC 20202

From: Faiella, Matt

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:12 PM

To: Jackson, Candice; Sherman, Brandon

Cc: Reyes, Alejandro,- Henderson, Chelsea
Subject: RRTF materials for modi?cation/rescission

Hi Candice and Brandon,



 



 

 

 

Finally, would you welcome the participation of our policv team leaders on ?i?tlednesdaur morning: We
think Anne, Richard, and Rachel (acting for Joe) could be helpful with on-the-spot information to guide

the discussion.

Th 3 yo u,
Matt

 



 

 

 

ED112

 

 

Page 113 of130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

0fthe Freedom of information and Privacy Act

 

ED113

 

 

 

Page 114 of130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

0fthe Freedom of information and Privacy Act

 

ED114

 

 

 

Page 115 of130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

0fthe Freedom of information and Privacy Act

 

ED115

 

From: OCR

Sent: 11 Jul 2017 21:48:01 +0000

To: Faiella, Matt;Foster, Richard;Hoogstraten, Anne;Reyes, Alejandro;Whee er,
Joseph

Cc: Butler, Connie;Davis, Sharon D. (0CR);Jackson, Candice;Lee, Michael;Merges,
Tamara;Reed, Carla;Scott, Nikisha

Subject: Remove Affirmative Action from All School Acceptance Systems
Attachments: .PDF, 05 17-013582 PLG.rtf

Hello

This US correspondence is assigned to PLG for response.

Due Dale: {17-254 7
Thank you [or your consideration of this note.

(ii/(Hf? 

OCR, Customer Service Team

ED116

 

 

(blt?l

 

 

June, 27nd. 2017

Betsy Heir-"or.

linited States Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue. 
Washington, DC 20202

 

Dear Secretary De?Vos,

Our country has heen \i-?orking really hard for years to create an equal society for
all races. The fourteenth amendment was made in l863 to insure our progress. But when
people try to divide us by things that we can not control, that is a violation of our rights.
Even though you might be helping minorities, it is still reverse discrimination. It is not
helping because it is enforcing stereotypes. Everyone should he treated equally and when
you give certain people advantage over others for any reason you are breaking the laws of
the constitution. All people shmild he treated equally and I think yeti should do your best
to enforce that  aw.This is why at?linnative action should not be. used in tlic school

system.

The idea of at't'innatiye action has been around for a while but it was first
introduced by President Kennedy in 196} as way to help [ix discrimination in America.
Lots of other presidents after like President Johnson continued to support it. I lot-sever it
did not help i?ix discrimination it just cmphasims it. I think that affirmative action is a
violation of the. l4th amendment. It states. ?nor shat! any State deprive any person or? life.
liberty, or property, without due process ol'law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection ot'thc laws." By giving minorities priority over other

ED117

races does not give everyone equal protection Others may say that it enforces equality. 
think it entorces discrimination. Inequality is inequality. no matter who is benefiting

more than others.

Over the past years there have been many at?tirmative action eases. With some
even making it to the supreme court. the rulings have mostly been that affirmative action
is unconstitutional. A Lot ot?the cases have been regarding colleges in tesas who have not
been accepting their students fairly. Because ol?this the state otTcsas has gotten rid of
their affirmative action plan. Now they have the percentage plan which gives the top 
ofgraduates a spot in any state university in Tesas.? Lots ot?al?l?irmative action
acceptances have added up to [Sit-3 it] points onto someonc's SAT scores in order for that
student to normally get accepted to the school.? There are also affirmative action plans
happening in schools other than collages. lt?almost all court rulings rule against

al'tinrtative action then why do some people still use it"

I myself have experienced this. Living in New York City we have to apply to
middle and high schools as well as collages. Knowing that my peers who have not done
as much work as me might get into a school i am more qualified because i am
?(it 11 is morally ?Wig You said. "race is irrelevant and should be irrelevant?
"Frankly. I don't relish the idea of talking about race for the nest two years." You wrote.
?Rem ember those words about people beingiudged not by the color ot'their skin but by
the content ot'their character?.? It's pretty hard to argue with them.? agree with you hat I
have not seen you take anny action based on you words. thinL that this is a big issue that
everyone has to face so you should try to make sure it is no longer used. People should
be treated for who they are not vi here they come from. By using af?rmative action you

are supporting stereotypes

Some might say that you need to give minorities an advantage. The are not given
as many opportunities as we are because their race. But are these new advantages we are

giving them too much?? According to a book in 2009. a black student with a similar

 

CNN.com
2 Huf?ngtonpostcom
3 Politicoe0m

ED118

 

application to a white student receives a up to 3 [0 point bump on their score.4 When
put to this extent the advantage for the minorities then becomes a disadvantage For the

majorities. This means that qualiliving students are not getting the opportunity to advance
their education. lt'they arc lowing the bar too much for students to get in they might

not be able to reach the. potential of the school and it can he. too much for them.

In conclusion, I think that altinnattve action is unconstitutional and should he
removed l?rom all school acceptance systems. You should voice your opinion on this
subject more. It is something that everyone has to deal with so you should make it a top
priority. Almost every af?rmative action court rulint:I has been ruled unconstitutional.
You should do everything in your power to stop this and make it illegal in all states. You
have the most power ofanyonc in America regarding the school system. so it is host it?

you can try to get equal rights for everyone

I 1

 

(bll?l

 

 

 



ED119

Of?ce of the Secretary

US. Department of Education
Control Document

 

Control 17-013582 Due Date: 7/25/2017
Document Type: Of?ce of the Secretary Bulk Signature: Appropriate individual's
Mail signature
Event Date:
Writer:

 

011(5)

 

 

 

Subject: REMOVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FROM ALL SCHOOL ACCEPTANCE SYSTEMS

Notes: Re-control/Re-assign

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assigned To Action Assigned Due Date Completed Routing
Date Date Notes
0C0 Cancel 7/3/2017 1 7/18/2017 7/11/2017 
OCR Appropriate 7/11/2017 7/25/2017
Handling
OCR- Direct 7/11/2017 7/25/2017
PRGLEGL Reply/Appropriate
Individual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Control Numbers:
0130:

 

 

PLEASE NOTE: A principal of?ce has only ?ve working days to return a misassigned control should it feel
that a letter should be handled by another principal of?ce. After ?ve days, you are responsible for answering the
letter and will need to coordinate with the appropriate of?ce to draft the reply.

 

 

Questions about control mail or drafting letters? Check out Exec See?s Web site: http://connceledl 
Keyer: ANGELA.WARE POC File Code: Reader: ANGELAWARE

ED120

From: OCR

Sent: 24 Aug 2017 14:51:33 +0000

To: Faiella, Matt;Foster, Richard;Hoogstraten, Anne;l<arvonides, Mia;Reyes,
Alejandro;Wheeler, Joseph

Cc: Butler, Connie;Davis, Sharon D. (DCR];Jackson, Candice;Lee, Michael;Merges,
Tamara;Reed, Carla;Scott, Nikisha

Subject: Request information regarding and its decision to Investigate Admissions
Policies at Colleges and Universities

Attachments: OSCong 17-016509 PLG.rtf

Importance: High

Hello

This (DB/Congressional correspondence is assigned to PLG for draft response.
Due Date: 09?05?17
Signature: Secretary DeVos

Thank you for your consideration of this note.

(Lenin/(7 

OCR, Customer Service Team

ED121

HOSE-RT CASEYbt?tts Dtltatt
tl "i It"; .I . 
I .l
I August 32. 30}?
the lionorahle Bets): DeVos The Honorable .lel'l'Sessions
Attornc) tieneral
LS. Department of Iiducation I Department 
4th} Maryland Ave. SW 050 Avenue. NW
Washington. 30202 \li'ashington. 2053?

Dear Secretary De?v'os and Attorney? (ieneral Sessions:

1 write today to seek additional information on efforts by the Department ol'Justice {Dill} to
investigate admiSsions policies at colleges and universities. On August I. it was reported that the
was seeking attorneys to work on ?investigations and possible litigation related to
intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions." an apparent
reference to the admissions policies instituted by many colleges and universities to ensure that
diversity on campus re?ects the diversity at? the country at large. Furthermore. reports indicated
that the project will be run b} political appointees at DOJ. rather than the career civil servants in
the Department?s Educational Opportunities Section. Protecting and promoting the civil rights
and opportunities ol'all students should be a core priority ot? both DUI and the [)epartment ot?
liducation. have serious concerns that an investigation like this. carried by political
appointees. undermines that goal.

[a a statement issued on August 2. a spokesperson indicated that the investigation into
college admissions \vas currentl). limited to a single case imolving Harvard University.
Nevertheless- uhether the Department intends to esp-and this investigator} project to other
institutions. or pursue this single instance as a test case. I am troubled by the impact it could have
on colleges and universities. whose admissions policies could make them a target of legal action
by political appointees at the 1 am also concerned that the DOJ's actions could have a
chilling el?l'ect on colleges' and universities" el'l?ons to increase diversity on campus and promote
educational opportunit} for all Americans.

Accordingly. I request that you provide me ilh answers to the following questions:
I Does the 00.] intend to imestigute admissions processes at colleges and universities
other than the Harvard inivcrsitv ease'.?

0 Does the DOJ intend to pursue admissions-related legal action against colleges and
universities. many ol'xvhom have relied on Supreme Court precedent in tailoring their
admissions policies.j

II Will this investigation. or these investigatirms. he run in political appointees. rather than
the career civil servants in the Educational Opportunities Section. as has been reported?

ED122

I [ll 5n. why ?as [his decision madc'.? lion" docs this decision gin: In 
American public that! attorneys will be working In promulc the cix-il righis ul'ull
ralhcr pursuing a pnlilicul ugcndu'.?

[his and Department nl'liduculinn should. he imrking In prriCI'VL? and prumuic 
civil rights: ul?all to unsure that indix iduals ham: [he uppurlunil} lu regardless
nl?gundcr. ctlmicil}. rucc. religion or Llisubilil}. I have scriuus concerns lhul an inlu
udmissinns pnlicics conducted by political appnimccs docs nut these goals. I
rcqucsl In [his Icucr. including unsucrs 1hr: puncd ulmru. l1} Tuumlu}.
5?

"l hunk l?nr 30m lu lhis impnrumi mullcr.

y.

9? .
P. Case). Jr.
United Scnutm'

ED123

Kegler, Tarkishia

Subject: FW: Letter from Senator Casey
Attachments: 2017.08.22 Letter to DOJ and Dept. of Ed - College Admissions Diversity Policiespdf

From: Mayes, Edgar

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:35 AM
To: Kegler, Tarkishia

Cc: Catoe, Tracy

Subject: FW: Letter from Senator Casey

From: Stanley, Taylor

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:32 AM
To: Mayes, Edgar

Subject: FW: Letter from Senator Casey

H: I'Liti?zTi?

iimw?a ir-llifjl irsr 

Tayi?or M. Stanley

Olim- and ,?liau 3 

5 0f 


From: Lenahan, Virginia (Casey) ca 
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:19 PM
To: was, guy; OLCA Inquiries

Cc: Solomon, Jared (Casey); Cinquegrani, Julia (Casey)
Subject: Letter from Senator Casey

Hi,

Attached is a letter from Senator Casey to Secretary DeVos and AG Sessions, Hard copies will follow, and please let us
know if you have any questions in the meantime!

Thanks,
Virginia

ED124

Of?ce of the Secretary

US. Department of Education
Control Document

 

Control 17-016509 Due Date: 9/5/2017
Document Type: Of?ce of the Secretary Key Signature: Secretary's signature
Correspondence

Event Date:

Writer:
Robert P. Casey, Jr.

United States Senate

Washington DC 205 I 0

Subject: REQUEST INFORMATION REGARDING DOJ AND ITS DECISION TO INVESTIGATE
ADMISSIONS POLICIES AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATIONS
AND POSSIBLE LITIGATION RELATED TO RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN
FORWARDS 4 QUESTIONS.

Notes: FYI to Joe Conaty, Jim Manning, Joshua Venable, OLCA, OPE, OPEPD, OCO and
OGC. OCR to coordinate with DOJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assigned To Action Assigned Due Date Completed Routing
'Date Date Notes
OS Appropriate 8/23/2017 8/23/2017 8/24/2017
Handling
OCR Secretary's 8/24/20] 7 9/5/20] 7
Signature
I OLCA I FYI Copy 3/24/2017 I 8/24/2017 1 3/24/2017 
OCR- Secretary's 8/24/2017 9/5/2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRGLEGL Signature

 

Questions about control mail or drafting letters? Check out Exec See?s Web site: http://connecledl 
Keyer: TARKISHIAKEGLER POC File Code: Reader: TARKISHIAKEGLER

ED125

Related Control Numbers:
OBO:

 

 

PLEASE NOTE: A principal of?ce has only ?ve working days to return a misassigned control should it feel

that a letter should be handled by another principal of?ce. After ?ve days, you are responsible for answering the

letter and will need to coordinate with the appropriate of?ce to draft the reply.

 

 

Questions about control mail or drafting letters? Check out Exec See?s Web site: 
Keyer: POC File Code: Reader: TARKISHIAKEGLER

ED126

From: Faiella, Matt

Sent: 3 Jul 2017 21:12:01 +0000

To: Jackson, Candice;Sherrnan, Brandon

Cc: Reyes, Alejandro;Henderson, Chelsea
Subject: RRTF materials for modification/rescission

Hi Candice and Brandon,

 



 

 

 

Finally, would you welcome the participation of our policy team leaders on Wednesday morning? We
think Anne, Richard, and Rachel (acting for Joe) could be helpful with on-the-spot information to guide
the discussion.

Than yo u,
Matt

 

 

(W5)

 

 

ED127

 

 

Page 128 of130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

0fthe Freedom of information and Privacy Act

 

ED128

 

 

 

Page 129 of130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

0fthe Freedom of information and Privacy Act

 

ED129

 

 

 

Page 130 of130
Withheld pursuant to exemption
(W5)

0fthe Freedom of information and Privacy Act

 

ED130