Name that Section - Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts

Name that Section: Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts

The U.S. Department of Education and the Chancellor’s Office’s memorandum contain two main

changes in the way racial and ethnic data should be collected. These two main changes were to

be implemented by all districts by the Summer of 2009. First, the question districts use to obtain

racial and ethnic data has been altered. Instead of simply asking applicants and employees to

check a box indicating their racial and ethnic background, the Chancellor’s Office now requires

educational institutions to use a two-part question, below.

This new question will provide more accurate information regarding the racial makeup of

applicants and employees, as it allows individuals to select more than one race or ethnicity.

The second change to the reporting requirements is a new emphasis on collecting racial and

ethnic information from as many individuals as possible. Specifically, the question has been

rewritten so that it no longer contains a “decline to state” option. The Chancellor’s Office has

also made it clear that districts may not indicate in any way that answering the question is

optional. However, the Chancellor’s Office’s guidance also states that “no controls can exist to

disallow a student/employee from simply not responding.” In the past, districts were often

frustrated in their reporting obligations by applicants and employees who chose not to indicate

their ethnic identity. Although this issue will likely be somewhat remedied by the lack of a

“decline to state” option, we still recommend that districts take steps to encourage voluntary

reporting. Districts should make clear that the information is not used—and is not disclosed—to

individuals involved in making the hiring or other employment decisions. The request for ethnic

identity information should also appear on separate forms, and be clearly separate from other

applicant information. Further, EEO Plan Component 4–which outlines the delegation of

authority—should indicate who receives and analyzes this information, and how screening and

interview committees are shielded from receiving this information. Districts should also

reference this information in job announcements and other materials that describe their hiring

procedures to applicants and the community. It is important to note that the Chancellor’s Office

suggested in its June 17, 2016 Legal Opinion on EEO that it is permissible for community

colleges to provide selection committees with race and gender data regarding the composition of

the workforce or department in which the search committee is considering applications, as well

as with respect to the applicants for the position. However, the Chancellor’s Office correctly

noted that there is risk involved in sharing demographic data with selection committees and

recommends consulting with legal counsel before doing so.218 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s

general recommendation is to find opportunities not directly linked to a specific hiring process to

share such data broadly within the college community.

Despite the changes to the request for ethnic identity, we still expect that some applicants or

employees will decline to answer the revised question. If this occurs, in accordance with the

Chancellor’s Office’s guidance, we strongly recommend that districts do not take any steps to

compel individuals to answer the question, including imposing discipline (or declining an

application for employment.)

If they have not already, districts are advised to begin using this revised request for ethnic

identity with all new applicants immediately. Districts are not required to resurvey their current

employees using this new questionnaire, but they may do so if they choose.