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

“Monitored groups” as defined are simply those groups that the regulations require districts to monitor. 224 These groups are: men, women, American Indians or Alaskan natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks/African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Caucasians, and persons with disabilities. Further, Section 53004 subdivision (b) requires that Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Asian Indians, Hawaiians, Guamanians, Samoans, Laotians, and Cambodians be counted and reported both as part of the Asian/Pacific Islander group and in separate subcategories. Analysis of underrepresentation of monitored groups does not require analyzing these subcategories.

The employee survey must be conducted and analyzed, and its results reported to the State Chancellor annually. 225

ii. Implementation

1. Identifying Ethnic Identity and Gender In October 2007, the United States Department of Education published final guidance changing the procedure for collecting and reporting racial and ethnic data by educational institutions. 226 The State Chancellor’s Office subsequently announced changes to the process for gathering data regarding employee and applicant ethnicity to bring community college practices in line with these federal guidelines. Specifically, in June 2008, the Chancellor’s Office published its own memorandum with guidance and sample questionnaires designed to assist districts in implementing changes to the way they collect racial and ethnic data. 227 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. 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 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.

Name that Section: Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts ©2020 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 74