View this email in your browser [ [link removed] ] .

American Dental Education Association


Volume 3, No. 65, January 14, 2025

Judge Rules Naval Academy May Consider Race in Admissions
 
A federal judge in Baltimore, MD, ruled [ [link removed] for Fair Admissions v. The United States Naval Academy %28RDB-23-2699%29_Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.pdf ] that the U.S. Naval Academy can continue its race-conscious admissions policies despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision rejecting affirmative action in college admissions. The case [ [link removed] ] , brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), argued that the Academy’s use of race in admissions should be prohibited. However, Judge Richard D. Bennett concluded that the Academy had shown a compelling need for racial diversity in its Officer Corps to ensure national security. He emphasized the history of racial tensions in the military and cited how a lack of diversity had previously undermined military preparedness, making it necessary to reflect the nation’s demographics.
 
The ruling noted that the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision specifically allowed for exceptions in military academies due to their unique role in preparing officers for national defense. Bennett supported this carve-out, noting that diversity in leadership has been a priority for the military for decades, especially after historical racial unrest, such as during the 1960s. The Judge cited the importance of having an Officer Corps that represents the diverse composition of the military and the country it defends. Despite these efforts, there remains a significant underrepresentation of racial minorities among officers, even though more than half of enlisted service members are racial minorities.
 
While the plaintiffs argued for race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity, the Court found that no such alternatives would meet the government’s needs for diversity in the Officer Corps. The ruling upheld the Naval Academy’s approach, stating it does not use quotas or admissions tracks based solely on race.
 
The decision is seen as a victory for the military’s diversity efforts. The SFFA plans to appeal the ruling.

HHS Updates HIPPA Requirements to Address Cybersecurity Concerns
 
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed a new rule [ [link removed] ] to strengthen protections for health care information in the face of growing cyber threats. The proposal requires entities covered by the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to adopt updated technical standards while also emphasizing the role of business associates and group health plans in safeguarding electronic health information. Noting the rapid evolution of technology since the last HIPAA Security Rule update, in 2013, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) highlighted the increased prevalence of electronic health information and the rising frequency of cyberattacks on the health care industry.
 
The proposed rule includes updates to definitions such as “confidentiality” and introduces new terms like “multifactor authentication,” while reinforcing administrative, technical and physical safeguards for protecting electronic health information. It also aims to clarify the 2003 HIPAA Security Rule, which the OCR says has been misunderstood by many health care organizations. For instance, the rule explicitly states that all electronic protected health information (ePHI) is subject to its requirements, countering previous misinterpretations. The proposal emphasizes the importance of implementing and testing modern security measures and requiring annual reviews or updates whenever changes could affect ePHI security. Additionally, it prioritizes resilience, ensuring health care organizations can recover effectively from security breaches.
 
The rule specifically addresses emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and virtual and augmented reality in health care. It mandates that health care organizations conduct comprehensive risk assessments for these tools, considering factors like the type of ePHI accessed, data disclosures and outputs.
 
A six-month compliance timeline from the Rule's finalization has been proposed to give organizations time to meet the new standards.

State Legislatures Target Higher Education in 2025
 
Legislative sessions across the United States are intensifying their focus on higher education [ [link removed] ] reform. While debates about tenure and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs remain prominent, lawmakers are expanding their oversight into broader institutional operations, financial management and academic content:
 • Iowa has established a new Oversight Committee [ [link removed] ] for its higher education system. Iowa Rep. Taylor Collins (R), known for opposing DEI programs, will lead this initiative. The scope of the review has sparked debate about whether it represents appropriate legislative oversight or risks excessive interference in academic matters.
 • The Utah State Legislature is examining resource allocation [ [link removed] ] in higher education. Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives Mike Schultz's (R) proposal for a 10% budget reallocation at public universities aims to eliminate underperforming programs, though faculty members worry this could particularly impact liberal arts departments. These discussions align with Gov. Spencer Cox's (R) emphasis on better matching education to workforce demands.
 • In Texas, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) is scrutinizing the authority [ [link removed] ] of faculty senates in university operations. This initiative reflects growing questions nationwide about traditional shared governance approaches between faculty and administration. Many academics argue that reducing faculty input could harm the quality of educational decision-making.
 • Ohio legislators are likely to revisit Senate Bill 83 [ [link removed] ] , which previously advanced through the Senate but not the House of Representatives. The legislation would restrict DEI training requirements, modify tenure protections and mandate efforts to increase viewpoint diversity on campus. The bill has divided those who believe it addresses ideological imbalances from those who see it threatening academic independence.

These state-level actions represent an evolving approach to higher education policy, where legislatures are taking a more active role in shaping institutional practices. Their decisions could fundamentally alter how colleges and universities operate, affecting everyone from professors to students.

[[link removed]]


ADEA Advocacy in Action
This appears weekly in the ADEA Advocate to summarize and provide direct links to recent advocacy actions taken by ADEA. Please let us know what you think and how we might improve its usefulness.
 
Issues and Resources
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on teledentistry
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on U.S. Dental Schools
 • ADEA policy brief [ [link removed] ] regarding overprescription of antibiotics
 • For a full list of ADEA memos, briefs and letters click here [ [link removed] ] .

Key Federal Issues [ [link removed] ]

ADEA U.S. Interactive Legislative and Regulatory Tracking Map [ [link removed] ]

Key State Issues [ [link removed] ]

The ADEA Advocate [ [link removed] ] is published weekly. Its purpose is to keep ADEA members abreast of federal and state issues and events of interest to the academic dentistry and the dental and research communities.
 
©2025
American Dental Education Association
655 K Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-289-7201
Website: www.adea.org [ [link removed] ]

twitter
[[link removed]]


Subscribe
[link removed][0]&p_colname=p_last_nm&p_varname=p_val_arr[1]&p_colname=p_alias&p_varname=p_val_arr[2]&p_colname=p_login_id&p_varname=p_val_arr[3]&p_colname=p_passwd&p_context=NEWSLETTER&p_success_url=censsaindprofile.section_update%3Fp_profile_ty%3DINDIVIDUAL_PROFILE%26p_skip_confirm_fl%3DY%26p_section_nm%3DNewsletters%26p_format%3D110%26p_msg_txt%3D%26p_cust_id%3D%26p_referrer%3D

Unsubscribe
[link removed]

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA
ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer
 
Bridgette DeHart, J.D.
ADEA Director of Federal Relations and Advocacy
 
Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.
ADEA Senior Director of State Relations and Advocacy
 
Contact Us:
[email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ]

Powered by Higher Logic [link removed]