View this email .
American Dental Education Association

Volume 1, No. 33, October 8, 2019

Court Upholds Holistic Admissions in Harvard’s “Race-conscious Admissions” Case

 

On Oct. 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that Harvard University does not discriminate against Asian-American students through its use of race-conscious admissions.

 

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard Corporation, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) initially sued Harvard University in 2014, asserting that Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans during its holistic review admissions process. In court, SFFA argued that Harvard discriminates against certain students when they award points based on non-academic factors, such as an applicant’s personality, during the admissions process. SFFA asserted that because Asian Americans ranked consistently lower on personality-point scores, they were denied admission. Arguing that Harvard takes a holistic approach to race-conscious admissions and considers multiple experiences, attributes and academic metrics, lawyers for Harvard argued that Asian Americans were not discriminated against, and that personality was simply one of the many attributes that went into an admissions decision. Additionally, Harvard further argued that their interest in student body diversity was substantial and compelling, and within the strict scrutiny standard in which race and ethnicity can be considered within a narrowly tailored framework as one factor in a holistic admissions review.

 

Ruling in Harvard’s favor, the court stated, “Harvard’s current admissions policy does not result in underqualified students being admitted in the name of diversity—rather, the tip given for race impacts who among the highly-qualified students in the applicant pool will be selected for admission to a class that is too small to accommodate more than a small percentage of those qualified for admission.” Therefore, the court “will not dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster . . .”.

 

The court’s decision will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Because the court’s ruling provides no change to the law regarding race-conscious admissions policies, ADEA will continue to provide holistic admissions training and assistance to dental schools and allied and advanced dental programs. Additionally, ADEA remains committed to the educational benefits of diversity and to developing a culturally competent workforce that is equipped to serve the oral health needs of an increasingly diverse nation.

States Grapple With Implementing Medicaid Work Requirements

 

Although a federal court has struck down Medicaid work requirements in , the policy remains a hot topic at the state level. Some states are actively taking steps to implement Medicaid work requirements, while the policy is being challenged in several others. An overview of the most recent developments can be found below:

  • On Sept. 27, officials submitted a waiver to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requesting the state be allowed to implement a work requirement. Because work requirements are not allowed under Medicaid rules, CMS must approve an innovation waiver before a state is permitted to implement the policy. Idaho is proposing that recipients between the ages of 19 and 59 work 20 hours per week to remain eligible.
  • In , four residents of the state have filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s work requirement for Medicaid. Currently, Indiana is the only state with an active work requirement policy in place. Indiana rolled out its program differently from other states where work requirements have already been struck down by the courts; the state has slowly increased the hours recipients are required to work and delayed disenrollment for non-compliance until the end of 2019.
  • Meanwhile, in work requirements for Medicaid may be delayed or scrapped altogether. In 2018, Virginia Republicans agreed to vote for Medicaid expansion, provided implementation of the expansion also included work requirements. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D), however, is refusing to include work requirements unless the federal government also provides funding for employment training and education. According to the state’s Secretary of Health and Human Resources Daniel Carey, M.D., the Trump Administration has stated it will not provide additional funding.

To date, work requirements have been approved, but not implemented in , and waivers have been submitted in at least nine states.
U.S. Congress Examines the Failed Implementation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program

 

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Education and Labor Committee held a hearing examining the failed implementation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. The hearing centered on a released last month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) was denying applicants for the Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (TEPSLF) Program at the same rate it denied regular PSLF applicants. In response to high PSLF denial rates, Congress in 2018 created the TEPSLF Program, which gave ED additionally funding for the program and clear instructions to simplify and expand the program to increase rates of loan forgiveness. Thus far, the ED has failed to properly implement the TEPSLF Program.

Expansion of Loan Repayment Program Passes Committee Vote in Wisconsin

 

On Sept. 30, legislation that would expand eligibility for a dentist and dental hygienist education loan repayment program was approved by the Wisconsin Assembly’s Committee on Universities, Technical Colleges, Children and Families. , would expand eligibility under the program to include dentists and hygienists who work in a free or charitable clinic for at least 32 hours per week. Under current law, dentists and hygienists must work in a rural or dental health shortage area to be eligible for the repayment program. The program provides up to $50,000 for dentists who agree to work in an “eligible practice area” for three years, and up to $25,000 for hygienists who commit to a three-year service obligation. The bill must be sent to the Assembly floor for a possible vote.

 

For more information about this program and similar programs in other states, please refer to ADEA’s summary of .

The 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.

 

©2019

American Dental Education Association

655 K Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20001

202-289-7201,

 

twitter
Unsubscribe

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA

ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer

 

Bridgette DeHart, J.D.

ADEA Director of Federal Relations

 

Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.

ADEA Director of State Relations and Advocacy

 

Brian Robinson

ADEA Program Manager for Advocacy and Government Relations

 

Ambika R. Srivastava, M.P.H.

ADEA/Sunstar Americas, Inc./Jack Bresch Legislative Intern

 

Higher Logic