晚期应用 在数字时代保护学生的公民权利– late applications - protecting studentscivil rights in the digital age

LATE

APPLICATIONS

ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

September2023

AUTHORS:

KristinWoelfel

ArianaAboulafia

ElizabethLaird

SydneyBrinker

The

CenterforDemocracy&Technology

(CDT)istheleadingnonpartisan,nonprofitorganization

fightingtoadvancecivilrightsandcivillibertiesinthedigitalage.Weshapetechnologypolicy,governance,anddesignwithafocusonequityanddemocraticvalues.Establishedin1994,

CDThasbeenatrustedadvocatefordigitalrightssincetheearliestdaysoftheinternet.The

organizationisheadquarteredinWashington,D.C.andhasaEuropeOfficeinBrussels,Belgium.

Asgovernmentsexpandtheiruseoftechnologyanddata,itiscriticalthattheydosoinwaysthat

affirmindividualprivacy,respectcivilrights,fosterinclusiveparticipatorysystems,promote

transparentandaccountableoversight,andadvancejustsocialstructureswithinthebroader

community.CDT’s

EquityinCivicTechnologyProject

furthersthesegoalsbyprovidingbalanced

advocacythatpromotestheresponsibleuseofdataandtechnologywhileprotectingtheprivacy

andcivilrightsofindividuals.Weengagewiththeseissuesfrombothtechnicalandpolicyminded

perspectives,creatingsolutions-orientedpolicyresourcesandactionabletechnicalguidance.

Endnotesinthisreportincludeoriginallinksaswellaslinksarchivedandshortenedbythe

Perma.cc

service.The

Perma.cc

linksalsocontaininformationonthedateofretrievalandarchive.

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

3

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary4

I.Introduction6

I

I.Background7

A.Race-andSex-BasedDiscrimination8

B.Disability-BasedDiscrimination9

III.CoreDiscriminationConcepts10

A.DisparateTreatment10

B.DisparateImpact13

C.HostileLearningEnvironment16

D.DenialofaFreeAppropriatePublicEducation19

IV.ConsequencesofViolation23

V.Recommendations24

VI.Conclusion29

Endnotes30

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

4

ExecutiveSummary

Educationdataandtechnologycontinuetoexpandtheirroleinstudents’,teachers’,

andparents’lives.Whileissuesofschoolsafety,studentmentalhealth,and

achievementgapsremainattheforefrontofeducation,emergingtechnologiessuch

aspredictiveanalytics,monitoringsoftware,andfacialrecognitionarebecoming

morepopular.Asthesetechnologiesexpand,sohavequestionsabouthowthey

mightbeusedresponsiblyandwithoutinflictingnegativeconsequencesonstudents,

especiallyhistoricallymarginalizedstudents.

Theeducationsectorhasbeenresponsibleforprotectingthecivilrightsofstudents

fordecades.Existingcivilrightslawsprovideanimportantfoundationtoensure

thatdataandtechnologypracticesinschoolsachievetheirintendedfunction

withoutinadvertentlyhavingdiscriminatoryeffectsagainststudentsonthebasis

ofrace,sex,ordisability.

Analysisofdatathatisdisaggregatedbyanumberofstudentdemographicsiscrucial

tounderstandingtrendsregardingprotectedclassesofstudentsandillustrateswhyan

ongoingfocusonstudentcivilrightsisnecessary;however,theanalysiscontainedin

thisreportfocusesontheuseoftechnologyanddatainrealtimetomakedecisions

aboutindividualstudents,ratherthantheuseofdatatoidentifyoveralltrends.

Examiningthecurrentusesofeducationdataandtechnologyundervariouscivil

rightsconcepts,thisreportoffersguidancetohelppolicymakersandeducation

leadersunderstandhowtobettercentercivilrightsinthedigitalagewithrespectto

theirpracticesandpolicies,especiallyregardingnondiscriminationandtechnology

procurement.Thisguidanceincludesrecommendationsforschoolleaderstoensure

thateducationdataandtechnologyusesdonotrunafoulofcivilrightslawsandthat

allstudentsarepositionedtobesuccessfulinschoolandbeyond:

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

5

■Auditexistingnondiscriminationpolicies,practices,andnotices.

■Updateorcreatenewpoliciestoaddressdataandtechnologyuse.

■Reviseorimplementaprocurementpolicyforeducationtechnologies.

■Consolidateandmakereadilyavailableallrequirednondiscriminationnotices.

■Posttheconsolidatedpolicyindistrictbuildingsandonschoolwebsites.

■Designatespecificpersonneltoberesponsibleforensuringcompliancewithnondiscriminationlawsregardingeducationdataandtechnology.

■Conductanalysisandpubliclyreportinformationonnondiscriminationpoliciesandpracticesfordataandtechnologyonanongoingbasis.

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

6

I.Introduction

Asschoolscontinuetoadoptnewtechnologiesanddatapracticestoimprove

instructionandalleviateadministrativeburdens,theeducationsectorfacescomplex

questionsabouttheresponsibleandethicalusesoftechnologyanddata.Inparticular,

itneedstoensurethatthesetechnologiesandpracticesdonothavediscriminatory

effects—orleadtodiscriminatoryoutcomes—forstudentswhohavebeen

historicallymarginalized.Fortunately,along-standingbodyofantidiscrimination

lawalreadygovernsthepoliciesandpracticesofeducationinstitutionsandtheir

third-partyvendors,withtheaimofensuringanondiscriminatoryenvironmentfor

studentsinprotectedcategories.Educationagenciesneedtoensurethattheiruseof

technologyanddatacomplieswiththeselaws.

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

7

II.Background

Antidiscriminationlawsprohibitanumberofprotectedcategories,includingrace,

sex,anddisability,frombeingthebasisfordifferingtreatmentexceptinextremely

narrowcircumstances.Thesecategoriesareprotectedbecause,historically,they

havebeenmorevulnerableandhaveexperienceddiscriminationathigherrates—

andunfortunatelythosedifferencespersisttoday.Forexample,despitebeing

underrepresentedintheK–12studentpopulation,Blackstudentsandstudentswith

disabilitiesareoverrepresentedamongstudentsdisciplinedinschool(specificallyby

out-of-schoolsuspension),regardlessofsocioeconomicstatus.1

Thesamegroups,as

wellasmaleHispanicstudents,arealsooverrepresentedinalternativeschools,where

theyaretypicallyplacedduetodisciplinaryissuesandwheretheyhavelessaccessto

supportstaffsuchascounselorsandsocialworkers.2

Studentswithdisabilitiesaccountfor70percentofpublicschoolstudentswhoare

restrainedorsecluded.3

Additionally,theoverallhighschoolgraduationrateforthe

2019–20schoolyearwas86.5percent,whilethehighschoolgraduationratefor

studentswithdisabilitieswas70.6percent.4

Comparedtotheirpeers,LGBTQ+

studentswhoexperienceharassmentorunequaltreatmentbasedontheirsexual

orientationorgenderidentityreportmissingmoredaysofschool,lowergradepoint

averages,lowereducationalaspirations,andhigherratesofschooldiscipline—all

factorscontributingtoworsenedacademicoutcomes.a

Thesestatisticsreinforcetheimportanceoflegalprotectionsthathavebeeninplace

fordecades,aimedatpreventingdiscriminationbyrace,sex,anddisabilitystatus.

Theseprotectionsapplyequallytotheuseoftechnologyanddatainschoolsettings.

aJosephG.Kosciw,CaitlinM.Clark&LeeshMenard,The2021NationalSchoolClimateSurvey:The

ExperiencesofLGBTQ+YouthinOurNation’sSchools,Gay,Lesbian&StraightEduc.Network92(2022),

https://perma.cc/XX44-T2AS

.Studieshaveshownthathigherratesofsuspensionsanddisciplinaryaction

increasethelikelihoodofdroppingoutby15percentanddecreasethelikelihoodofattendingafour-year

collegeby11percent,showingasignificantimpactoneducationalattainmentforthosemostaffectedby

discipline.SeeAndrewBacher-Hicks,StephenB.Billings&DavidJ.Deming,TheSchooltoPrisonPipeline:

Long-RunImpactsofSchoolSuspensionsonAdultCrime,Nat’lBureauofEcon.Rsch.4,18(Sept.2019),

https://perma.cc/U6Y2-UB4G

.

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

8

A.RACE-ANDSEX-BASEDDISCRIMINATION

TheCivilRightsActof1964(theAct)wasenactedtoendstate-sponsored

segregationandinequalityincrucialarenasofpubliclife,includingeducation.While

theActgovernsmanytypesofdiscrimination,thefollowingdiscussionwillfocuson

twocategories:raceandsex.TitleVIoftheActprotectsstudentsfromdiscrimination

onthebasisofraceandwasenactedtoprevent(andinsomecases,mandateaction

toactivelyreverse)historicalracialsegregationinschools.SinceTitleVI’senactment,

strideshavebeenmadetoclosetheracialachievementgapineducation:Adecadeafter

theAct,thedropoutrateforBlackstudentswas20.5percentasopposedto12percentfor

whitestudents;5

in2021,itwas5.9percentasopposedto4.1percent,respectively.6

Whilethegaphasnarrowed,theimpactofracialinequitypersists,andthestrength

ofTitleVI’sprotectionremainsvitaltoensuringequalopportunityineducation.

TitleIXoftheAct,enactedin1972,protectsstudentsfromdiscriminationonthe

basisofsexandwasinitiallyenactedtoprovideequalaccessinpubliceducationfor

womenandgirls.Inthefivetosixyearsfollowingitsenactment,girls’participation

insportsroseby600percent—from294,105to2.1million.7

Intheseveraldecades

since,thecontinuedincreasehashadadirecteffectonwomen’seducationand

employment(withonestudyconcludingitwasresponsiblefor20percentofthe

overallincreaseinwomen’seducationalattainment),aswellasbeingcorrelatedwith

lowerteenagepregnancyrates,bettergrades,andhigherself-esteem.8

TitleIX’sreach

hasevolvedovertimetoprotectindividualsfromvariousformsofsexdiscrimination,

includingsexualharassment,pregnancydiscrimination,anddiscriminationbased

onsexualorientationandgenderidentity.Asof2021,theU.S.Departmentof

Educationexplicitlyrecognizessexualorientationandgenderidentityasprotected

andenforceableunderTitleIX.b

bU.S.DepartmentofEducationConfirmsTitleIXProtectsStudentsFromDiscriminationBasedonSexual

OrientationandGenderIdentity,U.S.Dep’tofEduc.(Jun.16,2021),

https://perma.cc/FN3S-T3LY.

The

DepartmentofEducationhaschosentoadopttheSupremeCourt’sinterpretationofTitleVIIinBostock

v.ClaytonCountyasapplicabletoTitleIXandwillnowenforceitassuch.Inapendingrulemaking,the

DepartmenthasproposedtoamendTitleIXregulationstoexpresslyincludesexualorientationandgender

identity.NondiscriminationontheBasisofSexinEducationProgramsorActivitiesReceivingFederal

FinancialAssistance,87Fed.Reg.41390(proposedJul.12,2022)(tobecodifiedat34C.F.R.§106),

https://perma.cc/2P6P-2Z3A.

PendinglitigationontheDepartment’sauthoritytoenforceitsinterpretation

ofBostockhastemporarilylimitedenforcementinthestatesofAlabama,Alaska,Arizona,Arkansas,Georgia,

Idaho,Indiana,Kansas,Kentucky,Louisiana,Mississippi,Missouri,Montana,Nebraska,Ohio,Oklahoma,

Tennessee,SouthCarolina,SouthDakota,andWestVirginia.EnforcementofTitleIXoftheEducation

Amendmentsof1972WithRespecttoDiscriminationBasedonSexualOrientationandGenderIdentityin

LightofBostockv.ClaytonCounty,86Fed.Reg.32637(Jun.22,2021),

https://perma.cc/87UE-J7PM

.

B.DISABILITY-BASEDDISCRIMINATION

In1973,theRehabilitationAct—whichwasmodeledaftertheCivilRightsAct

—becamethefirstfederallawtoprotectthecivilrightsofpeoplewithdisabilities.9

Section504oftheRehabilitationAct(Section504)specificallyprotectsindividuals

fromdisabilitydiscriminationatthehandsofpubliclyfundedentities,including

publicschools.10

Itrequiresthatschooldistrictsprovideallstudentswitha“free

appropriatepubliceducation”(FAPE),regardlessofthenatureorseverityoftheir

disability.

11

StudentscanbeeligibleforservicesunderSection504regardless

ofwhethertheyalsoqualifyforservicesundertheIndividualswithDisabilities

EducationAct(IDEA),asdiscussedbelow.12

BuildingonSection504,the1975IDEA13

explainshowstates,schools,andschool

districtsshouldprovideproperinterventionandspecialeducationtoeligible

studentswithdisabilities.14

IDEAreinforcesFAPEandrequiresthateducationand

relatedservicesshouldbe“providedinconformitywith[astudent’s]individualized

educationprogram[(IEP)].”

15

WhilestudentswhoareprotectedunderIDEA

arealsoprotectedbySection504andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA,

describedbelow),noteverystudentprotectedbySection504andtheADAisalso

protectedbyIDEA.

16

Notably,IDEAalsoprovideseligiblestudentswithparticular

privacyprotectionsthatensurethattheirpersonallyidentifiableinformationiskept

confidentialinaccordancewiththeFamilyEducationalRightsandPrivacyAct

(FERPA).17

ChildrenareeligibleforservicesunderIDEAonlyifanevaluationfinds

thatto“beinvolvedinandprogressinthegeneraleducationcurriculum”theyneed

specialeducationandrelatedservicesduetooneormoredisabilities.18

Finally,the1990ADAextendstheprotectionsofSection504toincludeallpublic

entitiesandaccommodations,regardlessofwhetherornottheyreceivepublic

funding.19

TitleIIoftheADA(TitleII)extendsSection504’snondiscrimination

lawstostateandlocalgovernmentservices.20

Becausepublicschoolsystemsfallunder

such“stateandlocalgovernmentservices,”theyarerequiredtocomplywithboththe

ADAandSection504.21

TheoverarchingideaofTitleII’sregulationofpublicschools

isthattheschoolsmustprovidedisabledstudentsequalopportunitytoobtainthe

sameresults,gainthesamebenefits,andreachthesamelevelsofachievementas

nondisabledstudents.22

UnderTitleII,publicschoolsmaynotdiscriminateagainst

disabledstudents,suchasbyexcludingthemfromparticipationinordenyingthem

thebenefitsoftheschool’sservices,programs,oractivitiesonthebasisoftheir

disability.

23

Especiallypertinenttodisabledstudents’privacyanduseoftechnology,

TitleIIstatesthatpublicschoolsmustprovidethesestudentswithauxiliaryaidsand

servicesinawaythatprotectstheirprivacyandindependence.24

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge9

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

10

III.CoreDiscriminationConcepts

Thehistoryofenforcementandlitigationunderthesenondiscriminationstatutes

hascreatedabodyofantidiscriminationlawspecifictotheeducationsector.From

thisbodyoflaw,severalcoreconceptsemergetoformthebasisforfourmaincauses

ofactionthatareavailabletostudentsandfamilieswhenallegingdiscrimination.

Theseclaimsare:(i)disparatetreatment,(ii)disparateimpact,(iii)hostilelearning

environment,and(iv)denialofFAPE.Eachofthesecausesofactioncould

applytotheuseofdataandtechnologyineducation.Theseclaimsarealsooften

intersectional—examplesofoneclaimmightalsobeusedtoillustrateanother.This

intersectionalityisparticularlycommonforhostilelearningenvironmentsanddenial

ofFAPE,whereinstancesofdisparatetreatmentmayconstitutetheexistenceofa

hostilelearningenvironmentordenialofFAPEinadditiontothestandaloneclaim

ofdisparatetreatment.

A.DISPARATETREATMENT

Disparatetreatmentisthetermthatdescribesintentionaldiscrimination.25

Disparate

treatmentcanariseifaneutralpolicyisenforceddisproportionatelyagainstmembers

ofaprotectedclassorifapolicyorpracticeexplicitlytargetsaprotectedclass.A

studentallegingdisparatetreatmentmustshowthattheallegeddiscriminatory

conductwasintentionalandwasbased,atleastpartially,onthestudent’sprotected

characteristics.Examplesofhowdisparatetreatmentcouldariseinthecontextof

educationdataandtechnologypracticesinclude:

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge

11

Disparate

treatmentcriteria

Educationdataandtechnologyexamples

Neutral

policythatis

disproportionatelyenforced

Unequalapplicationofdisciplinarypoliciestostudentsinaprotectedclassforconductorcommentaryflaggedby

surveillancetechnologies(e.g.,whenastudentofcoloris

disciplined—butawhitestudentisnot—forthesametypeofallegedmisconduct).

Explicittargeting

Targetedsurveillanceoralgorithmicfocusonprotectedclassesoronwordsdirectlyimplicatingprotectedclasses(e.g.,when

programsaresettoflagactivityandtermsrelatedtosexualityorgenderidentity,LGBTQ+studentsareexplicitlytargetedforincreasedsurveillanceascomparedtonon-LGBTQ+students).

Considerthesescenarios:IfaschoolhadapolicythatsubjectedBlack,

Hispanic,LGBTQ+,ordisabledstudentstoadditionalexaminationand

oversightbyschoolstaffcbutdidnotsubjectstudentswhoarewhite,not

LGBTQ+,ornotdisabledtothesameadditionalexamination,thesituation

wouldbeaclearinstanceofapolicyorpracticeexplicitlytargetingmembers

ofaprotectedclassfordifferenttreatment.

Wherethisadditionalassessmentandoversightisbuiltintoanalgorithmicprogram,

ithasthesamediscriminatoryimpactonstudentsinprotectedclassesasifitwere

conductedbyanemployeeoftheschool.What’smore,whereprotectedclasses

areexplicitlyflaggedaskeyinputsinprogramsthatleadtothesediscriminatory

outcomes,provingintentbecomeseasier.Traditionally,intenttobaseanactionon

someone’sraceorsexisinanemployee’smind:Itmusteitherbeconfessedorbe

heavilyinferredfromexternalevidence.Aconfessionormoundofevidencewould

beunnecessaryifareviewofthealgorithmshowedthattheprotectedcategorywasat

leastoneelementofthedecision-making.Itisimportanttorememberthattheaction

needonlybebased“atleastinpart”ontheprotectedcategorytobediscriminatory.

Unfortunately,thesescenariosarenotjusthypothetical.AsillustratedbyWisconsin’s

earlywarningsystem(andthroughouttheremainderofthisreport),currentschool

technology,datapractices,andpoliciesmayalreadyrunafoulofexistingcivilrights

protections.

cWithregardtostudentswithdisabilities,thishypotheticalreferstoadditionalexaminationandoversight

beyondwhatisrequiredorotherwisejustifiedbythestudent’saccommodationsorotherofficial

arrangements.

EXAMPLE

Wisconsinincludesraceasakeydatainputtoidentify

at-riskstudents

InWisconsin,thestateeducationagencyimplementedanalgorithmicmodelcalledthe

DropoutEarlyWarningSystem(DEWS)topredictthelikelihoodoftimelyhighschool

graduationforthen-currentmiddleschoolers.Afteradecadeofimplementation,an

investigationintotheprogramfoundthatDEWSissignificantlymorelikelytofalselypredict

thatBlackandHispanicstudentswoulddropoutthanitisforwhitestudents.d

Administratorsandeducatorsreceivecolor-codedratingsindicatingeachstudent’s

purportedriskfordropout:greenforlow,yellowformoderate,andredforhigh.Theselabels

maybenegativelyinfluencinghoweducatorsperceivetheirstudents,andstudentsreported

thatthehigh-risklabelsarestigmatizinganddiscouraging.Giventhedisproportionatelyhigh

falsealarmrateforBlackandHispanicstudents,thisnegativeinfluencecancreatethetype

ofbiasthatleadstounequalapplicationofdisciplinarypolicies,furtheraffectingstudents

whohavepotentiallyalreadybeenimproperlycategorized.

Theinvestigationfurtherrevealedthatstudentraceandgenderareinputvariablesinthe

algorithmusedtomaketheriskdetermination.Withoutknowledgeofexactlyhowthe

algorithmworks,therolethatraceandsexplayinmakingthealgorithmicdeterminations

isunclear.Nevertheless,thefindingsraisethepossibilitythatastudent’sprotected

characteristicsarebeingusedtomakedecisionsfordifferentialtreatment.WhileWisconsin’s

intentinimplementingDEWSwastoclosethelargeracialgraduationgapthatpersistsin

itseducationsystem,thedatashowsthatDEWSultimatelyhasnoimpactongraduation

ratesforthestudentsitlabelshighrisk.Clearly,however,thealgorithmislessaccurateinits

predictionsforBlackandHispanicstudents,disproportionatelyplacingastigmatizinglabel

onthesestudentsandalteringthelevelofattention(beitmoreorless)thattheyreceive

fromschoolstaff.e

d“Thealgorithm’sfalsealarmrate—howfrequentlyastudentitpredictedwouldn’tgraduateontimeactually

didgraduateontime—was42percentagepointshigherforBlackstudentsthanwhitestudents.…The

falsealarmratewas18percentagepointshigherforHispanicstudentsthanwhitestudents.”ToddFeathers,

TakeawaysFromOurInvestigationIntoWisconsin’sRaciallyInequitableDropoutAlgorithm,Markup(Apr.27,

2023,8:00AM),

https://perma.cc/3DV3-6TAK

.

eArelevantdistinctionhere:Somealgorithmicprogramsarebuiltbytheeducationagenciesthemselves,

andsomeareacquiredthroughthird-partyvendors.Thisparticularexamplefocusesontheprogramsthat

educationagencieshavebuiltthemselves,astheagencyhasinsightintoandcontroloverhowthatalgorithm

functionsandwhatinputsitoperateson.

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsintheDigitalAge12

EXAMPLE

Privatecompanytargets“gay”and“lesbian”students

formonitoring

Astudentactivitymonitoringcompanythatusesartificialintelligencetocombthrough

billionsofstudentchatsandmonitorstudentaccounts(evenonapersonaldevice)was

foundtohavebeenflaggingtheterms“lesbian,”“gay,”and“transgender”formanualreview.

Byprogrammingthealgorithmtoflagtheseterms,studentswerebeingexplicitlytargeted

basedontheseprotectedcharacteristics.Thispracticeultimatelyresultedintheoutingof

LGBTQ+youthtotheiradministrators,teachers,andparents,withoutanydatatosuggest

theefficacyofthispracticeinachievingitsintendedimpactofincreasingstudentsafety.26

Thepracticedrewaconsiderableamountofcriticismandwaseventuallydiscontinued.

“Outingiswhensomeonedisclosesthesexualorientationorgenderidentity

ofanLGBTQ+personwithouttheirconsent.Outingcreatesissuesofprivacy,

choice,andharm.…Outingisaharmfulactthatcantraumatizetheperson

beingouted[and]canalsoleadtosomeoneexperiencingviolenceor…

dangeroussituations.”—StephenNelson,WhatIsOutingandWhyIsItHarmful?

27

B.DISPARATEIMPACT

Disparateimpactdiffersfromdisparatetreatmentinthatitdoesnotrequireafinding

ofintenttoconstituteactionablediscrimination.Disparateimpactoccurswhere

aneutralpolicy,evenwhenappliedequally,hasanadverseanddisproportionate

impactonmembersofaprotectedclass.28

Asitrelatestostudentswithdisabilities,

theU.S.DepartmentofEducationhasstatedthatevenifapolicyhasadisparate

impactononlyonetypeofdisability,thatpolicywouldbeconsidereddiscriminatory

againststudentswithdisabilities—and,thus,unlawful—undertheADAand

Section504.fUnderthisframework,emergingusesofdataandtechnologyin

educationareparticularlylikelytohaveadisparateimpactonprotectedclasseswith

regardtoschooldisciplineandforcedouting.

fOfficeforC.R.,SupportingStudentsWithDisabilitiesandAvoidingtheDiscriminatoryUseofStudentDiscipline

UnderSection504oftheRehabilitationActof1973,U.S.Dep’tofEduc.31(Jul.2022),

https://perma.cc/

B59M-7HFP

(“Evenwhenaschoolcriterion,policy,practice,orprocedure…isneutralonitsface,itmay

stillhave…discriminatoryeffect.”).Evidenceofapolicy’sdisparateimpactononepersonwithaparticular

disabilitycanbeevidenceofthatpolicy’sdisparateimpactonallindividualswiththatdisabilityandcanalsobe

evidenceingeneralthatthatpolicydiscriminatesonthebasisofadisability.GuidancefromtheDepartment

ofEducationprovidesanexampleinwhichaschool’spolicyofissuingautomaticdetentionsforprofanityuse

isconsideredtobeunlawfullydiscriminatoryagainstdisabledstudentsbecausethepolicyhadadiscriminatory

effectonastudentwhoseTourette’sSyndromesometimescausesthestudenttocurseinvoluntarily.

LateApplications:ProtectingStudents’CivilRightsin