Bill Overview
Title: Collegiate Freedom of Association Act
Description: This bill addresses freedom of association protections for college students in single-sex social organizations. Specifically, the bill prohibits institutions of higher education that participate in federal student-aid programs from taking adverse actions against students who are members or prospective members of single-sex social organizations based solely on the practice of limiting membership to only individuals of one sex; or taking actions that require or coerce members or prospective members of such organizations to waive this prohibition, including as a condition of enrolling in the institution.
Sponsors: Rep. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ-7]
Target Audience
Population: students in single-sex social organizations at federally funded colleges
Estimated Size: 5700000
- The bill affects students enrolled at institutions of higher education which receive federal student aid, which covers a vast majority of colleges and universities in the U.S.
- This involves students who are members or prospective members of single-sex social organizations like fraternities and sororities, which are common in U.S. college campuses.
- The U.S. has approximately 4,000 universities and colleges, including private, public, community, and for-profit institutions.
- About 19 million students enroll in U.S. colleges each year, though not all will join single-sex organizations.
- The target population would specifically be a subset of these enrolled students who participate in or are interested in such organizations.
- Globally, fewer institutions have the same culture of single-sex social organizations as U.S. colleges, so the impact outside the U.S. may be limited.
Reasoning
- The Collegiate Freedom of Association Act primarily affects a subset of college students involved or interested in single-sex social organizations at federally funded colleges.
- With about 19 million students enrolled in U.S. colleges annually, and approximately 10% involved in Greek life, this policy potentially impacts up to 1.9 million students directly or indirectly.
- This act primarily benefits students facing institutional pressure against participation in these organizations, potentially improving their educational experience and social freedom.
- Spending is limited to $15 million in year 1 and $150 million over 10 years, so the policy's implementation scope involves ensuring compliance and possibly handling complaints and legal consultations.
Simulated Interviews
College Student (Iowa, USA)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the freedom to join a sorority without worrying about the school's policies.
- It's important to have places where women can gather and support each other in college.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (California, USA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act secures our rights and prevents administrative overreach.
- It's reassuring to know our fraternity's status is protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College Student (Georgia, USA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Joining a sorority is a personal choice and this act makes it easier for students like me.
- I'm glad I won't face pressure not to join based on school policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
College Student (New York, USA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not personally affected, but I think it's important for students to have the choice to join these groups freely.
- Educational institutions should not dictate personal choices of association.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Graduate Student (Texas, USA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't affect me as much directly, but I support it as long as it ensures fair access for everyone.
- We must be careful that single-sex organizations don't exclude non-binary individuals who seek to join.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Freshman (Michigan, USA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's nice that this act is in place as I start my college journey.
- Gives me more confidence in exploring social clubs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (Florida, USA)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This helps protect our group's identity.
- It acknowledges the unique role single-sex organizations play.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University Administrator (Washington, DC, USA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy clarifies our obligations and limits overreach.
- It provides a clear guideline for overseeing student organizations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Counselor (Illinois, USA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about how this act might affect inclusive practices.
- Will need to ensure that single-sex policies won't adversely impact LGBTQ+ students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University Faculty (Oregon, USA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might stabilize group dynamics on campus.
- It's important to balance association rights with inclusivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Institutions will need to ensure no adverse actions are taken against students based on single-sex organization membership to avoid losing federal student-aid eligibility.
- Establishing oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with the act could be resource-intensive for both the educational institutions and the Department of Education.
- The bill's broader social and cultural implications could influence how single-sex organizations and institutions operate and interact.