Bill Overview
Title: Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses freedom of association protections for college students in single-sex social organizations. Specifically, the bill gives students (or groups of students) enrolled at institutions of higher education (IHEs) the right to form or join social organizations, including single-sex social organizations. Additionally, the bill prohibits IHEs that participate in federal student-aid programs from taking adverse actions against single-sex social organizations or students who are members or prospective members of such organizations based solely on the practice of limiting membership to only individuals of one sex; taking actions that require or coerce members or prospective members of such organizations to waive protections provided under the bill, including as a condition of enrolling in the IHE; or imposing a recruitment restriction on a single-sex social organization that is not imposed upon other student organizations, unless the organization and IHE have entered into a written agreement allowing the restriction.
Sponsors: Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]
Target Audience
Population: College students interested in or part of single-sex social organizations
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill impacts students in higher education institutions (IHEs) who are interested in or part of single-sex social organizations.
- According to UNESCO, there are approximately 220 million higher education students worldwide (2022).
- Single-sex social organizations exist in numerous countries, but their prevalence and legal status vary greatly.
- While not all students will join or be interested in single-sex organizations, many may benefit from the protections that such a bill would offer if they choose to engage in these activities.
Reasoning
- Given the policy targets single-sex organizations in higher education, we're focusing on students from a variety of social and educational backgrounds.
- Estimations suggest around 500,000 American students may be directly impacted. We ensured the simulated interviews cover students with varying interest levels and involvement in such organizations, ensuring diversity in responses.
- The budget may limit the initial outreach and support infrastructure, leading to varying degrees of impact from 'none' for uninterested or unaffected students to 'high' for students deeply involved in these organizations.
Simulated Interviews
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial because it supports our freedom to choose and associate without fear of institution backlash.
- Without such protections, there's always a risk of sororities being unfairly targeted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Dallas, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will help preserve the tradition and community we've built in fraternities.
- It's reassuring to know the college can't discriminate against us for our single-sex membership.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't care much for this policy as I'm not involved in these organizations.
- I guess it's good for people who are in them, but it doesn't affect me.
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 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy encourages more peer respect for choices like joining single-sex groups.
- It might make me feel more secure about joining a women's organization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- When I was an undergrad, this policy would've really mattered to us to maintain our brotherhood without institutional hindrance.
- I think it encourages a more inclusive environment for such groups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Rural Iowa)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the importance of the policy, but I don't belong to any such organizations so it has little relevance to my life.
- It's good some people feel more secure, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am a bit skeptical about the emphasis on single-sex groups due to diversity challenges.
- I'm more focused on inclusive spaces, but I respect the protection rights of others.
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 |
Freshman Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to know I can join a sorority without facing institutional barriers.
- I feel it's empowering to have this choice protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could have major implications for how student groups are treated and perceived institutionally.
- It secures our rights without jeopardizing academic standing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this policy affecting me, but it's probably important for campus diversity.
- As long as it does not hinder other inclusive movements, it's fine.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10500000 (Low: $5250000, High: $15750000)
Year 5: $11025000 (Low: $5512500, High: $16537500)
Year 10: $11576250 (Low: $5788125, High: $17364375)
Year 100: $29619639 (Low: $14809820, High: $44429459)
Key Considerations
- Most impacts are procedural or compliance-related for IHEs, not direct financial flows.
- The cost to the federal student aid system is minimal since the bill addresses associational rights rather than financial distributions.
- Legal and policy compliance will be the primary administrative focus for institutions.