john d. c. newton, ii, daniel h. thompson|Universities and C... -- eLawyers

Petitioner: NAACP, INC., THROUGH ITS FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NAACP, MATTIE GARVIN, ON HER OWN BEHALF AND AS MOTHER OF KEITH GARVIN, AND KEITH GARVIN
Respondent: FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS AND THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Judges: CHARLES C. ADAMS
Agency: Universities and Colleges
Locations: Tallahassee, Florida
Filed: Feb. 28, 2000
Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, July 12, 2000.
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2004
Summary: Are proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002 and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, calling for language to be repealed and added, "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority?" Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.Proposed amendments to the Board of Regents` rules on student admissions were valid, with the exception that attempt at repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 is invalid.

00-0952.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

NAACP, INC., THROUGH ITS FLORIDA ) CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NAACP, )

MATTIE GARVIN, on her own behalf ) and as mother of Keith Garvin, ) and KEITH GARVIN, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

and ) Case No. 00-0952RP

)

FLORIDA NATIONAL ORGANIZATION )

FOR WOMEN, INC., )

)

Intervenor, )

)

vs. )

)

FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS and )

THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

)

Respondents. )

)

FINAL ORDER

Notice was provided and on April 24-26, 2000, a final hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The hearing location was the Department of Transportation, Burns Auditorium, Hayden Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida. Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: John D. C. Newton, II, Esquire

Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Berger, Davis & Singerman, P.A.

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 705 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

James C. Cunningham, Esquire Berger, Davis & Singerman, P.A.

305 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Jim Rossi

Patricia A. Dore Associate Professor College of Law

Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1034

For Respondent: William E. Williams, Esquire

Vikki R. Shirley, Esquire Elizabeth G. Deeme, Esquire Huey, Guilday & Tucker, P.A.

106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Post Office Box 1794

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1794

For Intervenor: Barry M. Silver, Esquire

Barry M. Silver, P.A. Corporate Centre

7777 Glades Road, Suite 308 Boca Raton, Florida 33434

Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Post Office Box 14922

Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4922 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Are proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002 and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, calling for language to be repealed and added, "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority?" Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Florida Board of Regents (the Board of Regents) held a meeting on February 17 and 18, 2000, during which it adopted amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002 and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. On February 22, 2000, the State Board of Education (the Board of Education) approved the proposed amendments.

The rules at issue are the Board of Regents' rules pertaining to admissions to state universities. Rule 6C-6.001, Florida Administrative Code, reflects general requirements for student admissions. Rule 6C-6.002, Florida Administrative Code, pertains to admissions requirements for entering freshmen. Rule 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, refers to admissions requirements for entering or transferring graduate students and post-baccalaureate professional students.

On February 25, 2000, NAACP, Inc., through its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP (NAACP), Mattie Garvin, on her own behalf and as mother of Keith Garvin, and Keith Garvin filed a Petition naming the Board of Regents and the Board of Education as the Respondents in an action before the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings (the Division).

The Petition had as its purposes the determination of the invalidity of proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002,

and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. In response to the Petition, the Division opened Case No. 00-0952RP.

On March 3, 2000, the Petitioners filed an Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of Proposed Amendments to Rules 6C- 6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code.

On March 8, 2000, Sharyn L. Smith, Chief Judge of the Division assigned the case to Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge.1/ Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (1999).

On March 8 and 9, 2000, the Petitioners filed a Second Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of the Proposed Amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code.

The Board of Regents and the Board of Education (the Boards) moved to dismiss the Second Amended Petition for lack of standing on the part of all the Petitioners in whatever capacity. The Boards moved to strike portions of the Second Amended Petition. On March 10, 2000, an order was entered establishing March 17, 2000, as the deadline for the Petitioners to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Motion to Strike, with an oral argument to follow on March 21, 2000.

On March 10, 2000, an Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions was entered which controlled discovery opportunities provided the parties. That order called for a pre-hearing stipulation to be

prepared prior to the final hearing, intended to more precisely frame the issues to be considered at hearing.

On March 10, 2000, the hearing was noticed to be held on April 7, 2000, and April 10-13, 2000.

The Petitioners had moved to permit Jim Rossi, Patricia A. Dore Associate Professor, Florida State University of Law, to be qualified to represent the Petitioners in the case. On March 14, 2000, an order was entered which qualified Professor Rossi to represent the Petitioners in accordance with Rules 28-106.106 and 28-106.107, Florida Administrative Code.

On March 21, 2000, oral argument was held on the Boards' Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Petition.

On March 21, 2000, the Florida National Organization for Women, Inc. (Florida Now) filed a Motion to Intervene in the case initiated by the Petitioners. On that date a scheduling conference was held among the undersigned, counsel for Florida Now, and counsel for the parties in the case concerning the treatment of the Motion to Intervene. On March 22, 2000, an order was entered granting leave for filing of written responses to the Motion to Intervene no later than March 27, 2000. The order scheduled oral argument on the Motion to Intervene for March 30, 2000.

On March 24, 2000, an order was entered on the Boards' Motion to Dismiss. The order denied the individual standing of NAACP to proceed based upon its pleading, with leave for NAACP to file a further amendment to the Petition on or before March 30, 2000, restating its individual standing. NAACP did not avail itself of that opportunity. The NAACP associational standing as pled was accepted. The standing pled by Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin was found sufficient to pursue challenges in the Second Amended Petition directed to proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001 and 6C-6.002, Florida Administrative Code. Their standing to challenge proposed amendments to Rule 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, was not adequately pled. It appearing that the defect in the pleading of standing to challenge proposed amendments to Rule 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, could not be cured, the Garvins were not afforded an opportunity to make further amendments to the pleading associated with their challenge to proposed amendments to Rule 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. Other arguments presented by the Boards to further the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing as pled by the

Petitioners were rejected for reasons explained in the March 24, 2000, order.

On March 24, 2000, an order was entered on the Boards' Motion to Strike. The motion was granted in relation to the

repeal of language found in Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)1, as challenged in paragraphs numbered 14 and 15 to the Second Amended Petition. Other paragraphs to the Second Amended Petition were stricken to the extent that allegations were made that the proposed amendments to the rules in question would effectively repeal several rules of different state universities, in violation of procedural and substantive requirements in law.

On March 30, 2000, following oral argument on the Florida Now Motion to Intervene, the motion was granted. The March 30, 2000, order granting intervention allowed Florida Now to represent its members, but not itself. Florida Now took the case as it existed without the ability to advance substantive issues for relief not previously pled by the Petitioners. At hearing, according to the order, Florida Now would only be allowed to present evidence directed to the associational standing of its members and to participate in consideration of the substantive proof offered by the original parties.

Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents, without opposition from the Intervenor, moved to cancel the April 7 and April 10-13, 2000, hearing dates in favor of hearing dates on April 24-28, 2000. The continuance, if granted, would allow additional time for the parties to prepare for final hearing.

Recognizing that the issues under consideration were complex, the motion was granted and the case heard on April 24-28, 2000.

The Petitioners with supporting exhibits moved for a Summary Final Order pursuant to Rule 28-106.204(4), Florida Administrative Code. The Intervenor filed a written response to the Motion by adopting the Motion for Summary Final Order as its own. The Boards filed in opposition to the Motion for Summary Final Order. On April 17, 2000, oral argument was held on the Motion for Summary Final Order. On April 18, 2000, the Motion for Summary Final Order was denied by written order.

The Petitioners and Respondents filed a Pre-Hearing Stipulation. The Intervenor filed a separate Pre-Trial Statement. Nonetheless, the Intervenor accepted the Pre-Hearing Stipulation entered into between the Petitioners and Respondents through its unilateral Pre-Trial Statement. To the extent that the parties have stipulated to facts upon which there is agreement, those facts will be detailed in this order. The parties' written agreement on matters of law have been considered in preparing the Final Order.

At hearing these witnesses testified: Keith Garvin; Mattie Garvin; Dr. Barbara W. Newell; Leon William Russell, immediate past president of the Florida State Conference of Branches of the NAACP and member of the executive committee of the State Conference; Toni VanPelt, Florida Now president; Carla Denise Edwards; Maxeme Tuchman; John Lee Winn, Coordinator for Education Policy for the Executive Office of the Governor within

the Office of Planning and Budget; Dr. George Russell Perkins, Board of Regents Director for Research and Policy Analysis; Lynda Marie Lewis, Assistant Provost for Enrollment Services University of North Florida; and Dr. Judith G. Hample, Board of Regents Vice Chancellor for Planning, Budgeting and Policy Analysis. Joint Exhibit Nos. 1A through 1D, Petitioners' Exhibit Nos. 1-53 and 56-60, Intervenor's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, and Respondents' Exhibit Nos. 1-57, 59-63, 63A,

64-93, 96-109, 111-113, 115-117, 119-120, 120A, 121-132, 135A

and 135B were admitted.

The Respondents, with the concurrence of other parties, moved to enlarge the page limit for proposed final orders to 80 pages. The motion also sought an extension of the time for filing proposed final orders to June 5, 2000. On May 31, 2000, the motion was granted by order. Rules 28-106.215 and 28- 106.216, Florida Administrative Code.

In response to Florida Now's motion an order was entered accepting its proposed final order as timely filed. On the same date, June 19, 2000, an order was entered denying the Boards' motion for official recognition of the fiscal year 2000-2001 Appropriations Act and granting official recognition of House Bill 1567, amending Chapter 240, Florida Statutes. By order dated June 19, 2000, the parties were allowed to supplement

their proposed final orders to address the effect of House Bill 1567 on the case.

The parties submitted proposed final orders, as supplemented, which have been considered in preparing this Final Order.

Stipulated Facts:

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

Petitioner, NAACP, Inc., individually and through its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP, is a foreign not-for- profit corporation that has a certificate of authority to conduct its affairs in the State of Florida.
Petitioner Mattie Garvin has not applied for admission to any state university within the State University System (SUS) for school year 2000-2001.
The goal of Petitioner, Mattie Garvin, is to provide her son, Keith Garvin, with the best possible educational opportunities, a goal shared by many parents of the State of Florida.
Petitioner, Keith Garvin, has not applied for freshman admission to any state university within the SUS.
Petitioner, Keith Garvin, has not applied to any limited access program offered by any state university within the SUS.
Petitioner Keith Garvin has not applied for admission to any preteacher education or teacher education pilot program at any state university within the SUS.
Petitioners Keith Garvin and Mattie Garvin are members of the NAACP, but are not members of Florida Now.
The Board of Education is a body corporate created by Article IX, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, consisting of the Governor and members of the cabinet.
The Board of Education is constitutionally mandated to supervise the system of public education as provided by law.
Section 229.053, Florida Statutes (1999), designates the Board of Education as the chief policymaking and coordinating body of public education in Florida.
With respect to the SUS, the Board of Education is required to approve all rules adopted by the Board of Regents before the rules are filed with the Department of State, and to exercise general supervision and control over the Board of Regents pursuant to Section 240.203, Florida Statutes (1999).
The Board of Regents is a body corporate created by Section 240.205, Florida Statutes (1999), and is an agency of the State of Florida for purposes under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1999).
The Board of Regents consists of the Commissioner of Education and 13 citizens of Florida who are selected from the
state at large, and is representative of the geographical areas

of the state.

Programs
Section 240.529(9), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes universities to establish preteacher education and teacher education pilot programs to encourage promising minority students to prepare for a career in education. The programs shall be designed to recruit and provide additional academic, clinical, and counseling support for students who are potentially successful teacher education candidates but who may not meet teacher education program admission standards. Those programs may admit students who may not meet the requirements for entrance into an approved teacher education program.
The establishment of preteacher education or teacher education pilot programs as described in Section 240.529, Florida Statutes (1999), is not mandatory.
No SUS university currently offers a preteacher education and teacher education pilot program.
Enrollment in preteacher education and teacher education pilot programs offered by state universities within the SUS is a separate process from freshman admission into a state university.
Enrollment in limited access programs offered by state universities within the SUS is a separate process from freshman admission into a state university.
Neither the Board of Regents nor any of the ten universities in the SUS has adopted a rule establishing an admissions quota.
There is no provision in the existing rules of the Board of Regents which requires that public universities grant race or gender-based preferences in admissions.
Case History
On November 9, 1999, the Governor issued Executive Order 99-281, requesting that the Board of Regents implement a policy prohibiting the use of racial or gender set-asides, preferences, or quotas in admissions to all Florida institutions of higher education.
The Board of Regents, at its November 18-19, 1999, meeting directed its staff to develop appropriate language to amend admission rules to prohibit the use of race, ethnicity, and gender-based preferences in the university admissions process, and to implement other policies outlined in the Governor's Equity in Education Plan.
The Board of Regents published its "Notice of Rule Development" in the Florida Administrative Weekly on November 24, 1999.
At the meeting of the Board of Regents held on December 9-10, 1999, the Board of Regents reviewed proposed language for the rule amendments and data that was presented in support of the rule amendments.
On December 23, 1999, and February 4, 2000, the Board of Regents published its "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" in the Florida Administrative Weekly.
On February 3, 2000, the Agenda for the Board of Regents' February meeting was mailed to each Board of Regents member; this Agenda included over 145 pages of information on the Proposed Rule Amendments.
At the Board of Regents' meeting held on February 17- 18, 2000, the Board of Regents heard comments from 78 members of the public regarding the proposed rule amendments. At the conclusion of the public comments, the presidents of each of the ten SUS universities also offered comments on the proposed rule amendments.
At the Board of Regents meeting on February 17-18, 2000, the Board of Regents voted to approve the proposed rule amendments.
The Board of Education approved the proposed rule amendments on February 22, 2000.
On February 25, 2000, the Petitioners filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of the Proposed Rule Amendments.
By order dated March 30, 2000, the Florida National Organization of Women was granted leave to Intervene in support of the petition filed by the Petitioners.
The Board of Regents has granted the Petition for Emergency Variance filed by the ten SUS universities on April 11, 2000. The universities were granted a variance from the portion of Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that requires entering freshman to possess four additional academic electives from five specific subject areas referenced in the rule, i.e., English, math, natural science, social science and foreign language.
Gender
In the 1998-99 academic year, 56.7 percent of the students enrolled in SUS universities were women.
Other Facts:

Standing NAACP
The NAACP is chartered under laws in the State of New York. It has affiliates throughout the country. There are 39 state conferences. There is a Florida conference. The Florida conference, as other state conferences, is made up of local Adult Branches, Youth Councils, and College Chapters.
Within the NAACP national office is a department of education. That department has the function of development of
educational policy at the state and national level through affiliated units in the NAACP.
NAACP, in pursuit of educational policy and in particular in relation to the desegregation of public education in elementary schools, secondary schools, undergraduate, and graduate studies in universities, is engaged in litigation.
The Florida Conference State Convention takes up topics concerning education related to enrollment in colleges and universities.
The Constitution and By-Laws for Branches of NAACP, Article I, Section 3, describes the purpose of its branches, to include:
. . . to improve the . . . educational . . . status of minority groups: to eliminate racial prejudice; to keep the public aware of the adverse effects of racial discrimination; and to take lawful action to secure, its elimination, consistent with the efforts of the National Organization and in conformity with the Articles of Incorporation of the
Association, its Constitution and By-Laws and as directed by the National Board of Directors.

Article II, Section 1, establishes that "membership in the Branches shall include membership in the National Association." Under Article IV, Section 4, in that document, NAACP has a standing committee for education. Article IV, Section 5(d), refers to the education committee which shall, among other
responsibilities, "(1) Seek to eliminate segregation and other discriminatory practices in public education; (2) Study local educational conditions affecting minority groups . . ." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 18)
NAACP has a Constitution for Youth Councils. Under Article I, Section 2, to that constitution, Youth Councils are subordinate units of the NAACP and are expected to coordinate their activities to achieve the aims and objectives of NAACP. Article I, Section 3, within the Constitution for Youth Councils states the purpose of the Youth Councils to, among other expectations, advance educational status of Black people and other minority groups. Article II, Section 1, identifies members in Youth Councils as persons under the age of 25. Those members of the Youth Council may become members of the Youth and College Division by accepting the terms of the Constitution of the NAACP. Membership in the Youth Council constitutes membership in the NAACP. The Constitution for Youth Councils, Article V, Section 4(f), establishes a standing committee for education. That committee is charged with the responsibility to, "(1) Seek to eliminate segregation or other discriminatory practices in public education; (2) Study local educational conditions affecting minority groups . . ." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 19)
NAACP has a Constitution for College Chapters.

According to Article I, Section 2, the College Chapters are affiliated with NAACP and shall subscribe to the general policies and programs of NAACP. The College Chapters shall have as their purpose, among other goals and responsibilities, the improvement of educational status in minority groups, elimination of racial prejudice and assistance to the public in becoming aware of the adverse affects of racial discrimination. In accordance with Article II, Section 1, membership in the College Chapters pertains to persons under the age of 25.
Membership in the College Chapters shall include membership in the NAACP. Article IV, Section 4(e), identifies a standing committee on education within the College Chapters charged with the study of educational conditions affecting Black people and other minority groups and in particular, charged to:
1. Concern itself with educational practices on its own campus as well as other campuses.
2. Be a center for popular education on the problems of Black students in the work of the NAACP.
3. To work for the integration of students, faculty and non-teaching personnel; elimination of quota systems, particularly in medical, dental and engineering schools and to give attention to upgrading and granting tenure to professors.
4. Seek to secure unprejudiced presentation in the teaching of materials
  pertaining to racial and other minority groups. . . . (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 20).
NAACP has established State Youth and College Division By-Laws. Article I, Section 3, to the By-Laws states the objectives of a State Youth and College Division of NAACP to advance the educational status of Black people. Article II, Section 1, refers to membership partially composed of Youth Councils and College Chapters. Under Article IV (c), the By- Laws establish a standing committee on education charged to organize and study conditions affecting the education of Black people in Florida. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 23)
NAACP sponsors the Afro-Academic, Cultural, Technological and Scientific Olympics (Act-So). Act-So was designed to stimulate, promote, and encourage high academic and artistic achievement among Afro-American high school students. NAACP Branches throughout the country conduct annual local Act- So competitions in the sciences, the humanities, the performing arts, and the individual arts. The competition is for students in grades 9-12. Winners in local competitions then compete with winners from other cities in national Act-So finals. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 21)
Branches within NAACP work through the Back To School/Stay In School program to assist students who are "at
risk" to remain enrolled in school. This program includes tutoring and mentoring.
The Florida Conference in relation to the Youth and College Divisions brings representatives of colleges and universities to address students about the opportunities for attending college. Recently 13 colleges and universities sent representatives for this presentation.
NAACP prepared a membership report for its members in Florida for the period February 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000. The report reflects the number of members in Adult Branches, Youth Councils, and College Chapters. In the reporting period there were 7,205 regular adult members, and there were 2,587 regular youth members, further divided into 1,835 Youth Council members and 602 College Chapter members, all categories having membership in NAACP. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 22) The number of members in Youth Councils enrolled as high school students cannot be discerned from the report; however, it is estimated to be 70 percent to 80 percent of Youth Council membership.
In its challenge, NAACP considers the term "preferences" to be a "negatively charged word" as used in the proposed rules amendments. It believes that the term is used to enflame passions and create prejudice against the use of affirmative action programs. It alleges that in prohibiting
"preferences" programs benefiting minorities such as scholarships, tutoring, and recruitment will be negatively affected. NAACP has its greatest concern in the Board of Regents' choice to refer to "prohibition of preferences" in the proposed amendment to Rule 6C-6.003(5), Florida Administrative Code.
Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin:
Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin reside in Miami, Florida. Mattie Garvin is Keith Garvin's mother. Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin are African-American. Both are members of NAACP. Keith Garvin is a minor; he is 15 years old, a tenth grader at Miami Lakes Senior High School, in Hialeah, Florida. To this point Keith Garvin has received his education in public school. He anticipates graduating in the year 2002.
Keith Garvin has a 2.6 grade point average (GPA). He is unfamiliar with his class rank. (Respondents' Exhibit Nos.
98 and 99) Class rank is not determined until the twelfth grade.
Keith Garvin plans to attend college. He has particular interest in attending Florida State University within the SUS. He has interests in computer engineering and computer programming as possible college majors. In addition to his school course work, Keith Garvin visits with a counselor to assist him in identifying his needs in the interest of attending
college following graduation from high school. These sessions also involve the discussion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and overall study habits. Keith Garvin has taken the PSAT. His aggregate score was 1400, divided 700 in English and 700 in Math.
For future reference concerning hypothetical admissions possibilities for Keith Garvin, information has been taken from the SUS Fact Book 1997-98. (Petitioners' Exhibit No.
40 Respondents' Exhibit No. 54) It shows that for the fall of 1997 regular admissions the average SAT score was 1150.7 and the average GPA was 3.6. In that term, the entering freshmen class at the University of Florida had an SAT score of 1242.1 and a
3.8 GPA. In that term, the Florida State University entering class had an SAT score of 1151.6 and 3.5 GPA. At the other end of the scale, the Florida Gulf Coast University entering freshmen class had an SAT score of 1047 and a 3.5 GPA.
Keith Garvin participates in other activities aside from his education. He plays high school football, is involved with Future Business Leaders of America, as well as his membership in NAACP in the Miami Dade Youth Council. His NAACP Youth Council has approximately 500 members with approximately
80 percent of that membership attending high school.
Mattie Garvin actively participates in the education of Keith Garvin and her other two children. She is committed to
advancing the education of her children, and she intends to have her children attend college.
Florida Now
Florida Now is incorporated by the State of Florida. (Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1)
As its Statement of Purpose, Florida Now indicates it

[I]s to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. This includes, but
is not limited to, equal rights and responsibilities in all aspects of . . . education . . .; and it includes freedom from discrimination because of race, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual preference/orientation, or parenthood. (Intervenor's Exhibit No. 2A)
In its brochure, Florida Now describes its support for affirmative action, and equal opportunity for women and people of color. The brochure reflects that members of Florida Now are actively involved in issues relating to the full equality for women in society in relation to education and the stated opposition to discrimination in education. The brochure states the purpose as "we actively pursue the rights of girls and women to full and equal educational opportunities." Further, "we oppose discrimination or gender segregation." (Intervenor's Exhibit No. 2B)
The National Organization of Women, Inc. (Now) has a number of resolutions that direct its members at the local and state level to monitor the circumstances of education for women of all colors to make certain that state university systems comply with federal law and the state and local laws concerning equity in education for women. Some of its members have established a scholarship for women in Florida to attend college in the state. There is particular concern about having women educated in non-traditional careers, to allow those women to earn more income. The organization has a concern about discrimination from the earliest educational experience for girls through the educational experience for women who attend college. The organization is concerned that guidance counselors not give women information that causes those students to be "trapped into womanly-type careers" that are underpaid.
There are 36 chapters of Florida Now with approximately 6,000 members in Florida. Part of the membership is constituted of high school students, college students, and graduate students. Florida Now has both men and women as members. Members of Florida Now are parents who have students in high school who expect to attend the SUS. Members of Florida Now are parents who have children who attend the SUS.
The number of Florida Now members who have children currently enrolled in Florida high schools was not established.
The number of Florida Now members currently enrolled in undergraduate programs within the SUS was not established. The number of Florida Now members who have children currently enrolled in undergraduate programs in the SUS was not established. The number of Florida Now members currently enrolled in limited access programs within the SUS was not established. The Florida Now members currently enrolled in graduate or post-baccalaureate or professional programs in the SUS was not established. This information was not established because Florida NOW does not call upon its members to identify their places in the educational system.
Florida Now Witnesses
Maxene Tuchman is an Hispanic woman. She is a member of Florida Now. She is a senior at Palmetto Senior High School, in Miami, Florida. Her unweighted GPA is 3.8 and her weighted GPA is 4.2. Under the unweighted GPA the maximum is 4.0 and under the weighted GPA the maximum is 6.0. She is in the 27th percentile ranking of her class at Palmetto Senior High School. She attended the Design Architecture Senior High in Dade County before transferring to Palmetto Senior High School. Had she remained in that smaller school she would have been in the top
10 percent ranking by her estimate.
Maxene Tuchman has participated in the National Honor Society and Social Science Honor Society, among other school
activities. She has taken college courses at Miami Dade Community College.
In pursuing admission to the SUS Maxene Tuchman received a combined score of 1120 on the SAT.
Maxene Tuchman has been accepted to the University of Florida, Florida State University, and the University of South Florida, and New College within the SUS, together with a number of other universities outside that system.
Information concerning Maxene Tuchman and her educational performance is found in Intervenor's Exhibit No. 4.
Carla Denise Edwards came from an upper-middle-class background and attended the University of Pennsylvania at which she earned both bachelor's and master's degrees.
Carla Denise Edwards is a member of Now.
Carla Denise Edwards is a graduate student at the University of Florida. She is pursing a doctoral program in sociology. When she applied for admission to the program her Graduate Record Examination (GRE) score was 980. The minimum requirement for regular graduate admission was a GRE score of 1000. Because the program which she applied for was interested in bringing African-American women into that department she was accepted as a student and has excelled. The basis of admission for Carla Denise Edwards was in the interest of "diversifying" the department. Her initial admission was conditional. To be
retained in the program, Carla Denise Edwards submitted additional writing materials and attended a minority enhancement program sponsored by the Board of Regents before commencing course work in the following term. Carla Denise Edwards maintains a 3.85 GPA out of a possible 4.0 GPA in her studies.
She has won the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Pre- Dissertation Award, the Graduate Student Teaching Award, and the Graduate Student Paper Award within her department.
Information concerning Carla Denise Edwards' background in education is found in Intervenor's Exhibit No. 3.
As a sociologist, Carla Denise Edwards explained her belief in the need for diversity in her discipline when dealing with the study of social groups and social organization and the importance of student diversity in her graduate program. Background:
State of Florida/Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the State of Florida has committed itself to equal access and equal opportunity to all its citizens who pursue public higher education. Over time, these commitments have been formalized through agreements between the State of Florida and the Federal Government. To this end, a plan was established in February 1978, entitled Florida's Commitment to Equal Access and Equal Opportunity in Public Higher Education. This plan
represented the agreement between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office for Civil Rights. This commitment was in the interest of continuing efforts by the State of Florida to overcome the effects of past segregation in public higher education and to put in place an integrated and unitary system of higher education. The commitment included the provision of adequate opportunities and necessary support services to assist African- American students in addressing their educational needs and achieving their educational goals. (Petitioners' Exhibit No.
37)
The State of Florida completed a higher education desegregation plan for the years 1978-1985, but its efforts of providing equal access to higher education continue to be the subject of an agreement between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The present basis for OCR action is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As well, OCR has pursued its role in accordance with the decision in U.S. vs. Fordice, U.S. 112
S. Ct. 2727 (1992).
The State of Florida and OCR entered into a partnership agreement in the interest of providing higher educational opportunities for minorities in the state in relation to access, enrollment, retention, and graduation of
minority students. A document was prepared in 1998 entitled "Partnership Report and Commitments" describing the progress and future expectations in arrangements between the State of Florida and OCR. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2 and Respondents' Exhibit No. 8). This document in describing access for first-time-in- college (FTIC) enrollment, indicated that admission standards, in addition to considering an applicant's academic ability, might also consider creativity, talent, and character. It went on to state that there was an on-going goal to establish diversity in the composition of student population in public post-secondary institutions. It addressed the commitment to pursing alternative means for admitting students to the SUS, aside from the regular admissions process. In particular, it addressed admissions based upon persons having a satisfactory high school record and who had submitted appropriate evidence that the student could be expected to succeed academically once admitted to the university. Alternative means of admissions were described in the report as pertaining to persons who do not meet regular requirements for admission but who have important attributes or special talents, and who in the judgment of a faculty committee could be expected to succeed in performing academic work.
The 1998 Report and Statement of Commitment also addressed limited access programs within the SUS. The
discussion concerning those programs described how SUS policy required universities to develop Equal Opportunity Impact Studies to make certain that minorities and females are not negatively affected when limited access programs are established or modified. According to the report, in the event that negative impact is anticipated universities are expected to develop a corrective action plan.
The 1998 Report and Statement of Commitment discussed access to graduate programs, recognizing the decentralized nature of those programs and the resulting variation in admissions criteria. The report described how students who did not meet stated criteria may be subject to admission as an exception under alternative admissions criteria when supported by faculty in the admissions request. The report described outreach to recruit minorities and the availability for financial incentives in recruiting minority students. The report gave examples of these pursuits.
The future commitment under the 1998 partnership statement spoke of monitoring the SUS efforts on access and enrollment issues for minority students and, as needed, enhancement of outreach to increase enrollment of African- American and Hispanic students to reduce disparities in comparing the enrollment of those students to that of the majority. A future commitment was made to use of alternative
admissions criteria to broaden the opportunities of students, to include minorities who attend the SUS. The partners stated the commitment to continue in efforts at retention and graduation of minority students.
The 1998 Partnership Report and Commitments was made effective on July 16, 1998 by the Honorable Richard W. Reilly, Secretary of the United States Department of Education, following execution by Florida Governor Lawton Chiles on June 11, 1998.
In 1999, the State of Florida and OCR prepared a "Partnership Agreement Interim Report" disseminated on December 29, 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 69)
The Civil Rights Partnership Agreement Interim Report was prepared in anticipation that Secretary Reilly and Florida Governor Jeb Bush would be apprised.
The 1999 Interim Report made reference to the expectation that the commitments made in the 1998 agreement would be concluded in 2003.
The 1999 Interim Report in its executive summary described the One Florida Initiative and the Equity in Education Plan component. The plan was explained in the report to include:
The elimination of race, national origin, and sex in public university admission decisions; guarantee of admission to a
public university to the 'Talented 20,' the top 20 percent of students in every Florida high school senior class who have completed
19 required credits; a $20 million increase in need-based financial aid; proposed funding to make the Preliminary Scholastic Achievement Tests available to all 10- graders to prepare them to test better in the 11th grade on the Scholastic Achievement Tests; increased availability of Advanced Placement classes at low performing secondary schools; a new partnership with the College Board to improve preparation for students in low-performing high schools; and, the creation of a Task Force to make recommendations of how to eliminate inequities within the K-12 education system.

Those aspirations coincide with the Governor's Equity in Education Plan goals to be explained.
The 1999 Interim Report included summary tables addressing ongoing commitments by the SUS. A table identified the anticipated change by the proposed rule amendments concerning alternative admissions criteria, proposed Rule 6C- 6.003(3)(c), by the process referred to as "Academic Profile Assessment," with a 10 percent limitation on FTIC admissions. A summary table also addressed access for minority graduate students, in relation to changes anticipated with the Governor's One Florida Initiative through the education component known as the "Equity in Education Plan." It was anticipated that each university would be held accountable for providing access to minority graduate students.
SUS Existing Admission/Enrollment
The SUS prepared a Fact Book for 1997-98. Among other statistics, Table 18 discusses a student headcount by part- time/full-time students for the fall 1997 in relation to gender, race, and level. The reference to level pertains to placement within the academic hierarchy. The statistics reflect aggregate student numbers in the SUS and numbers for the ten universities. More discreet demographic information is provided in the tables within the Fact Book concerning students and academic programs. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 40 and Respondents' Exhibit No. 54)
As revealed at Table 18, in the fall of 1997, 112,430 females were enrolled, and 96,848 males were enrolled in the SUS. Of these numbers 27,692 were African-American students; 28,555 were Hispanic students; 8,042 were Asian students; 717 were American Indian/Alaska native; and 130,566 were referred to as white.
Other information was prepared by the SUS concerning headcount/enrollment by ethnic origin/race from the fall of 1990 to the fall of 1999. It provides SUS totals and totals concerning the various universities. It reflects percentages of enrollment by ethnic origin/race. Within the overall SUS, the fall of 1990, 9.64 percent of students enrolled in the SUS were African-American. In the fall of 1999, 14.02 percent of the students enrolled in the SUS were African-American. In the fall
of 1990, 9.53 percent of the students enrolled in the SUS were Hispanic. In the fall of 1999, 14.23 percent of the students enrolled in the SUS were Hispanic. In the fall of 1990, 22.01 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as minority. In the fall of 1999, 32.78 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as minority. In the fall of 1990, 74.07 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as white. In the fall of 1999, 62.40 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as white. A further comparison shows that in the fall of 1990, 7.00 percent of the students enrolled at the University of North Florida were African-American. In the fall of 1999, 9.71 percent of the students enrolled at that university were African-American. In the fall of 1990, 2.35 percent of the students enrolled at the University of North Florida were Hispanic. In the fall of 1999,
3.58 percent of the students enrolled at that university were Hispanic. In the fall of 1990, 12.99 percent of the students enrolled were described as minority at the University of North Florida. In the fall of 1999, 18.49 percent of the students enrolled at the University of North Florida were described as minority. In the fall of 1990, 6.91 percent of the students enrolled at Florida State University were described as African- American. In the fall of 1999, 12.23 percent of the students enrolled at Florida State University were described as African-
American. In the fall of 1990, 3.95 percent of the students enrolled at that university were described as Hispanic. In the fall of 1999, 7.19 percent of the students enrolled at that university were described as Hispanic. In describing overall minorities in the fall of 1990, 12.59 percent of students enrolled at Florida State University were in that category. In the fall of 1999, 22.32 percent of the students enrolled at that university were described as minority. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 21)
In another report prepared by the Board of Regents, comparing the circumstances in 1994-95 to those in 1980-81, and at times in between, in 1994-95, men represented 46 percent of the total enrollment, a 4.8 percent decrease over the years. Women represented 54 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a
5.01 percent increase over the years. Whites represented 68 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 12.2 percent decrease over the years. African-Americans represented 12.0 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 2.6 percent increase over the years. Hispanics represented 12.4 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 6.9 percent increase over the years. Asian and Pacific Islanders represented 3.7 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 2.6 percent increase over the years. American Indians and Alaska Natives represented a 0.3 percent of total
enrollment in 1994-95, a 0.1 percent increase over the years. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 42).
Statistics have been maintained in the SUS in relation to the overall system and the respective universities concerning alternative admissions. One document compares the experience of students regularly admitted and students admitted alternatively. On the subject of retention and graduation it shows that students regularly admitted tend to be retained and to graduate sooner and in higher numbers by percentage measurement. For example, the four-year retention rate for regular admissions in the 1989 cohort was 76.9 percent for regular admissions and 61.7 percent for alternative admissions. The four-year graduation rate for that cohort was 28.4 percent for regular admissions and
9.5 percent for alternative admissions. The six-year graduation rate for that cohort was 63.1 percent for regular admissions and
38.0 percent for alternative admissions. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 19)
A more complete data set was described in a November 1998 report prepared by the SUS concerning alternative admissions to the SUS. It presents information commencing in the 1989-90 academic year and succeeding academic years through the 1997-98 reporting period. This report describes the reason why alternative admissions were necessary. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 36)
The report shows that in 1989-90, 14.5 percent of student admissions in the SUS were alternative admissions. In 1990-91, 15.3 percent of student admissions in the SUS were alternative admissions. The lowest number of alternative admissions in the data set was for 1992-93. In that year 11.9 percent were alternative admissions. In 1997-98 12.7 percent were alternative admissions.
The November 1998 alternative admissions report for the academic year 1997-98 reflects the total of alternative admissions as 53.5 percent female and 46.5 percent male. That is as compared to the overall admissions to the SUS which was
56.4 percent female and 43.6 percent male.
According to the November 1998 SUS report on alternative admissions, 61.4 percent of all admissions were non- minority and 38.6 percent were minority in the academic year 1997-98. Limited to alternative admissions, 33.3 percent were non-minorities and 66.7 percent were minorities. The description of non-minorities is in relation to "only white,
non-Hispanic." The minorities referred to were described as African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian or Pacific Islanders, American Indians or Alaska natives, and non-resident aliens.
In the academic year 1998-99 the number of alternative admissions to the SUS had fallen to 11.7 percent, the lowest number yet reported. In that reporting period 31.77 percent of
the alternative admissions, representing 1,039 of the 27,977 overall students admitted to the SUS, were premised upon "diversity" as the alternative criterion for admission. This is contrasted with alternative admissions criteria described in the chart as fine arts, athlete, returning or non-traditional student (including veterans and military), recommendation, institutional mission, direct appeal, unique exception based on potential, first generation college student, non-exception and other. All universities within the SUS, save Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), had alternative admissions in the reporting period based upon diversity. Most alternative admissions for FAMU were related to the criterion described as "institutional mission," which constituted 27.86 percent of the overall alternative admissions in the SUS, totaling 911 students. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 12) FAMU in its institutional alternative admissions practices, under Code "G," identified the criterion "institutional mission" as one basis for deciding admissions. The form used by FAMU notes that Code "G" constitutes "compliance with 1998 State of Florida agreement with the US Office of Civil Rights." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 30)
Another SUS report reflects that in the academic year 1997-98 in the SUS, 4,398 African-Americans were regularly admitted and 1,513 African-Americans were alternatively
admitted. In that same year 3,446 Hispanics were regularly admitted and 451 Hispanics were alternatively admitted. In that year 15,094 students were regularly admitted as whites and 1,041 whites were alternatively admitted. This same report shows information in relation to academic year 1993-94 and intervening academic years leading to the academic year 1997-98. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 7)
The SUS Limited Access Monitoring Report 1999 pertains to all limited access programs for the respective universities in the system. The report describes minimum admission standards and the reasons why the programs need limited access designation, based upon lack of resources, proficiency requirements for students, or accreditation requirements. This report does not reflect information about student applications, admissions, or enrollment. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 62)
The Fact Book 1997-98, Table 23, reflects the academic degree programs' inventory for programs approved by the Board of Regents as of November 1998, to include an indication of the limited access programs for the respective universities. The degree programs are reported in major categories and sub- categories. Academic programs are further discussed in Table 27 in relation to the SUS and respective universities, in somewhat different terms. Table 27 sets out student headcount by race and sex for fall 1997. It cannot be ascertained from a reading
of Table 23 and Table 27 the number of males and females and persons by race who participate in a discrete limited access program.
The Fact Book 1997-98 reflects in Tables 30, 31, 32, and 33 baccalaureate degrees, master's degrees, doctoral degrees, and first professional degrees by academic discipline, with a report of numbers and percentages for race and sex. The depiction of gender numbers breaks those numbers down into categories of white, African-Americans, Hispanics, and others. The others refer to Asian or Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. The percentage factors describe the percentage of total degrees granted for females, African- Americans, and Hispanics.
The data that has been referred to gives a glimpse of information on student demographics leading to the proposed amendments to the rules.
University Rules: Non-discriminatory Practices
Various universities in the SUS have rules in place which are designed to protect against discrimination in student admissions and/or to promote diversity in the student population.
Rule 6C1-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 43), a rule promulgated by the University of Florida states:
6C1-1.006 Non-Discriminatory Policy.
1. The university shall actively promote equal opportunity policies and practices conforming to laws against discrimination. The University is committed to non- discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations, and veteran status as protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act. This commitment applies in all areas to students, faculty, administrative and Professional staff and Career Service personnel. The University realizes that it must continue to intensify its concern and devote itself to the elimination of conditions from which discrimination spring. In this respect the University accepts the responsibility for solving problems related to these matters. Accordingly, the University will continue to search for the most appropriate ways and means to provide an effective and enduring contribution to the improvement of these relationships. See 6C-5.103, Florida Administrative Code. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 6C3-2.015, Florida Administrative Code, (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 44), refers to the admissions at FAMU where it states:
1. Admissions in general
  
  (a) Admission of students to Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) is within the jurisdiction of the University and subject to standards promulgated by the Board of Regents. In all admissions the University will give attention to the need to satisfy equal opportunity/affirmative action goals. (See 6C-6.002(3), Florida Administrative Code.) (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 6C5-2.001, Florida Administrative Code (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 45), refers to the admissions requirements at Florida Atlantic University where it states:
1. Florida Atlantic University (FAU) encourages applications from qualified applicants and is committed to non- discrimination regardless of race, creed, color, sex, ethnic origin, age or physical handicap. . . .
  
  * * *
  
  (2)(a) If the number of qualified applicants exceeds the number that the University is permitted to enroll admissions will be on selective basis. The selection process may include such factors as grades, test scores, educational objectives, class rank, pattern of courses completed, school recommendations, personal recommendations, and personal records. Priorities for admission will be as outlined in Rule 6C5- 2.004, Enrollment Priorities and Limitations. In addition, maximum numbers of credit hours allowed may be limited.
  Application of these criteria to prospective students will be made in such a way as to avoid reducing the proportion of minority students. Waiver of admission criteria up to the maximum allowed by the Board of Regents may be utilized for minority students. FAU is committed to realizing the goals established under the Equal Opportunity Plan of Florida (See Section 110.112, F.S. re Affirmative Action). (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 6C7-2.001, Florida Administrative Code (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 46), refers to admissions requirements for the University of Central Florida where it states:
1. Admissions
  
  (a) Admission of Students to UCF is within the jurisdiction of the University, but subject to the minimum standards adopted by the Board of Regents. (See 6C-6.001 FAC) In all admission activity, the University will give attention to the need to satisfy equal opportunity affirmative action goals. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 6C9-1.0025, Florida Administrative Code (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 47), refers to equal opportunity and affirmative action at the University of North Florida, where it states:
1. Equal Opportunity -- The University will actively promote equal opportunity policies and practices which conform to all laws against discrimination and is committed to non-discrimination with respect to race, religion, age, political affiliation, handicap, sex, marital status, national origin and veteran status as protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act. This commitment applies in all areas with students, faculty, Administrative and Professional staff and Career Service personnel. This policy also applies to the University's procedures for the selection of contractors, suppliers of goods and services and to the use of University facilities.
2. Affirmative Action in the Recruitment of Students, Faculty and Other Personnel -- The University is committed to the equalization of educational and employment opportunities by encouraging applications for qualified applicants of all cultural, racial, religious, and ethnic groups. The University shall issue an annual report on the status of the Affirmative Action Plan to the Board of Regents. (Emphasis supplied)
  
  University Admissions Policies (Diversity)
The proof in this case provides examples concerning the manner in which universities actively pursue diversity in admissions policies.
The law schools at the University of Florida and Florida State University consider race as a factor in admissions decisions.
The Florida State University College of Law through its Bylaws, revised June 3, 1997, states its admissions standards at I.B.5.c.(14). to include an "applicant's contribution to a diverse academic environment in terms of race
. . . ethnic background . . . ." This criterion is considered among numerous other criteria in deciding the outcome.
Moreover, in Appendix II to the Statement of Admissions Requirements Florida State University, the College of Law Bylaws refer to "The Faculty Statement on Diversity" as follows:
Diversity is essential to the mission and values of educational institutions. The bylaws of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) require that member schools "seek to have a faculty, staff, and student body which are diverse with respect to race, color and sex." The purpose of such diversity is "to create an educational community that incorporates the different perspectives necessary to a more comprehensive understanding of the law and its impact on society" and "to produce a legal profession prepared to meet the needs of American society." Thus, the College of
Law has a compelling interest in seeking actively to ensure a diverse student body.

* * *

Therefore, the recruitment and admission of persons from different racial and ethnic backgrounds is [sic] appropriate to enrich legal education and to make the learning experience more vibrant for both majority and minority students. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 13)
In the past Florida State University in considering admissions for undergraduate enrollment had assigned a plus (+) for applicants who were racial or ethnic minorities, specifically in the categories of African-American and Hispanic. Commencing with the classes for summer and fall of 2000, the university plan was to replace the race and ethnic plus (+) policy with consideration of socio/economic circumstances of applicants and other considerations such as fee waiver eligibility for minority admissions. As reported, in the summer of 1999, 89 African-American and 133 Hispanic students were admitted to the university. In the fall of 1999, 527 African- American and 557 Hispanic students were admitted to the university. By contrast for the summer of 2000, 177 African- American and 164 Hispanic students have been admitted. For the fall of 2000, 582 African-American and 570 Hispanic students have been admitted to the university. These are comparisons of information known at the end of January 2000 to the year before.
In his remarks prepared February 2, 2000, Lawrence Abele, the Florida State University Provost commented that departments within the university responsible for graduate admissions had not changed anything in relation to the use of race as a factor for graduate admissions procedures for the summer or fall of 2000. According to Provost Abele, gender and national origin have not been used in the university admissions process. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 59)
Minutes pertaining to the October 20, 1999, Florida State University Admissions Committee for undergraduate studies indicate the continuing practice to provide a plus (+) for minority status in admissions. The November 19, 1999, minutes for that committee show a change in policy removing the plus (+) indicator for race. The December 15, 1999 minutes for the committee indicated that applications and acceptances for all race and ethnic categories for fall and summer of 2000 had increased compared to 1999.
The above changes in admissions policies of Florida State University anticipate the changes to admissions practices under the proposed rules.
David R. Colburn, Provost of the University of Florida, prepared a memorandum on the removal of race and ethnicity as considerations in admissions practices for
"summer B" and fall classes of 1999 at the university. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 59) The memorandum stated:
Attached is the review of this year's freshman class that was conducted by our Admissions Office. Where is says "Summer 99" that, of course, is the number we admitted and the number who enrolled. Where it says "Summer 00" that indicates the number who would have been admitted and the number who would have likely enrolled if race and ethnicity were removed as factors.

The standard for the summer to be admitted to UF was 3.80; for the fall 4.20. We admitted in our freshmen classes every minority student who was in the top 20 and who applied to UF.

Minority Admits with and without ethnic considerations

African American Hispanic American Indian Admits Enrolls Admits Enrolls Admits Enrolls
Summer 99
783
400
484
302

20

15
*Summer 99
134
87
258
144

8

7
Fall 99
546
211
1008
407

35

20
*Fall 99
329
117
847
348

24

4
Total 99
1329
611
1492
709

55

35
Total 00
11@
463
204*
1105

492#

32

*56 African-Americans who were admitted for fall in '99 would not be admitted for fall '00 would be offered summer. If all enrolled, our total freshman African-American enrollment for academic year 2000 could reach as high as 260.

#53 Hispanics who were admitted for fall '99 would not be admitted in fall '00 would be offered summer. If all enrolled out total freshman American Indian enrollment for academic year 2000 could reach as high as 545.

@3 American Indians who were admitted for fall '99 would not be admitted in fall '00 would be offered summer. If
all enrolled our total freshman American Indian enrollment for academic year 2000 could reach as high as 14.

This memorandum demonstrates a considerable reduction in minority admissions and prospective enrollment for the academic year 2000 in the scenario portrayed when removing race and ethnic considerations.
The FTIC admissions policy for the University of North Florida dated August 1998, sets forth enrollment goals for the university. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 82) It details the basis for admissions. It notes "no exceptions to the UNF admission policy will be made without approval from the Faculty Admissions Committee, the Provost and/or the Assistant Provost. No student who requires English and/or Reading remediation will be admitted. A minimum of 20 SAT I Verbal or 16 ACT Reading and English score are required." No mention is made concerning use of admission factors related to race or gender.
The University of North Florida has instituted programs to assist students within the region served by the University who come from low socio-economic backgrounds. The intent is to allow those families to learn about access and opportunities for attending the University of North Florida or other universities and colleges. A pamphlet describes those pre-college programs. Through this outreach minority students,
in particular African Americans, are encouraged to pursue formal
education. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 84) Highlights of some of the programs described are as follows:
UNF/Duval County Public School System Junior Horizons Program: This program is offered in local high schools which serve primarily students from low socio-economic families.
All junior-level students are provided with "Countdown to College" information including the college prep high school courses and standardized tests required for admission, information about selecting a college, and paying for college. Over 1,200 students participate in this program each year.

UNF and Duval/Clay County Public School System Minority Recognition Program: This annual event hosted by UNF recognizes outstanding minority students in 11th grade. Approximately 800 students are recognized each year.

William Raines High School-Alliance for Education: Project Hope is a joint business partnership among UNF, Raines High School, and 20 Jacksonville businesses. These businesses provide career awareness programs and parent information sessions, student mentoring, and academic assistance.

UNF/Duval County Public School SAT Preparation Programs: Free after-school SAT prep programs are offered at schools primarily economically disadvantaged students and in regional community centers. Since its inception in 1992, this program has served over 700 students.

UNF/African-American Church SAT Programs: Since 1994, six churches have offered test prep programs with over 600 students participating. All churches reported that students benefited from these programs.
Bethel Baptist Institutional Church and
St. Paul A.M.E. are currently participating in this program.

Pathways Program: The Pathways Scholarship Program primarily targets minority economically disadvantaged students (approximately ten million dollars in funding). Specific scholarship programs target the following high schools: William
M. Raines, Andrew Jackson, Paxon School for Advanced Studies, Robert E. Lee, and Ribault. The David and Hicks Scholarship targets students living in Section 8, Habijax, and public and federal assisted housing projects. UNF currently has approximately 100 students receiving scholarships through this program.

INROAD/UNF Sponsored Summer Overnight college Experience Program: Approximately
130 high school minority students spend four nights and five days on the campus of UNF. The program includes SAT preparation, college planning, and leadership training.

These programs are designed to assist minorities in preparing to attend universities or colleges, without rewarding minority status when reviewing applications for admission to the University of North Florida. Assistance is given to minorities in college preparation. Special recognition is not provided when determining admissions.
A chart was prepared which reflects ethnicity at the University of North Florida in the fall of 1989 compared to the fall of 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 83) It depicts the following:

		Fall 1989	Fall 1999
White		87.3%	79.7%
Black		6.9%	9.9%*
Hispanic		2.0%	3.5%*
Asian/ Pacific Islander		2.7%	4.8%*
American Indian Alaskan Native		.2%	.3%
Other		.8%	1.8%
*Total Minority		12.0%	18.6%
112. In promulgating	the	proposed	amendments to the	rules,

the Board of Regents took into account the experience by the University of North Florida in its outreach and recruitment of minorities to attend the university, while disallowing special consideration in admissions decisions as a means to promote participation by minorities in formal education in the SUS.

Against the background of specific policies in admissions pursued by the universities that have been described, together with data compiled by the SUS, and other sources, the Board of Regents has undertaken proposed amendments to Rules 6C- 6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. It removes "preferences" in the admissions process for applicants to the universities on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. The proposed amendments promote other approaches which the
Board of Regents contends will continue "to advance opportunities for minorities and women" to receive formal education in the SUS.
The Proposed Amendments: The Process
On November 9, 1999, Governor Jeb Bush issued Executive Order No. 99-281 (Respondents' Exhibit No. 1), in which he declared:
WHEREAS, the Florida Constitution provides that all natural persons, females and male alike, are equal before the law and that no person shall be deprived of any right because of race or national origin; and

WHEREAS, Florida's government has a solemn obligation to respect and affirm these principles in its policies relating to employment, education and contracting; and

WHEREAS, the use of racial and gender set- asides, preferences and quotas is generally inconsistent with the obligation of government to treat all individuals as equals without respect to race or gender; and

WHEREAS, the use of racial and gender set- asides, preferences and quotas is considered divisive and unfair by the vast majority of Floridians, produces few, if any, long-term benefits for the intended beneficiaries, and is of questionable legality; and

WHEREAS, the laudable goal of increasing diversity in Florida's government and institutions of Higher Education, and in the allocation of state contracts, can and should be realized without the use of racial
and gender set-asides, preferences and quotas; and

WHEREAS, the obligation of Florida's government to root out vestiges of discrimination can and should likewise be accomplished without resort to remedies involving the use of racial and gender set- asides, preferences and quotas.
The Governor went on to make known his intentions through Section 1: Non-discrimination in Government Employment, Section 2: Non-discrimination in State Contracting and Section 3: Non-discrimination in Higher Education.
Relevant to this cause Section 3: Non-discrimination in Higher Education stated:
1. It is the policy of my Administration to support equal educational opportunities for all qualified Floridians, to prohibit discrimination in education because of race, gender, creed, color or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal educational opportunities throughout the State.
2. I hereby request that the Board of Regents implement a policy prohibiting the use of racial or gender set-asides, preferences or quotas in admissions to all Florida institutions of Higher Education, effective immediately.
3. The Office of Policy and Budget is hereby ordered to develop an implementation strategy for all other aspects of my Equity in Education Plan by December 31, 1999. (Emphasis supplied)
Given this charge the Board of Regents pursued a course leading to the proposed rules amendments in controversy.
On November 9, 1999, Governor Bush in furtherance of the "One Florida Initiative" contemplated in the Executive Order released a document entitled, "Governor Bush's Equity in Education Plan." (Respondents' Exhibit No. 2)
The plan describes efforts at expanding opportunities for students in low-performing secondary schools through:
1. the implementation of the A+ Plan
2. making the PSAT test available to all tenth graders
3. establishment of a partnership with the College Board
4. increasing availability in advanced placement courses
5. targeting utilization of Florida's On-Line High School
6. creation of post-secondary "opportunity alliances"
7. a mentoring initiative, and
8. the creation of an Equity in Education Opportunity Task Force.
Details concerning the assistance to be provided the secondary school students is set forth in Respondents' Exhibit No. 2.
Most relevant to this inquiry, the Governor's Equity in Education Plan contained an element setting forth the means for expanding diversity in state universities without race or ethnic-based preferences wherein it stated:
1. Eliminate Race and Ethnicity as a Factor in Admissions Decisions. Florida's SUS is committed to diversity. However, diversity can be achieved without having to make race or ethnicity a factor in admissions decisions. State universities now rely on other race-neutral socio-economic factors in admissions decisions that can be indicative
  of race or ethnicity - factors such as income level, geography, special talents and whether an applicant is a first generation college student. Utilizing these factors without regard to race or ethnicity, Florida universities can continue to achieve the level of diversity desired, while providing a legally sound statewide policy of admissions.
2. The Talented 20 Percent: In a further effort to bolster diversity - and to replace race and ethnic-based admissions policies with achievement-based admissions policies - Florida will create the Talented 20 program. This initiative will guarantee admissions to one of our state universities to the Top 20% of each graduating public high school class in Florida without regard to SAT or ACT scores, and boost need-based financial aid by 43% - a $20 million increase. By casting this broad net, students attending low performing schools or schools with heavy minority enrollment will see their chances for admissions improve, and Florida's commitment to diversity will continue.
As a result of the Talented 20 program, approximately 1,200 additional minority high school graduates will be given the opportunity to attend a state university. We already know that 410 of these minority students are qualified now by virtue of completing the required college preparatory curriculum. The remaining 800 will be admitted if they can complete missing threshold credits prior to admission.
We will not penalize high performers who might not otherwise qualify for university admissions because they attend low performing schools.
The Board of Regents placed Governor Bush's Equity in Education Plan on its meeting agenda for November 18 and 19, 1999, for discussion. At this session Dr. Adam W. Herbert, SUS
Chancellor, explained steps necessary to facilitate the Board's implementation of the Governor's education initiative.
Dr. Herbert indicated that at a subsequent meeting the Board would have before it the proposed amendments to admissions rules designed to implement the Governor's program. Dr. Herbert explained that he intended to set forth key elements of the program to give further guidance to the Board staff. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 33)
Board of Regents' Chairman Thomas F. Petway, III, acknowledged members of the public in attendance at the November 18 and 19, 1999 meeting and the Board's willingness to hear from those persons concerning the Governor's initiative calling for elimination of race and ethnicity as factors in admissions decisions. In particular, State Representative Denise Lee and State Senator Betty Holzendorf were recognized.
Senator Holzendorf addressed the Board concerning her sentiments on issues of race as a factor in university admissions. She cautioned the Board of Regents against acting too quickly.
Messrs. Jose Gonzalez and Jose Amaro who represented the University of Florida Hispanic Student Association spoke to the Board of Regents on this occasion, asking that the Board table consideration of the admissions issue pending the opportunity for students to see its impact. Others who addressed the Board of Regents on this occasion were Mr. Thane
Gordon, a pre-med student at the University of Florida; Ms. Jennifer Lin, representing the U.F. Student Association; Mr. Cornelius Minor, II, president of FAMU's student government; Mr. Dev Gilrose, a student at the University of Florida; Ms. Kim Fedele, president of the student government of Florida State University; Mr. David Jarvic, Club Creole at the University of Florida; Mr. Gil Sanchez, University of Florida graduate; Mr.
Issiah Rumlin, Jacksonville NAACP; Mr. Brent Gordon, president of student government of the University of Florida; and Ms.
Jocelyn Moore, vice-president of student government of the University of Florida.
United States Representative Corrine Brown addressed the Board of Regents at the November 1999 meeting. Representative Brown was concerned about the influence of the Governor's Executive Order related to the compliance agreement between the State of Florida and OCR previously described in these facts. She urged the Board of Regents to slow down the process concerning changes in the admissions policies. Representative Brown noted that she was joined in her remarks by United States Representatives Carrie Meek and Alcee Hastings.
At the November 1999 meeting State of Florida Education Commissioner Tom Gallagher, as member of the Board of Regents, addressed the Board of Regents stating that the issue
before the Board of Regents was to instruct the Chancellor and staff to work on expanding diversity.
Regent McLin spoke to the need for more opportunity for input. Regent Henriques also addressed the need for further study.
Chairman Petway then recognized Dr. Herbert for more extensive remarks. Those remarks are reported in the appendix to the index of minutes for the Board of Regents' meetings on November 18 and 19, 1999. They highlight the Governor's Plan calling for changes in admissions policies of the Board of Regents for undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 33)
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of Regents to approve measures to:
1. Support Governor Bush's 'One Florida' education initiatives of the 'Talented 20' Program and the elimination of race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions decisions.
2. Authorize Chancellor Herbert and his staff to work collaboratively with the universities to:
  1. Modify a System and University Admissions standards consistent with the Governor's 'One Florida' initiative;
  2. Modify BOR and University rules which guide universities in their admissions policies and practices;
  3. Modify the SUS enrollment plan to accommodate additional students;
  4. Amend the Legislative Budget Request to incorporate additional lower level FTE; and
  5. Make other changes if necessary to be in compliance with the Governor's policy.
The motion was seconded and eventually the Gallagher motion was approved as amended by Chairman Petway adding the phrase "action would be subject to final approval of the Board." During this session the Board of Regents entered into extensive discussion concerning changes to Board policy for university admissions.
This discussion is reflected in Board of Regents' minutes for the November 18 and 19, 1999 meeting, pages 32 through 38. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 33)
On December 9, 1999, a meeting was held between

Dr. Herbert and the Council of University Presidents to discuss the "Talented 20" aspect of the Governor's Education Initiative. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 47) This discussion was supported by information available to the council members to include preliminary text to the proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 48)
The Board of Regents met December 10, 1999, and considered the Governor's "One Florida" initiative pertaining to university admissions criteria. Extensive support and documentation on this subject provided the Regents for their
meeting are reflected in appendices to the amended agenda. Included for consideration was the Executive Order 99-281, the Equity in Education Plan, data on distribution of FTIC students by ethnicity, high school enrollment projections, analysis of public high school graduates, graduates from low-performing schools, preliminary report of "Talented 20" (top 20 percent) Implementation Task Force, graduate and professional admissions, OCR correspondence, and a draft of proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 34) At the meeting Chancellor Herbert described the documentation as a series of data and related materials to be considered by the Board of Regents in formulating admissions criteria to implement the Governor's plan. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 38)
During the December 10, 1999 meeting Mary-Anne Bestebreurtje, Corporate Secretary and Associate General Counsel for the Board of Regents, made a presentation concerning the rule promulgation process. She indicated that the Regents were to treat the session as a workshop to afford Board of Regents members the opportunity to "wordsmith" changes to the rule. The intent was for the rules amendments to be presented to the Board of Regents in a further session allowing comment and discussion by the public on January 21, 2000.
At the December 1999 session Debi Gallay, Associate Vice Chancellor, Planning and Policy Analysis, described
components of the "One Florida" initiative to include the end to racial preferences in admissions to the universities and the guarantee of admissions to students graduating in the top 20 percent of their respective school classes without regard for test scores, taken to mean SAT or ACT scores. Ms. Gallay reviewed materials in the agenda.
Chancellor Herbert introduced Dr. Lynda Lewis, Assistant Provost at the University of North Florida, to the Board. Dr. Lewis headed the task force for implementation of the "Talented 20" Program, part of the process for ascertaining the best approaches for admitting the top 20 percent FTIC students. Dr. Lewis reported on task force activities in relation to the process engaged in by the Board of Regents in considering amendments to admissions rules for freshmen.
Representatives from the universities also attended the December 1999 meeting, to include some university presidents. These officials were allowed to enter into the discussion conducted by Board of Regents members and presenters.
The particulars concerning the December 10, 1999 meeting to consider the "One Florida" initiative in relation to university admissions policies are found at pages 4 through 14 in the index of the minutes. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 38)
In a related process, discussion of admissions pertaining to the "Talented 20" Program took place as agendaed
for the January 11, 2000 meeting of the SUS Council of Academic Vice Presidents. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 49)
On February 17 and 18, 2000, the Board of Regents met to consider proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. Following discussion and public comment, the Board of Regents voted in favor of amendments to the rules. The remarks of persons who testified at the meeting and discussion by Board of Regents members were reflected in the index of minutes at pages 21 through 33. Although not invited to be intricately involved in the rule development, representatives from NAACP and Now addressed the Board of Regents at its February 17th and 18th session. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 40) Persons who testified at this session included Congresswoman Corrine Brown, members of the Florida Legislature, and state university presidents. Details of the proposed amendments were discussed in this session and changes were made to the final text.
On February 22, 2000, the Board of Education met, discussed and approved the proposed amendments offered by the Board of Regents to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 42) Before the vote was taken legislators, regents, educators, and others addressed the Board of Education. The Board of Education
session approving the proposed amendments was transcribed. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 44)
The Board of Regents' rule development within the SUS is a collaborative effort involving the Council of Academic Vice Presidents, comprised of Chief Academic Officers within the ten SUS institutions; the Council Presidents, comprised of the presidents of the SUS institutions; the Board of Regents and its staff; and ultimately the Board of Education. In promulgating the proposed rules amendments that collaborative process was carried out.
The Rules: Proposed Amendments

6C-6.001 Admissions.
1. Based on minimum standards adopted by the Board, through rule, the uUniversities shall establish the criteria by rule for the admission of students.
2. In the admission of students, the universities shall take into consideration the applicant's academic ability, and may also consider creativity, talent, and character. If determined ~~not~~ to be in the best interest of the university to deny admission to ~~admit~~ an applicant because of past misconduct, the university may do so.
3. The Board affirms its commitment to equal educational opportunity and to increasing student diversity in each of the state universities.
  
  (4)~~(3)~~ Applicants denied admission shall be given notice of denial within a reasonable period of time following the decision. Upon the applicant's written request, the
  university shall provide the reasons for the rejection in writing.
  
  (5)~~(4)~~ Each student accepted for admission shall, prior to registration, submit on a form, provided by the institution, a medical history signed by the student.
  Documentation of appropriate immunization for measles and rubella is required. Proof of immunization must be provided. This shall be a minimum requirement, and institutions may require in addition such other evidence of examination as they may determine necessary. Where physician examinations or certificates are required, they must be signed by a doctor of medicine or a doctor of osteopathy. The universities reserve the right to refuse registration to any student whose health record or report of medical examination indicates the existence of a condition which may be harmful to members of the university community.
  
  (6)~~(5)~~ The universities may return to the applicant without action any application and fees received after the closing date for applications designated by each institution in its official calendar.
  
  (7)~~(6)~~ False or fraudulent statements - In addition to any other penalties which may be imposed an individual may be denied admission or further registration, and the universities may invalidate college credit for work done by a student at an SUS institution and invalidate the degree based upon such credit if it finds that the applicant has made false or fraudulent or incomplete statements in his application, residence affidavit, or accompanying documents or statements in connection with, or supplemental to, his application for admission to, or graduation from one of the SUS institutions.
  (8)~~(7)~~ Students may be required to have immunizations and to have undergone diagnostic procedures prior to registration.
  
  (9)~~(8)~~ Each university shall provide registration opportunities for admitted transfer students that allow these students access to high demand courses comparable to that provided to native students.
  
  (10)~~(9)~~ Each university shall provide orientation programs for first-time-in- college and transfer students.
  
  (11)~~(10)~~ Enrollment limitations--The Board shall establish a plan for the enrollment of the SUS, consistent with the Strategic ~~Master~~ Plan.
  1. The Board shall recommend each budget cycle to the Legislature an enrollment plan in which ~~each university's~~ future State University System FTE enrollment shall be specified by level.
  2. The Board will establish an assigned FTE enrollment plan ~~limit~~ for each university for each fiscal period. This assigned FTE enrollment plan ~~limit~~ will be based upon the enrollment plan described in
(a) and upon the funding decisions of the Legislature. This assigned FTE enrollment limit will constitute the maximum enrollment within five percent for that fiscal period. If actual student credit hours productivity exceeds funded enrollment, course enrollment in subsequent terms shall be controlled by the university and may be reduced by limiting admission of new students, limiting course loads of enrolled students and/or other measures as may be necessary to stay within funded enrollment levels.
1. Each university shall establish, by rule, procedures and criteria to manage ~~limit~~ enrollments to meet ~~to be within five percent (above and below) of~~ planned
  enrollment established pursuant to (b) above. These rules shall not be inconsistent with Board rules.
2. Programs at the University of Florida and the University of South Florida in the Health Centers receive separate appropriations from the Legislature; therefore, students enrolled in such programs will be excluded from the above enrollment limitations.
3. Upper level programs registered as limited access programs with the Board and the Articulation Coordinating Committee (competitive admission due to limited space or other resources, or due to higher standards) and rules limiting enrollment as provided in (c) above shall observe the following guidelines in the selection of students for the spaces available in the program:
  1. There will be a documented justification for the program to be classified as limited access. This documentation should be submitted by the university requesting limited access to the Board for review and approval at least 6 months prior to the start of limiting access to the program. Annually, each university will reevaluate the need to continue to classify the program as limited access. The university will report to the Board by October 1 of each year a list of all limited access programs, the minimum admissions standards for each program, the reasons the program is designated as limited access, and a copy of the most recent review demonstrating the need for retention of limited access status. An annual report shall include for each limited access program the following categories, by race and gender: the number of applicants, the number of applicants granted admission, the number of applicants who are granted admission and enroll, the number of applicants denied admissions, and
    the number of applicants neither granted admission nor denied admission (no action taken). Each category shall be reported by type of student, including the following subcategories: native students (students who started at the university as first-time- in-college students with less than 12 semester hours of transfer credit), community college Associate in Arts degree transfer students, and all other students.
    Each category and subcategory shall further be reported according to the number of students who meet the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to the program and the number of students who do not meet the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to the program. Programs assigned limited access status will be reviewed by the Board in the course of its cyclical systemwide program review process.
  2. All criteria shall be approved by the Board and registered with the Articulation Coordinating Committee prior to implementation.
  3. Any criteria used to select students shall not discriminate against community college transfers with Associate in Arts degrees from Florida public community colleges in favor of SUS students who are applying for admission or plan to continue enrollment after the completion of 60 semester credits at the lower division level.
  4. Any criteria used to select students shall be appropriate indicators of academic ability, creativity or talent to perform required work within the program and of the potential for success.
  5. Any criteria used shall be publicized in catalogues, counseling manuals, and other appropriate publications in accordance with Rule 6A-10.024(14)~~(13)~~, FAC, with sufficient
    time for prospective students to adjust programs to meet criteria.
  6. Where necessary to achieve established equal access enrollment goals, up to ten percent of the students may be admitted to a limited access program with different criteria.
  6.7. Each university shall advise students who meet the minimum requirements for admission to the upper division of a state university, but are denied admission to limited access programs, of the availability of similar programs at other SUS institutions and the admissions requirements of such programs.
  
  7.8. Associate in Arts degree graduates from Florida community colleges and university students who have successfully completed 60 or more credit hours of course work and met the requirements of Section 240.107, Florida Statutes, shall receive priority over out-of-state students for admission to limited access programs.
4. The Board may declare certain degree programs as limited access programs, upon request by a university. In the case of programs for which prerequisite courses are required for admission, the prerequisites, and grades for the prerequisite courses determined acceptable by the program, by themselves, will not cause a program to be declared limited access. That is, if all the applicants completing the prerequisite courses, with any specified grade requirement, are admitted to the program, the program need not be designated a limited access program. Associate of Arts graduates from Florida public community colleges and universities who have not completed prerequisite courses for a given major shall be admitted to a university in order to complete those prerequisite courses, after which program admission can be determined.
University degree programs may be declared as limited access programs for the following reasons:
1. The number of students who have met all the requirements for admission to the university and to the program is in excess of available resources (examples are: space, equipment or other instructional facilities; clinical facilities; adequate faculty to meet acceptable student-faculty ratios; fiscal or other resource limitations). In the case of such programs, selection for admissions shall be competitive. The selection criteria shall be determined by the program, recognizing that the standards applied to the criteria may vary from term to term depending on the number of student spaces available and the quality of the applicant pool. The selection criteria shall be published in the university catalogue along with the standards used for admissions decisions at the time the catalogue is published.
2. The program is of such a nature (normally in the fine or performing arts) that applicants must demonstrate through an audition or submission of a portfolio that they already have the minimum skills necessary for them to benefit from the program.
3. The program is of such a nature that in order to demonstrate potential for success in the program, applicants must attain a grade point average (GPA) and/or other standard (e.g. standardized test scores) that are above those required for admission to the university offering the program. Note: teacher preparation programs are mandated by Section 240.529, F.S., to maintain certain admission requirements, and, therefore, will be classified and reported as limited access programs only if enrollment is limited for reasons (e.g. limited resources) that exceed statutory
  requirements. Teacher preparation programs will be monitored for compliance with requirements of Subsection 240.529(3), F.S., through a report which is separate from the limited access reports.
4. When the institution has exceeded its upper-level FTE enrollment limit as assigned by the Legislature by more than five percent, programs which have not normally been designated as limited access programs may need to limit enrollment. If the institution's actual student credit hour productivity exceeds the institution's funded enrollment to this extent, the institution may take corrective actions in subsequent terms such as limiting admission of new students into upper level programs, limiting course loads of enrolled students and/or other measures as may be necessary to stay within funded enrollment levels. Florida community college Associate in Arts graduates and university students who have successfully completed 60 credit hours of course work and met the requirements of Section 240.107, Florida Statutes, shall receive priority for admission to such limited access programs over out-of-state and transfer students from private institutions. Specific Authority 240.209(1)~~(3)(r)~~ F.S. Law Implemented 240.209(1)(3)(s), (4)(5)(a), 240.227(8), 240.233, 240.2097, 240.529, 240.271, F.S. History Formerly 6C-2.41, 11-18-70, Amended and Renumbered 12-17-74, Amended 1-6-76, 7- 13-77, 3-21-82, 12-13-83, 8-11-85, Formerly 6C-6.01, Amended 8-31-86, 4-9-87, 1-7-91,
9-15-91, 11-27-95, 8-12-96, .

6C-6.002 Entering Freshmen.
1. Normally a diploma from a Florida public or regionally accredited high school, from an accredited out-of-state high school or if foreign, its equivalent, or a diploma pursuant to Section 229.814, Florida Statutes, shall be required for admission of
  beginning freshman students to a state university. Students admitted under acceleration mechanisms in accordance with Rule 6C-6.006 are exempted from this requirement.
2. Students applying for admission will submit test scores from the Scholastic Assessment Test of the College Entrance Examination Board or from the American College Testing program.
3. Students may be considered eligible for admission to any of the state universities in one ~~each~~ of the following three ~~alternative~~ ways, except as provided in subsection (4) below:
  1. A student applying for admission who has a satisfactory high school record, including at least a "B" average (3.0 on a
    4.0 scale) in the required high school academic units normally offered in grades 9 through 12, and who submits other appropriate evidence that the student can be expected to carry out successful academic progress in the university, is academically eligible for admission to any of the universities. In computing the high school grade point average for purposes of admission to a state university, additional weights will be assigned to grades in Honors, International Baccalaureate, and Advanced Placement courses. The high school academic unit requirements are as follows:
    English1 4
    Math 2 3
    Natural Science3 3
    Social Science4 3
    Foreign Language5 2
    Additional Academic Electives from the Above Five Subject
    Areas 4
    TOTAL 19
    1 Three of which must have included substantial writing requirements.
    
    2 At the Algebra I and above levels.
    3 Two of which must have included substantial laboratory requirements.
    
    4 Includes: History, Civics, Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Psychology and Geography.
    
    5 Both credits must be in the same language. (For the purposes of this admissions requirement, American sign language will be accepted in place of a foreign language). An alternative method for students to demonstrate equivalent foreign language competence by examination to meet admissions requirements is described in Rule 6C-6.004(1)(c).
  2. A student applying for admission who has less than a "B" average in the required academic units described in (a) above, must present a combination of high school GPA and admission test scores as indicated on the list below. Academic eligibility for admission will be determined according to the following Admissions Scale:
    
    If the High School GPA the SAT/Recentered SAT I*/ACT in the required academic Score must equal or exceed courses equals any entry the corresponding entry in the in this column, appropriate column below.
    
    Recentered
    GPA
    SAT
    SAT*
    ACT
    2.0
    1,050
    1140
    25
    2.1
    1,020
    1110
    24
    2.2
    990
    1090
    23
    2.3
    960
    1060
    22
    2.4
    930
    1030
    22
    2.5
    900
    1010
    21
    2.6
    890
    1000
    21
    2.7
    880
    990
    21
    2.8
    870
    980
    20
    2.9
    860
    970
    20
    *SAT taken after March 1995
  3. A student applying for admission who does not meet these requirements may be eligible for admission through a student profile assessment which considers additional factors, including but not limited to, the following: family educational background, socioeconomic status, graduate of a low performing high school, international baccalaureate program graduate, geographic location and special talents. These additional factors shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex. The student ~~bring to a university other important attributes or special talents and~~ may be admitted if, in the judgment of an appropriate faculty committee, it is determined from appropriate evidence that the student can be expected to do successful academic work as defined by the institution to which the student applies. The number of first time in college students admitted through profile assessment at each university is determined by the Board: the system is limited each year to ten percent of the total system first-time-in-college-students. Changes in the portion of a university's entering freshmen admitted under this alternative, based upon a university validation study with a 50 percent probability of success in the first year, may be approved by the Board. However, the annual number of applicants enrolled at a university under profile assessment ~~this alternative~~ without the equivalent of two high school credits in foreign language must not exceed 5 percent of the total number of freshmen (students who had not completed their first year of college or university) who entered the university the prior year. Upon request by the president, the Board may approve a one year increase in a university's 5 percent limitation as long as the SUS as a whole maintains the 5 percent limit. Any freshman
    student admitted without meeting the foreign language requirement must earn 8 to 10 semester hours in a foreign language or American sign language, or demonstrate equivalent competence in either a foreign language as described in Rule 6C-6.004(1)(c) prior to completing 60 credit hours at the state university. The university will provide an individual learning plan for each student enrolled who does not meet the normal admissions requirements listed in Rules 6C-6.002(1) and 6C-6.002(3). The
    Board will review ~~and will submit annual~~ ~~follow=up reports of~~ the success of ~~those~~ students admitted under the profile assessment process. ~~this alternative for~~ ~~Board review.~~
  4. In determining eligibility for admission, a university will provide for reasonable substitution for any requirement or high school unit distribution requirement for any student with a disability, as prescribed in Rule 6C-6.018.
4. A student applying for admission who is participating in a non-traditional program must present credentials equivalent to those described in Rule 6C-6.002(3) as judged by the individual SUS institution to which the student has applied. A student whose educational program is not measured in Carnegie Units must present a test score of at least 1010 on the recentered SAT I, or the equivalent on the ACT, or the SAT taken prior to April, 1995.
5. A student applying for admission who is a graduate of a public Florida high school, has completed nineteen required high school units as listed in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a) and who ranks in the top 20% of his/her high school graduating class shall be admitted to a university in the SUS. The SUS will use class rank as determined by the Florida Department of Education.
1. The Board reaffirms its Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO) commitments. Universities may utilize the above alternative admission methods to increase the enrollment of a diverse student body.
2. The universities have the authority to adopt and promulgate rules which have the effect of increasing the standards for eligibility for admission, as listed in ~~alternatives~~ (3)(a) and (b) above, or to provide additional criteria in making admissions decisions. Changes to these institutional rules will be reviewed annually by the Board prior to September 1.
3. Neither SUS nor individual university admissions criteria shall include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex. Specific Authority 240.209(1),~~(3)(r)~~ F.S. Law Implemented 240.209(1), (4)(5)(a). 240.227(8), 240.115(4), 240.152, 240.233, ~~232.246~~ F.S. History - Formerly 6C-2.42, 11-18-70, Amended 5-27-74, Amended and Renumbered 12- 17-74, Amended 6-25-80, 3-21-82, 4-16-84, Formerly 6C-6.02, Amended 4-14-86, 4-20-87, 10-19-88, 1-23-90, 1-7-91, 9-15-91, 8-4-92, 5-17-95, 11-27-95, .
6C-6.003 Entering or Transferring Graduate Students and Post-baccalaureate Professional Students.
1. Each applicant to a graduate degree program or to a post-baccalaureate professional program shall be required to meet minimum systemwide requirements.
2. Each applicant to a graduate degree program or to a post-baccalaureate professional program must have a bachelor's degree or equivalent from a regionally accredited institution and meet at least one of the following criteria:
  1. Earned a "B" average or better in all work attempted while registered as an upper division student working for a baccalaureate degree, or
  2. A total Quantitative-Verbal Graduate Record Examination score of 1000 or higher or an equivalent score on an equivalent measure approved by the Board, or
  3. A graduate degree from a regionally accredited institution.
3. Each applicant to a graduate program or a post-baccalaureate professional program shall be required to present his/her score on the Aptitude Test of the Graduate Record Examination, or an equivalent score on an equivalent measure approved by the Board. The university may waive this requirement in individual cases.
4. Applicants denied admission shall be given notice of denial within a reasonable period of time following the decision. Upon the applicant's written request, the university shall provide the reasons for the rejection in writing. Applicants denied admission who meet the minimum systemwide standards may request reconsideration by written request to the university within thirty days of the date of denial. The request shall contain reasons why reconsideration is warranted. Each university shall establish the method for reconsideration by rule.
5. The Board encourages each university to impose more restrictive admission requirements than the above established for post-baccalaureate programs. Effective for Fall of 2001 admissions, these requirements shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex. These criteria shall be published, and the
  university catalog shall give notice where copies of such criteria may be obtained.
6. In any academic year, up to 10 percent of the graduate students may be admitted as exceptions to these criteria. The university may develop criteria for students admitted as exceptions.
7. Students who do not meet the systemwide criteria and who wish to enroll in courses but not degree programs at the post- baccalaureate level may enroll under the classification of special post-baccalaureate non-degree students. Universities wishing to admit special post-baccalaureate non- degree students to graduate degree programs after the students have satisfactorily completed a specified number of credits may do so provided that the number so admitted is included as part of the 10 percent exception, as defined in (6) above.
Specific Authority 240.209(1),~~(3)(m)~~,
240.233 F.S. Law Implemented 240.209(1),~~(3)(m)~~ (4)(5)(a), 240.227(8),
240.233 F.S. History - Formerly 6C-2.43, 11-18-70, Amended 11-20-70, Amended and Renumbered 12-17-74, Amended 1-24-77, 2-28- 78, 10-17-78, 8-11-85, Formerly 6C-
6.03, .

Challenged Provisions
The Petitioners and the Intervenor challenge the portions of the proposed rules identified below.
The proposed repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 which states:

Where necessary to achieve established equal access enrollment goals, up to ten percent of the students may be admitted to a limited access program with different criteria.

The proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) that states:

These additional factors shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race.

The proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) that states:

The number of first time in college students admitted through profile assessment at each university is determined by the Board; the system is limited each year to ten percent of the total system first-time-in college students.

The proposed addition of a new Rule 6C- 6.002(5) that states:

A student applying for admission who is a graduate of a public Florida high school, has completed nineteen (19) required high school units as listed in Rule 6C- 6.002(3)(a) and who ranks in the top 20% of his/her high school graduating class shall be admitted to a university in the SUS. The SUS will use class rank as determined by the Florida Department of Education.

The proposed repeal of existing Rule 6C-6.002(5) that states:

The Board reaffirms its Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO) commitments. Universities may utilize the above alternative admission methods to increase the enrollment of a diverse student body.

The proposed addition of Rule 6C-6.002(7) that states:

Neither State University System nor individual university admissions criteria shall include preferences in the admission process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex.
The addition to Rule 6C-6.003(5) that states:

Effective for Fall, 2001 admissions, these requirements shall not include preferences in the admission process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex.

Support and Rationale
Early on, John Lee Winn, Coordinator for Education Policy, and Budget, Executive Office of the Governor, was involved in the "One Florida Initiative" related to education, as it pertains to the proposed rules on admissions. He looked at experiences in the states of California, Washington, and Texas where admissions policies had changed by virtue of voter ballot initiatives or court decision prohibiting consideration of race in admission decisions for applicants to public universities. The experiences in those states were examined to determine if similar changes in admissions practices in those jurisdictions in response to the prohibitions would be feasible in Florida. Mr. Winn also examined Florida Department of Education data concerning high school graduates, high school course work, GPAs for those students, the availability of college preparatory course work in Florida high schools, together with SUS admissions policies and practices.
The data Mr. Winn reviewed for the other states concerned enrollment in the state university systems. In particular, Mr. Winn examined information concerning the
"Talented 10" in Texas that allows the top 10 percent of students in Texas high schools to be accepted in Texas public universities with emphasis on the opportunities for minority students to be enrolled under that program.
Mr. Winn was not alone in looking at the experiences in the other states. Additional persons who had input in the Florida effort to change admissions policies were involved. The information gathered from other states was through conversation with persons in those jurisdictions as well as exposure to data. This data collection and analysis took place in August, September, and October 1999. After the "One Florida Initiative" was announced on November 9, 1999, Mr. Winn and others continued to examine data from other places. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 13)
In performing his analysis Mr. Winn was also cognizant of court actions in Georgia and Michigan concerning admissions issues in universities.
Ultimately, Mr. Winn in the interest of the Governor, was concerned that Florida not experience the reductions in minority student enrollment in Florida's public universities that had occurred in the state university systems in California and Texas following voter ballot initiative and court decision respectively. The Texas court case is in reference to the University of Texas Law School, in Austin, Texas. The court
disallowed the consideration of race in admissions decisions at the law school in Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F.3d 932
(5th Cir. 1996). The California voter initiative calling for race-blind admissions policies in the university system was in accordance with Proposition 209. Mr. Winn was also pursuing research concerning changes to the admissions policies for the Florida universities knowing that a ballot initiative in Florida was being attempted as a constitutional amendment that would influence admissions policies in the SUS.
In trying to determine the existing use of race and gender in the SUS admissions process, Mr. Winn relied upon research by the Board of Regents staff. Mr. Winn looked into the experience at the University of North Florida when Chancellor Herbert served as the President of the institution. At that time, the approach described in the facts was promoted in which minority outreach and recruitment before deciding on admissions were emphasized. Race was not considered in admissions decisions.
Mr. Winn, through information provided by the Board of Regents staff, determined that race was being considered in the admissions process, although not specifically required by rule of the Board of Regents or individual university rule. Nonetheless, as exemplified in the university rules referred to in the fact-finding, some university rules allow some
consideration of race in admissions practices in promoting diversity in the student body at those universities. In addition, Rules 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, and 6C-6.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, as they currently exist, contemplate promotion of diversity.
Mr. Winn in his research was unable to discover the Florida Statutes which specifically required the use of race or gender in the admissions process.
The term Mr. Winn used to describe his research on the use of race or gender in the admissions process was "race or gender preferences."
In his research, Mr. Winn, similar to the fact- finding here, discovered that universities were pursuing "non- rule policy" that took into account race or gender in admissions decisions.
Mr. Winn pointed to attempts to improve the performance in the K-12 public school system, in particular for students in low-performing schools, as constituting the long- term solution for establishing diversity in higher education. This refers to the goals in the Governor's Equity in Education Plan. Mr. Winn found that typically the demographic characteristics in low-performing high schools in Florida, D and F schools, show that 70 percent of the student body in those
schools were minority students. Information on the racial and ethnic composition of low-performing high schools in Florida is maintained by the Department of Education. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 16) Mr. Winn perceived a relationship between expanding opportunities in the low-performing schools as described in the Equity in Education Plan and changes to Board of Regents' admissions policies in the SUS.
Mr. Winn in explaining the policy choice to implement the "Talented 20" program described the expectation that the number of students in D and F schools who would attend the SUS would increase from previous levels. A graph illustrates the previous experience taken from the Readiness For College, 1997- 1998 Florida Department of Education report. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 15) That exhibit shows the percentage of students in the 1997-1998 reporting period from D and F schools attending the SUS is much lower than 20 percent, closer to 10 percent.
Mr. Winn identified attempts that would accompany implementation of the "Talented 20" program to provide need- based state financial aid.
Mr. Winn made mention of previously existing financial aid programs such as Bright Futures and Federal Pell Grants as means to assist students admitted under the "Talented 20" program.
Mr. Winn identified assumptions that with the advent of the "Talented 20" program, 400 minority students who did not meet regular admissions criteria could be admitted, with another prospective 1,200 admissions subject to the latter group's taking one or two courses to make them eligible.
In his research, Mr. Winn became aware of the difference in graduation rates between students regularly admitted and those admitted by alternative means.
Proposed changes to the alternative admissions Rule 6C-6.6002(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code, contemplate additional factors not articulated before, which Mr. Winn, from the policy perspective, cited as being indicators of the ability of students to perform in the university.
Mr. Winn described the proposed 10 percent limitation of persons admitted under the alternative admissions provisions in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) as justified by the reduction in need for alternative admissions due to increases brought about through the "Talented 20" program, a new admissions program. There was also the concern that a number of universities within the system had high numbers of alternative admissions as a means to bolster enrollment. This occurrence was in a setting wherein the Legislature was concerned about the policy of admitting students who were not being successful in their academic endeavors.
Mr. Winn described the policy explanation for postponing until the fall of 2001 proposed amendment to Rule 6C- 6.003, prohibiting "preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex." The postponement was needed to allow more study to be done in those programs at the graduate and post-baccalaureate professional level to "increase diversity in graduate programs," as Mr. Winn explains it.
Ultimately Mr. Winn was persuaded that the experience of Chancellor Herbert, while president of the University of North Florida, is a predictor of the ability to promote diversity through the "One Florida" plan, including the rules amendments, without race as a factor. Mr. Winn described the lack of consideration of race in admissions at the same time Dr. Herbert embarked on an active recruitment and outreach effort, mentoring, financial need matching, and privately matched scholarships to bring about diversity.
Leading to the promulgation of proposed amendments to the rules, Mr. Winn discussed pending changes to the admissions rules two or three times a week with the Board of Regents.
Dr. George Russell Perkins, Board of Regents Director of Research and Policy Analysis, was charged with analyzing data from the Florida Department of Education to ascertain the impact of the "Talented 20" program. The data he analyzed also
included information from the SUS. (Respondents' Exhibit No.

31)
The process Dr. Perkins engaged in was one in which a

student's unweighted GPA formed the basis for the analysis. Contrary to these assumptions, the Board of Regents anticipates resort to both weighted and unweighted GPA ranking, depending upon the school district, in applying proposed Rule 6C-6.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. That is, some school districts report weighted GPAs and some report only unweighted GPAs.
Class rank under the proposed rule will be determined by the Department of Education in relation to the "Talented 20" program by taking the results of school district systems for ranking.
Dr. Perkins recognizes this distinction and the possibility that weighted GPAs might change the relative ranking of students within a school, in the school districts where weighted GPA would be assigned in determining the eligibility for participation in the "Talented 20" program.
An unweighted system for assigning GPA counts all the units earned regardless of the subject matter and the rigors of the courses. The weighted systems take into account the relative rigor of classes taken in assigning GPA. Weighted systems give a grade received in the college-preparatory curriculum greater value when compared to a less rigorous curriculum.
In performing his analysis Dr. Perkins referred to data on all completers in public high schools in the academic year 1997-1998. This included 95,958 standard diplomas, 2,729 special education diplomas, and 1,541 GED diplomas. These students were tracked in accordance with admissions applications to the SUS for the Summer term 1998, Fall 1998, Spring 1999, and Fall 1999.
Having in mind proposed Rule 6C-6.002(5), Dr. Perkins sought to hypothetically identify high school students graduating in the academic year 1997-1998, who would have benefited from the "Talented 20" program admissions opportunity. In addition to determining class rank, the analysis made by Dr. Perkins depended upon a student's complying with the 19 required high school academic units as specifically set forth in Rule 6C- 6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. That meant that additional academic electives must have been completed in the five specific subject areas identified in the rule.
From the information gathered and considered

Dr. Perkins created tables to depict the hypothetical influence of the "Talented 20" program in creating admissions opportunities. Tables 1 through 15 (Respondents' Exhibit No.
34, Appendix H).

The tables below reflect the following:

Table 1

Ethnicity Distribution of All Completers1 Public High School Graduates, 1997-98

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	21,325	21.28%	2.44
Asian	2,764	2.76%	3.06
Hispanic	14,409	14.38%	2.56
Native Indian	197	0.20%	2.84
Not Reported	190	0.19%	2.80
White	61,343 61.20% 2.81
Total	100,228 100.00% 2.70

1 Includes 95,958 standard, 2,729 special education and 1,541 GED diplomas

Table 2

Ethnicity Distribution of All Completers Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	9,152	15.85%	2.73
Asian	2,065	3.58%	3.19
Hispanic	5,838	10.11%	2.87
Native Indian	127	0.22%	3.04
Not Reported	128	0.22%	3.01
White	40,445 70.03% 3.04
Total	57,755 100.00% 2.98

Table 3

Percentage of All Completers Who Had

19 Required Academic Credits

Ethnicity	Percent
African-Amer	42.92%
Asian	74.71%
Hispanic	40.52%
Native Indian	64.47%
Not Reported	67.37%
White	65.93%
Total	57.62%

Table 4

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Did Not Have the 19 Required Academic Credits

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	793	21.28%	2.98
Asian	152	4.08%	3.44
Hispanic	998	26.78%	3.20
Native Indian	9	0.24%	3.30
Not Reported	7	0.19%	3.06
White	1,768 47.44% 3.12
Total	3,727 100.00% 3.12

Table 5

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had the 19 Required Academic Credits1

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	1,525	9.41%	3.36
Asian	970	5.99%	3.61
Hispanic	1,557	9.61%	3.46
Native Indian	39	0.24%	3.59
Not Reported	44	0.27%	3.57
White	12,071 74.48% 3.59
Total	16,206 100.00% 3.56

1Includes 16,201 standard, 2 special education and 3 GED diplomas.

Table 6

Ethnicity distribution of top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

Students Who Had at Least 2.9 GPA Over All Courses And Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	3,341	10.13%	3.21
Asian	1,494	4.53	3.45
Hispanic	2,848	8.63%	3.30
Native Indian	83	0.25%	3.35
Not Reported	81	0.25%	3.37

White 25,142 76.21% 3.36

Total 32,989 100.00% 3.34

Table 7

Unweighted GPA Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

Unweighted

GPA Cumulative

Range Number Percent Number Percent

========================================================= 4.0 517 3.19% 517 3.19%

3.90	-	3.99	1,187	7.32%	1,704	10.51%
3.80	-	3.89	1,515	9.35%	3,219	19.86%
3.70	-	3.79	1,812	11.18%	5,031	31.04%
3.60	-	3.69	2,296	14.17%	7,327	45.21%
3.50	-	3.59	2,598	16.03%	9,925	61.24%
3.40	-	3.49	2,221	13.70%	12,146	74.95%
3.30	-	3.39	1,732	10.69%	13,878	85.63%
3.20	-	3.29	1,082	6.68%	14,960	92.31%
3.10	-	3.19	610	3.76%	15,570	96.08%
3.00	-	3.09	356	2.20%	15,926	98.27%
2.90	-	2.99	160	0.99%	16,086	99.26%

2.90 120 0.74% 16,206 100.00%

Note: This table is based on the GPA earned on all high school credits as opposed to the GPA on the 19 required credits as specified in the Board of Regents admissions rule. Data on the GPA on the required 19 credits were not immediately available.

Table 8

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic credits

Who Applied to an SUS Institution

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	1,130	10.16%	3.38
Asian	752	6.76%	3.63
Hispanic	1,027	9.23%	3.48
Native Indian	25	0.22%	3.67
Not Reported	29	0.26%	3.61
White	8,163 73.37% 3.62
Total	11,126 100.00% 3.58

Table 9

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

But Did Not apply to an SUS Institution

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	395	7.78%	3.28
Asian	218	4.29%	3.56
Hispanic	530	10.43%	3.42
Native Indian	14	0.28%	3.45
Not Reported	15	0.30%	3.51
White	3,908 76.93% 3.54
Total	5,080 100.00% 3.51

Table 10

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

Who applied to an SUS Institution

Ethnicity	And Completers	Were	Accepted Percent	Unweighted GPA
African-Amer	1,022		10.90%	3.38
Asian	631		6.73%	3.62
Hispanic	908		9.68%	3.46
Native Indian	21		0.22%	3.66
Not Reported	24		0.26%	3.58
White	6,773 72.21% 3.61
Total	9,379 100.00% 3.57

Table 11

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

Who Applied to an SUS Institution And Registered for Classes

Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA

African-Amer	843	10.62%	3.38
Asian	506	6.38%	3.60
Hispanic	709	8.93%	3.47
Native Indian	19	0.24%	3.65
Not Reported	22	0.28%	3.56
White	5,838 73.55% 3.61
Total	7,937 100.00% 3.57

Table 12

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits

Percentage of Those Who Applied Who Were Accepted

Ethnicity	Accepted_	Percentage
African-Amer	1,022	90.44%
Asian	631	83.91%
Hispanic	908	88.41%
Native Indian	21	84.00%
Not Reported	24	82.76%

White 6,773 82.97%

Total 9,379 84.30%

Table 13

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who had 19 Required Academic Credits Percentage of Those Who Were Accepted

Who Subsequently Registered for Classes

Ethnicity Enrolled Percentage

African-Amer	843	82.49%
Asian	506	80.19%
Hispanic	709	78.08%
Native Indian	19	90.48%
Not Reported	22	91.67%

White 5,838 86.20%

Total 7,937 84.63%

Table 14

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who had 19 Required Academic Credits

Who Applied to an SUS Institution

Were Accepted, Enrolled and Required Remediation

Ethnicity	Completers	Percent of Total	Unweighted of Enrolled GPA
African-Amer	105	50.24%	12.46%	3.22
Asian	16	7.66%	3.16%	3.42
Hispanic	34	16.27%	4.80%	3.35
Native Indian	0	0.00%	0.00%	N/A
Not Reported	2	0.96%	9.09%	3.30
White	52	24.88%	0.89%	3.41
Total	209	100.00%	2.63%	3.30

Table 15

Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who had 19 Required Academic Credits

Who Applied to an SUS Institution Were Denied Admission

Percent Unweighted Ethnicity Completers of Total of Applicants

GPA

African-Amer	22	12.57%	1.95%	3.20
Asian	10	5.71%	1.33%	3.47
Hispanic	13	7.43%	1.27%	3.42
Native Indian	0	0.00%	0.00%	N/A
Not Reported	0	0.00%	0.00%	N/A
White	130	74.29%	1.59%	3.44
Total	175	100.00%	1.57%	3.41

These tables were an integral part of the materials presented to the Board of Regents for its deliberations in considering the influence of the "Talented 20" program on university admissions.
It is significant that the tables reflect not only the hypothetical opportunities for admission in accordance with
the "Talented 20" program but indicate the actual experience of students who applied in the relevant periods. With this in mind, Table 8 compared with Table 10 reflects slight increases in the number of minorities, African-Americans and Hispanics, who would be hypothetically entitled to admission under the "Talented 20" program compared to the actual experience of application and acceptance. There would be 108 additional African-Americans and 119 additional Hispanics. Consideration is given to the explanation of increases for those minorities, in that those persons responsible for changes to the admissions policies contemplated by the rules amendments are persuaded that the "Talented 20" program will bring about significant future opportunities for minority admissions in those cohorts.
Table 9 reflects 5,080 students in the hypothetical, among those 395 African-Americans and 530 Hispanics who would be entitled to admission under the "Talented 20" program, but who did not apply to the SUS. The reasons for not applying under preexisting admissions procedures were not explained in the hearing record. How many similarly situated students might apply in the future should the proposed amendment creating the "Talented 20" program be allowed is uncertain.
As Dr. Perkins describes it, Table 9 reflects the opportunity for the "Talented 20" program to bring additional students into the SUS; however, no attempt has been made to
predict how many students might take advantage of the opportunity for admission.
Dr. Perkins did establish that the "Talented 20" program would create potential opportunities for students in low performing schools, schools graded D and F, who met requirements for the program to be admitted, assuming compliance with the 19 required academic credits and top 20 percent. Exercising the hypothetical in relation to the 1997-1998 class 1,842 graduates from D and F schools would have the opportunity for admissions under the proposed rule. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 34, I-1) Substantial numbers of those students in D and F schools in that academic year were minorities.
Unlike the portrayal of the application process identified in the "Talented 20" program, proposed Rule 6C- 6.002(5), no increases are foreseen in African-American and Hispanic minorities under the "student profile assessment" admissions policy described in proposed Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c). In the latter process the system is limited to 10 percent of total FTIC students. This reflects a reduction in the absolute numbers of alternative admissions by history, most of whom have traditionally been minority admissions. The prohibition against consideration of race and national origin in a setting where race and ethnicity have played a role in alternative admissions, as already described, creates a change in the outcome. The
possibility exists that minority groups might suffer further reductions in numbers of minority students admitted pursuant to this rule as a result of competition with all applicants. The effect is tempered in recognition that factors such as family educational background, socio-economic status, and graduate of a low-performing high school, would assist minorities as much, or perhaps more, than others in their application for admission.
When Dr. Lewis worked for then-president Herbert at the University of North Florida, she was charged with overseeing enrollment services at the university. She pursued admissions policies at the university consistent with Dr. Herbert's expectations by not referring to race at the point in time when students were admitted. All students were treated the same.
The emphasis for increasing diversity was directed to activities prior to the point when a student's application was being considered in competition with other applicants, regardless of race. These pre-collegiate programs associated with outreach and recruitment have been discussed and are basically comparable to the ideas contemplated for the SUS under the Governor's Equity in Education Plan for expanding opportunities for students in low performing schools.
Based upon her association with the University of North Florida admissions activities, Dr. Herbert called upon Dr Lewis to chair the "Talented 20" Task Force. Dr. Lewis
accepted that responsibility in recognition that the program would be pursued in conjunction with a "profile assessment" method of alternative admissions.
The "Talented 20" Task Force formed was constituted of university representatives and representatives from public schools in Florida. University students were invited to be members of the task force. Board of Regents staff, Department of Education staff, and persons from the Florida Community College system were also invited. Within this group were admissions personnel from the universities, guidance personnel from the high schools, and persons responsible for financial aid to benefit university students. Teams were established to consider issues promoted by the "Talented 20" program. Efforts by the "Talented 20" Task Force eventuated in a report of recommendations dated December 8 and 9, 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 70) That report was provided to Chancellor Herbert. It was highlighted by recommendations that identification of the "Talented 20" students be made at the seventh semester in high school, creation of a "Talented 20" office within the Board of Regents to assist in dealing with problems of admissions to the universities under the plan, and calculation of GPA premised upon the ranking process already in place in the school districts. These recommendations were made known to the Board of Regents at its December 9 and 10, 1999 meeting, and were
discussed by Dr. Lewis at that meeting, together with an explanation of the function of the "Talented 20" Task Force.
As envisioned through the process leading to rule adoption, the proposed "Talented 20" admissions standards do not require SAT and ACT tests. This deletion is perceived by proponents of the program as having the potential to benefit students. According to Dr. Lewis, within her knowledge, recently 86 students in D-rated schools in Jacksonville would be eligible for admissions under the "Talented 20" program, proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), without having taken SAT or ACT tests.
Dr. Judith G. Hample, Vice Chancellor for Planning Budgeting and Policy Analysis, Board of Regents had principal responsibility for developing the proposed rules. She was assigned that obligation by Dr. Herbert. The rule development was with the knowledge that universities were considering race and ethnicity as factors in admissions. No such policies were being pursued in relation to gender. No proof at hearing demonstrated that gender was being considered as a factor in either aiding or hindering admissions.
Certain data available to Dr. Hample and staff lent credence to the statements by university personnel that race and ethnicity were considered in admissions. Data consisted of the alternative admissions statement from the SUS November 1998.
(Petitioners' Exhibit No. 36) The universities reported on their alternative admissions under the preexisting rule.
Approximately one-third of those students were described as admitted for reason of "diversity." Diversity was taken by Dr. Hample and her staff to mean consideration for admission based on race or ethnicity, in some cases.
Dr. Hample and her staff observed universities reporting that extra points were given for race, such as University of Florida 0.6 points and Florida State one point when considering applications for admissions.
In performing her duties, Dr. Hample took her lead from the Governor's Equity in Education Plan, the components for improving the education received by high school students and admissions practices for universities. In the latter category, the two major considerations were first, the prohibition of race, ethnicity, or sex as factors in admissions and second, creation of the "Talented 20" program. The "Talented 20" program allows admission to a university in the SUS without guaranteeing the choice of a particular university.
Dr. Hample conducted research on the question of whether there was a requirement that race or gender be considered in admissions practices, not whether those practices were allowed.
Given the demographics for minorities and females entering the 1999 fall term in the SUS, approximately 38 percent and 57 precent respectively, Dr. Hample and staff felt that this was a reasonable performance in meeting the educational needs for those groups, and it would be a reasonable and sound educational policy to implement amendments calling for elimination of race, ethnicity, or sex in undergraduate admissions. This conclusion was reached with a view toward the past performance in the State of Florida in which desegregation orders had been entered under federal law to increase the number of minorities and women in the university student population. Dr. Hample and staff wanted to make certain that there was no present evidence of past discrimination that needed to be addressed, as it influenced the rights of minorities and women to receive a public education. In preparing the draft language for the proposed amendments to the rules Dr. Hample was unconvinced, and remains so today, that there are any present effects of past discrimination in the admissions practices of the SUS. Nothing presented in the hearing created a different impression.
As Dr. Hample explains, the proposed amendments to Rule 6C-6.0002(3)(c), establishing factors for student "profile assessment" in alternative admissions were not designed solely to capture minorities in the admissions process, although as
previously found some factors described in the proposed rule might be especially beneficial to minorities.
The 10 percent limitation in alternative admissions under proposed Rule 6C-6.0002(3)(c), had its origins before the Governor announced his Equity in Education Plan, according to Dr. Hample. As she explained, the State of Florida relies on community colleges to educate the majority of students coming out of high schools. Given the expectation that those students will then transfer for their final two years to a four-year college, the Legislature has invested in the two systems, lower division education (community colleges) and upper division education (universities). The Legislature has expressed concern that universities not use alternative admissions as a means to expand their student populations. As Dr. Hample understood, the Legislature was worried that FTIC students were being admitted who did not meet all entrance requirements and had to undergo remediation to succeed in their educational pursuits at the university, students more appropriately placed in community colleges. These concerns and the desire to remove race and gender as a factor in admissions influenced the Board of Regents' decision to limit the number of alternative admissions under the proposed rule.
Dr. Hample in drafting the proposed language to the rules amendments did not proceed with the expectation that the
changes would affect scholarship awards, outreach programs, enrichment programs, and the like, offered through the SUS.
Dr. Hample understands that the university admissions rules as they exist and are intended for amendment involve the process of reviewing a student's application to determine whether the student is accepted or denied admission to the university solely. This is an appropriate reading of the preexisting rules and the proposed amendments. Any assistance or consideration given to prospective applicants for admission to the universities, or students enrolled in the universities, by way of scholarships, outreach programs, recruitment, enrichment programs, financial aid, or similar assistance upon grounds of race, ethnicity, or gender, to promote diversity, is not the subject of the admissions rules as they now exist or would exist with the amendments. Those practices are not at issue in this proceeding.
Dr. Hample, who authored the language which prohibits "preferences," interprets that word to mean that universities should not give advantage to one student over another in reviewing a student's application through consideration of race or ethnicity or gender as a factor. The giving of extra points in the evaluation process involved with admissions constitutes such advantage. This interpretation is a reasonable and appropriate reading limited to the admissions process per se.
Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code, is subject to repeal. The limited access programs described in that provision are upper level programs. To this point universities have not identified criteria to the Board of Regents for approval which would establish up to 10 percent of admissions to the limited access programs with different criteria in the interest of establishing equal access enrollment goals. Rule 6C-6.0001(10)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code. As Dr. Hample discovered, in practice, some universities were considering race in admissions to limited access programs without the formality of Board approval. Dr. Hample does not view retention of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 as necessary at present, given the basic opportunity for universities to establish limited criteria, taken to mean under other provisions within Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e), Florida Administrative Code. By her analysis of the data Dr. Hample was persuaded that minorities and women already have sufficient access to limited access programs. How those persons gained access is less apparent.
Dr. Hample concedes that there is a link between Rule 6C- 6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code, in the establishment of the 10 percent equal access enrollment opportunity under different criteria and the Florida/OCR Partnership Agreement 1998. At page 7, there is a description of the 1983 adoption of a policy to apply a 10 percent admissions exception to the
limited access programs to benefit minorities and others in admissions to those programs. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2 and Respondents' Exhibit No. 68)
Dr. Hample explains that the prohibition against preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex, effective fall of 2001 in proposed rule 6C-6.003(5) was intended to establish consistency for admissions at any level in the SUS. The review that Dr. Hample and her staff performed pointed out that in the graduate and post-baccalaureate professional programs, much attention had been paid to diversity, so much so, that the demographics for minorities in those programs exceeds the demographic breakdown for minorities in the overall state population. In the research Dr. Hample and her staff performed did not have detailed information as to all graduate and professional programs and their respective criteria for admissions. Postponement of the prohibition against consideration of race, national origin, or sex until 2001 recognizes the decentralized nature of those programs at the graduate and professional level, institution-to-institution and within the institution themselves, as to criteria used for admissions decisions and the need to prepare for the change.
Dr. Hample points to the belief that the "Talented 20" program, in its terms, does not require SAT or ACT tests to
be admitted. In her analysis this is a significant consideration in dealing with students from D and F schools who are not always encouraged to take those tests but would still comply with proposed rule 6C-6.002(5).
In preparing proposed amendments to the rules,

Dr. Hample discovered that not all universities were requiring compliance with the selection of four electives from the listed subject area within Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, when considering student admissions. This dilemma was caused by university admissions offices using information from a high school guidance counseling manual that was less rigorous in establishing the curriculum for high school students compared to the Rule. This led to students being admitted to the universities without rule compliance in the electives, about 60 percent of all students. The problem was addressed when the 10 universities petitioned the Board of Regents for a variance from the requirement in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for entering freshmen to possess four additional academic electives in the five subject areas. The petition in accordance with Section 120.542, Florida Statues, was submitted on April 11, 2000. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 45) It requested relief from compliance until summer of 2003. On April 21, 2000, an order was entered granting the Petition. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 46) By these arrangements the counseling information could
form the basis for compliance with Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, with the expectation that counseling information would be modified to reflect the literal requirements in the Rule concerning compliance with electives by students seeking admission for summer of 2003.
The variance for the electives changed the expectation in proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), the "Talented 20" program, in that the proposed rule relies upon the requirements in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to the four electives. As envisioned by the rule adoption process, until the summer of 2003, students who would be admitted under proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), would receive the same treatment as students admitted under Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
OCR AWARENESS
From the inception the Board of Regents made OCR aware of the Governor's Executive Order 99-281 and Equity in Education Plan by copies provided on November 10, 1999. This was followed by correspondence on November 23, 1999, from Chancellor Herbert directed to Ms. Norma V. Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and Suong Mai Cavalli, Chief Civil Rights Attorney, U.S. Department of Education, explaining the further development of those initiatives through the Chancellor's presentation to the Board
of Regents on November 19, 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 135B).
On December 7, 1999, a meeting was held between the Board of Regents staff, the Governor's office, and OCR.
On January 14, 2000, Gary S. Walker, Director Atlanta Office for Civil Rights, Southern Division, United States Department of Education, wrote Chancellor Herbert to express the preliminary assessment which OCR had concerning the Governor's Executive Order and Equity in Education Plan, with emphasis on the implementation of the "Talented 20" program, profile assessment and graduate and professional admissions contemplated by the proposed amendments to the admissions rules. This preliminary assessment indicated that the Executive Order and Equity in Education Plan could be reconciled with the partnership commitments between Florida and OCR expanding access for minority students to higher education. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 60)
On February 18, 2000, Director Walker wrote to Chancellor Herbert commenting on the need to meet to discuss how the State of Florida intended to ensure the goals of the partnership commitments would be met for the undergraduate and graduate level students, with the adoption of the proposed rules changes. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 61) Topics to be discussed in the meeting, among others, would be: 1. The impact of the
19-course credit requirements for college admission on minority students; 2. plans for ensuring access for minority students to the "Flagship Institutions" in Florida; and 3. graduate and professional school admissions. On March 3, 2000, before the meeting was held, Mr. Walker sent correspondence to Ms. Regina
E. Sofer, Chairperson, Florida/OCR Partnership Team, State University System of Florida, reference Monitoring- Florida/United State Office for Civil Rights Partnership Commitments Interim Report 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 63A)
The March 3, 2000, correspondence from Mr. Walker to Ms. Sofer established a list of subjects to be discussed at the upcoming meeting between Florida officials and OCR officials. Although not exhaustive, the list mentioned the following subjects:
1. How the 19 course credit requirements for college admissions will impact on minority students?
2. How the SUS will ensure access for minority students to the Flagship Institutions in Florida?
3. How will capping the profile assessments student admissions at 10% affect those students who may have been admitted previously under the Alternative Admission standards?
4. How will the SUS seek to maintain an increased minority enrollment in the graduate/professional schools within the SUS?
5. How will the "Talented 20" students be distributed among the SUS institutions?
6. What kinds of information OCR will need concerning the implementation of the new admissions rules in the time table for providing this information.
On March 8, 2000, Ms. Sofer wrote to Ms. Cavalli to confirm the upcoming March 2000 meeting to be held between Florida officials and OCR representatives. The subject matter to be considered, according to the correspondence was: 1. the impact of the 19-course credit requirements for college admission on minority students; 2. plans for ensuring access to minority students to the Flagship Institutions in Florida; and

graduate and professional school admissions. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 64)
1. The March 2000 meeting between the Board of Regents staff and OCR took place. That meeting was not followed by further written comment from OCR concerning the proposed amendments.
  Critique
2. Dr. Barbara Newell was recognized as an expert in university admissions and affirmative action. Dr. Newell has had an extensive career as educator and administrator. Dr. Newell served as SUS chancellor in the years 1981-1985.
3. Dr. Newell correctly criticizes the admissions policy in proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), in which the SUS relies upon the
  Florida Department of Education to determine class rank for participation in the program. She offers her opinion realizing that the Department of Education at the inception intends to rely upon the class-ranking systems in the various school districts which employ weighted and unweighted grading systems. Dr. Newell expressed concerns about the "unevenness, unreasonableness and unfairness" for students between schools, taken to mean between school districts, where a course in physics compared to a course in physical education is a non- equivalent measurement of academic achievement. In her opinion, Dr. Newell thinks that the process should be as transparent as possible when considering the basis for admissions under the "Talented 20" program and that the citizenry expects equitable treatment of people with similar track records, taken to mean measuring student performance under similar grading systems.
  Program Enrollment By Gender
4. As pointed out by Florida Now, in SUS programs such as mathematics, computer and information sciences, and engineering, a noticeable disparity exists between male and female enrollment. Female numbers at every academic level, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs reflect this disparity. Substantially more males than females participate in those programs. This is not reflected in the overall experience within the SUS. No proof was offered that the explanation for
  the disparities in the select programs pointed out by Florida Now is premised upon discrimination in admissions practices that penalizes females.
  House Bill 1567
5. Pending a decision in this case the Legislature made significant amendments to Sections 240.209, 240.227, and 240.33, Florida Statutes, when it passed House Bill 1567. That act took effect July 1, 2000. It creates legal consequences for the Board of Regents in adopting the proposed amendments to the rules. It changes the outcome in some of the assumptions made by the Board about the manner in which the proposed amendments would be allowed to function. Its effect is discussed in the
  conclusions of law.
  
  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1999). Stipulations of Law
7. The parties offered the following stipulations of law, which are accepted:
8. Section 240.209(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to develop a plan for the future expansion of the SUS.
9. Section 240.209(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to approve new degree programs.
10. Section 240.209(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to prepare legislative budget requests in accordance with Chapter 216, and Section 235.41, Florida Statutes.
11. Section 240.209(3)(e), Florida Statutes, as amended by House Bill 1567, authorizes the Board of Regents to establish student fees.
12. Section 240.209(3)(i), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to terminate programs at the state universities.
13. Section 240.209(3)(j), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to adopt a systemwide strategic plan.
14. Section 240.209(3)(k), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to seek the cooperation and advice of the officers and trustees of public and private institutions of higher education.
15. Section 240.209(3)(1), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to coordinate and provide for educational television in the SUS.
16. Section 240.209(3)(n), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to seek the cooperation and
  advice of superintendents and board members of local school districts.
17. Section 240.209(3)(o), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to submit to the Board of Education for approval all new campuses and instructional centers approved by the Board of Regents.
18. Section 240.209(3)(s), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes the Board of Regents to monitor the extent of limited access programs within the state universities and report to the Board of Education and the Legislature admission and enrollment data for limited access programs. The reports shall include information in several categories by race and gender.
19. Section 240.209(3)(t), Florida Statutes, as amended by House Bill 1567, authorizes the Board of Regents to require each state university to advise students who meet the minimum requirements for admission to the upper division of the state university but are denied admission to limited access programs of the availability of similar programs at other SUS institutions and the admissions requirements of such programs.
20. Section 240.209(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that the Board of Regents coordinate with the Postsecondary Education Planning Commission.
21. Section 240.209(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that the Board of Regents coordinate the roles of the
  universities in order to best meet state needs and reflect cost effective use of state resources.
22. Section 240.209(5)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that the Board of Regents review and approve baccalaureate degree programs that exceed 120 semester hours.
23. Section 240.209(5)(f), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that the Board of Regents review and approve or disapprove degree programs identified by the Articulation Coordinating Committee as unique pursuant to Section 229.551(1)(f)5.
24. Section 240.209(5)(g), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that the Board of Regents ensure that a least half the required course work for any baccalaureate degree in the system is offered at the lower-division level.
25. In Section 240.2095, Florida Statutes (1999), the Legislature requires the Board of Regents to establish criteria for the approval of new programs at state universities.
26. The State Board of Education consists of the Governor and members of the Cabinet. Under Article IX, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, "the Governor and the members of the Cabinet shall constitute a State Board of Education, which shall be a body corporate and have supervision of the system of public education as is provided by law."
27. Section 229.053, Florida Statutes (1999), designates the State Board of Education as the chief policy-making and coordinating body of public education in Florida.
28. Section 240.203, Florida Statutes (1999), charges the State Board of Education with a duty to approve all rules adopted by the Board of Regents. (In this instance, proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, adopted by the Board of Regents were approved by the State Board of Education.)
29. In accordance with Section 240.205, Florida Statutes (1999), the Board of Regents is a body corporate with powers of a body corporate for all purposes created by Chapter 240, or that may exist under provisions of that law and is an agency of the State of Florida for purposes of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1999).
  Standing
30. The Boards do not concede that NAACP et al. and Florida Now are substantially affected by the proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003. Section 120.56(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). It has been determined already that NAACP and Florida Now may not challenge the proposed amendments in their individual capacities. Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin were determined to lack standing to challenge proposed amendments to Rule 6C-6.003 as Keith Garvin
  is not even approaching graduate school. To be resolved is the associational standing by NAACP and Florida Now to represent their members as persons substantially affected by the proposed amendments based upon the proof at hearing. The same burden resides with Mattie Garvin on her own behalf and as the mother of Keith Garvin and Keith Garvin in showing that they are substantially affected persons.
31. The rules proposed for amendment concern admissions standards for students who desire to attend a state university. Rule 6C-6.001 concerns overall admissions standards. Rule 6C-
32. Based upon the facts a substantial number of NAACP members, although not a majority, are "substantially affected" by the proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-
  proposed rule amendments are within the NAACP's general scope of interest and activity and the relief requested is an appropriate form of relief for NAACP to receive on behalf of its membership. In particular, significant numbers of middle or high school students in the Florida Youth Councils and college students in the Florida College Chapters are substantially affected. Thus, NAACP acting as representative of its membership may pursue this challenge. See Florida Home Builders Association vs. Dept of
  Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). The fact that NAACP student members will be regulated by the proposed amendments in their admissions to the SUS establishes that they are substantially affected persons, without the need for further factual elaboration of how each member would be personally affected. Coalition of Mental Health Professional vs. Florida Dept of Prof. Reg., 546 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA
  1989).
33. As parent, Mattie Garvin can proceed with the rule challenge for Keith Garvin, a minor. Cortese vs. the School Board of Palm Beach County, 425 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
  Keith Garvin has standing to proceed with the rule challenge in his own right. Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin are substantially affected by the proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001 and 6C-
  6.002. Coalition, supra.
34. NAACP standing to proceed for its members, and the standing Mattie Garvin enjoys on her own behalf and as mother of Keith Garvin and Keith Garvin (limited to Rules 6C-6.001 and 6C-
  6.002 for the Garvins) can be reconciled when the Coalition case is read together with All Risk Corp of Fla. vs. State, Dep't of
  Labor and Employment Sec., 413 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Ward vs. Board of Trustees, 651 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), cited by the Boards. Given that student members within the NAACP, Keith Garvin, and Mattie Garvin on his behalf, have their admission to the SUS universities regulated and controlled by the proposed amendments, any non-compliance with the rule promulgation process as described in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (1999), and alleged in this case, places those persons in jeopardy of real and sufficient immediate injury in fact when applying for admission. There are also changes in the rules that arguably have an adverse impact on minorities. This exposure, as alleged in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of the proposed rules, is within the Petitioners' zone of interest. All Risk, supra. Generally the zone of
  interest element of the substantial affect test may be met where the rule implementing the enabling statute encroaches upon an interest protected by the enabling statute, some other statute or the constitution, Ward, supra. Read in context, with the
  Coalition decision, regulation of student admissions by the
  proposed rule amendments is within their zone of interest for purposes of determining any encroachment on the interest by the proposed amendments, in violation of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes; Chapter 240, Florida Statutes; other statutes and the constitution.
35. Granting standing to NAACP, Mattie Garvin, and Keith Garvin recognizes that the courts have held that a less demanding standard applies in a rule challenge proceeding than that required for an action at law and that the standard differs from the "substantial interest" standard of a licensure proceeding. Florida, Dep't Prof. Reg. vs. Florida Dental Hygienist Ass'n, 612 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) and Cole
  Vision Corp. vs. Board of Optometry, 688 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
36. Unlike NAACP, Florida Now, in its proof, failed to demonstrate that a substantial number of its members are substantially affected by the proposed amendments. Notwithstanding that the subject matter of the rule is within Florida Now's general scope of interest and activity and that the relief requested is of a type appropriate for Florida Now to receive on behalf of its members, the proof concerning its membership constituencies was non-specific, and thereby insufficient to show standing. This decision does not preclude
  consideration of issues raised by NAACP which accommodate Florida Now's concerns.
  Factual Predicate
37. Section 120.56(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), in pertinent part states:
  The petition shall state with particularity the objections to the proposed rule and the reasons that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioner has the burden of going forward.
38. To this end, the Second Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of the proposed rules, as refined in the prehearing stipulation setting forth the Petitioners' position comply with the pleading requirement. Petitioners have also proceeded with the burden of going forward.
  Agency Burden
39. Under Section 120.56(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), standing having been established, the requirements for pleading having been met, and the Petitioners having proceeded with the burden of going forward, it follows:
  The agency then has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated authority as to the objections raised.
40. The Boards must proceed with that proof measured by Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (1999), which states in pertinent part:
  'Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority' means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one of the following applies:
  
  * * *
  1. The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;
  2. The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;
  3. The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency;
  4. The rule is arbitrary or capricious;
  5. The rule is not supported by competent substantial evidence;
  * * *
  
  A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt rule; a specific law to be implemented is also required. An agency may adopt only rules that implement or interpret the specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statute. No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only because it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious or is within the agency's
  class of powers and duties, nor shall an agency have the authority to implement statutory provisions setting forth general legislative intent or policy. Statutory language granting rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and functions of an agency shall be construed to extend no further than implementing or interpreting the specific powers and duties conferred by the same statute.
41. The validity of the proposed rule amendments must also be measured against Section 120.536(1), Florida Statutes (1999), which states:
  A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt a rule; a specific law to be implemented is also required. An agency may adopt only rules that implement or interpret the specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statute. No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only because it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious or is within the agency's class or powers and duties, nor shall an agency have the authority to implement statutory provisions setting forth general legislative intent or policy. Statutory language granting rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and functions of an agency shall be construed to extend no further than implementing or interpreting the specific powers and duties conferred by the same statute.
  
  Statement of Authority
42. House Bill 1567, Section 8, made that law effective July 1, 2000. That change in law has application to the case through its amendments to Chapter 240. The proposed amendments

to the rules must conform to the statutory changes to Chapter

240 brought about by House Bill 1567. Lavernia v. Department of Prof. Regulation, 616 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)

242. In changes to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003 the Boards cite Section 240.209(1), Florida Statutes, as specific authority for the proposed amendments.

243. House Bill 1567, revised Section 240.209(1), Florida Statutes as follows:

Section 1. Section 240.209, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:

240.209 Board of Regents; powers and duties.--

The Board of Regents is authorized to adopt ~~primarily responsible for adopting~~ systemwide rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of law conferring duties upon it; to plan ~~planning~~ for the future needs of the State University System; to plan ~~planning~~ the programmatic, financial, and physical development of the system; to review ~~reviewing~~ and evaluate ~~evaluating~~ the instructional, research, and service programs at the universities; to coordinate ~~coordinating~~ program development among the universities; and to monitor ~~monitoring~~ the fiscal performance of the universities.

244. In changes to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, the Boards cite Section 240.209(1),(4) and (5)(a) as the law implemented through the proposed amendments. Section 240.209(4) and (5)(a), state:
1. Any powers not specifically delegated to the universities by this act shall be retained by the Board of Regents unless further delegated by action of the board.
2. The Board of Regents is responsible for:
  1. Maintaining access to state universities by qualified students regardless official need.
    
    245. In changes to Rule 6C-6.001, the Boards cite Section 240.2097 as the law implemented through the proposed amendments. It states:
    Limited access status; . . . The Board of Regents shall adopt rules to include the following provisions:
    1. The criteria for assigning limited access status to an educational program shall be delineated. A process for the periodic review of programs shall be identified so that the board can determine the need for retention or removal of limited access status.
    2. Each university shall provide registration opportunities for transfer students that allow such students access to high demand courses comparable to that provided native students. Further, each university that provides an orientation
    program for freshman enrollees shall also provide orientation programs for transfer students. . . .
    
    246. In changes to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, the Boards cite Section 240.227(8) as the law implemented. It states:
    University presidents; powers and duties. The president is the chief administrative officer of the university and is responsible for the operation and administration of the university. Each university president shall:
    
    * * *
    
    (8) Govern admissions, subject to rules of the Board of Regents and as provided in s. 240.233.
    1. In changes to Rule 6C-6.002 the Boards cite Sections 240.115(4) and 240.152, Florida Statutes (1999), as laws implemented through the proposed amendments. Those provisions are not pertinent to this case.
    2. In changes to Rule 6C-6.003, the Boards cite Section 240.233, Florida Statutes, as additional specific authority for the proposed amendments. In changes to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C- 6.002, and 6C-6.003, the Boards also cite Section 240.233 as law implemented. Section 240.233, as amended by House Bill 1567, states in pertinent part:
      Section 4. Section 240.233, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
      
      240.233 Universities; admissions of students.--Each university is authorized to adopt rules governing the admission of students ~~shall govern admissions of students~~, subject to this section and rules of the Board of Regents.
      1. Minimum academic standards for undergraduate admission to a university must include the requirements that:
        Each student have received a high school diploma pursuant so s. 232.246, or
        its equivalent, except as provided in s. 240.116(2) and (3).
        Each student have successfully completed a college-preparatory curriculum of nineteen credits, as defined in rules of the Board of Regents, including at least ~~earned~~ two credits of sequential foreign language at the secondary level or the equivalent of such instruction at the postsecondary level. A student whose native language is not English is exempt from this admissions requirement, provided that the student demonstrates proficiency in the native language. If a standardized test is not available in the student's native language for the demonstration of proficiency, the university may provide an alternative method of assessment. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules for articulation of foreign language competency and equivalency between secondary and postsecondary institutions. A student who received an associate in arts degree prior to September 1, 1989, or who enrolled in a program of studies leading to an associate degree from a Florida community college prior to August 1, 1989, and maintains continuous enrollment shall be exempt from this admissions requirement.
        Each student have submitted a test score from the Scholastic Assessment Test of the College Entrance Examination Board or the American College Testing Program.
      2. The minimum admission standards adopted by the Board of Regents or a state university must permit a student to earn at least four of the nineteen credits constituting the college-preparatory curriculum required for admission as electives in any one of the following manners:
        Successful completion of any course identified in the Department of Education course code directory as level two or higher in one or more of the following subject areas: English, mathematics, natural
        science, social science, and foreign language;
        Successful completion of any course identified in the Department of Education course code directory as level three in the same or related disciplines;
        Any combination of the courses identified in paragraphs (a) and (b); or
        Successful completion of two credits from the courses identified in paragraph (a), plus nor more than two total credits from the following categories of courses:
        Courses identified in the Department of Education course code directory as ROTC and military training;
        Courses identified in the Department of Education corse [sic] code directory as level two in art-visual arts, dance, drama- theatre arts, language arts, or music; or
        Any additional courses determined to be equivalent by the Articulation Coordinating Committee.
        (3)~~(2)~~ The Board of Regents shall adopt rules which provide for a limited number of students to be admitted to the State University System, notwithstanding the admission requirements of paragraph (1)(b) relating to credits in foreign language,
        . . .
        * * *
    3. Citation to Sections 240.271 and 240.529, Florida Statutes, as laws implemented by Rule 6C-6.001, Florida Administrative Code, is discussed in succeeding paragraphs. House Bill 1567:
    4. House Bill 1567 passed into law additional provisions that affect the outcome of this case. They are:
      Section 240.209(3)(v), which states:
      1. The board shall: . . .
      (v) Manage systemwide enrollment.
      Section 240.209(11), which states: (11) The board is authorized to adopt
      rules, as necessary, to administer this section.
      
      240.227(1) which states:
      Each university president shall:
      
      (1) Have the authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of law governing the operation and administration of the university, which shall include the specific powers and duties enumerated in this section. Such rules shall be consistent with the mission of the university and statewide rules and policies and shall assist in the development of the university in a manner which will complement the missions and activities of the other universities for the overall purpose of achieving the highest quality of education for the citizens of the state.
      
      240.227(27) which states:
      
      (27) Each university president is authorized to adopt rules to implement the provisions of this section.
      
      Necessary Authority
    5. NAACP et al. contest the Board of Regents' rulemaking authority to take any of the actions about which the challengers complain. NAACP et al. allege that the Board of Regents
      exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority in those instances. Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1999).
    6. In particular, NAACP et al. argue that the proposed amendments do not constitute the implementation or interpretation of specific powers and duties granted by the
      enabling statute relied upon by the Board of Regents. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (1999). NAACP et al. argue that the Board of Regents has failed to prove that the proposed amendments are not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority when considering the necessity to adopt only those rules that implement or interpret specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statutes referred to by the Board of Regents. Section 120.56(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). The Boards argue to the contrary. The Boards resort to the aforementioned authority to prove the validity of the amendments.
    7. Under Section 240.209(1), Florida Statutes, as amended by House Bill 1567, the Board of Regents has authorization to adopt systemwide rules. The authority is granted to act pursuant to Sections 120.536(1) and 120.54, to implement provisions of law that confer duties upon the Board. The Board of Regents has the necessary grant of rulemaking authority that can be exercised in the adoption of rules that implement or interpret specific powers and duties conferred by other provisions within Section 240.209. Those duties are categorically described in Section 240.209(1). Likewise, Section 240.209(11), created by House Bill 1567, authorizes the Board to adopt rules necessary to administer Section 240.209.
    8. Among the Board of Regents' obligations for rule promulgation conferred by Section 240.209(1) is rule adoption "to plan the programmatic . . . development of the system."
    9. House Bill 1567 created Section 240.209(3)(v) conferring the duty upon the Board of Regents to "manage systemwide enrollment" in the SUS. This authority contemplates the ability to control by rule numbers of students who may be admitted throughout the SUS in anticipating enrollment levels.
    10. Section 240.209(4), Florida Statutes (1999), addresses the delegation of specific powers to the universities by the act. It retains for the Board of Regents other powers within the act that have not been delegated to the universities by the act, absent the Board's willingness to further delegate those retained powers to the universities.
    11. Section 240.209(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), makes the Board of Regents responsible for maintaining access to state universities by qualified students regardless of the financial need those students may have. This means the Board of Regents has the burden to assure that qualified students are not turned away due to limited financial resources.
    12. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes (1999), in its preamble, addresses university presidents and their powers and duties as chief administrative officers of the respective
      universities and the responsibility for operating and administering the respective universities.
    13. Section 240.227(1), Florida Statutes, as amended by House Bill 1567, grants the rulemaking authority to the university presidents to adopt rules pursuant to Sections 120.536(1) and 120.54, to implement provisions of law that govern the operation and administration of the universities with reference to the specific powers and duties set forth in Section 240.227.
    14. Pursuant to Section 240.227(8), Florida Statutes (1999), among the specific powers and duties enumerated in the section are those that allow university presidents to govern admissions to the universities. Those powers and duties delegated to university presidents to govern admissions are subject to rules of the Board of Regents that also govern admissions pursuant to specific authority conferred upon the Board of Regents by Chapter 240 or elsewhere.
    15. Section 240.227(8) places further limitations on university presidents in their establishment of admissions standards, to the extent that admissions standards are provided in Section 240.233.
    16. Section 240.227(27), created by House Bill 1567, reiterates the authority for university presidents to adopt rules to implement specific provisions of Section 240.227.
    17. Section 240.233, Florida Statutes, as amended by House Bill 1567, addresses admissions of students to each university under authorization to each university to adopt rules governing the admissions of its students, subject to the specific powers and duties granted by Section 240.233 and its terms and rules of the Board of Regents under statutory authority to make rules dealing with admissions. Part of the Board of Regents' authority to adopt admissions rules resides in Section 240.233.
    18. Where powers and duties to make rules on admissions given to the university presidents and the university proper, overlap and conflict with the Board of Regents' powers and duties, the Board of Regents' rules take precedence.
    19. Section 240.233(1), Florida Statutes, introduces subsequent provisions that establish minimum academic standards for undergraduate admissions to a university.
    20. Section 240.233(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as amended by House Bill 1567, recognizes the Board of Regents' rule definition of the college preparatory curriculum of 19 credits as a minimum academic standard for undergraduate admission to a university.
    21. Section 240.233(2), Florida Statutes, as created by House Bill 1567, allows a student to earn the four elective credits within the 19 credits constituting the college-
      preparatory curriculum in the manner described by the statute. Minimum admissions standards for undergraduate admissions adopted by the Board of Regents or a state university cannot conflict with the statutory alternatives for earning the four elective credits.
    22. Section 240.233(2) Florida Statutes (1999), was renumbered to 240.233(3) when amended by House Bill 1567, together with a substantive change to the text. Under this provision the Board of Regents is allowed to adopt rules which provide for a limited number of students to be admitted to the SUS, as exception to the minimum academic standards in Section 240.233(1)(b), as amended by House Bill 1567, relating to credits in foreign language.
    23. Contrary to allegations by NAACP et al., the Board of Regents has rulemaking authority to implement or interpret specific powers and duties granted by Chapter 240 in relation to the proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c), that states: "These additional factors shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race"; the proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) that states: "The number of first time in college students submitted through profile assessment at each university is determined by the Board; the system is limited each year to ten percent of the total first-time-in college students"; the proposed addition
      creating Rule 6C-6.002(5) that states: "A student applying for admission who is a graduate of the public Florida high school, has completed nineteen (19) required high school units as listed in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a) and who ranks in the top 20 percent of his/her high school graduating class shall be admitted to a university in the State University System. The State University System will use class rank as determined by Florida Department of Education"; the proposed repeal of the existing Rule 6C- 6.002(5) that states: "The Board reaffirms its Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO) commitments. Universities may utilize the above alternative admission methods to increase the enrollment of a diverse student body"; the proposed addition of Rule 6C-6.002(7) that states: "Neither State University System nor an individual university admissions criteria shall include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex"; and the proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.003(5) that states: "Effective for fall, 2001 admissions, these requirements shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex."
    24. NAACP et al. challenge the decision to repeal Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with a university's opportunity to use different criteria in enrolling up to 10 percent of students in limited access programs to
      establish equal access enrollment goals. The Board of Regents cites as authority Section 240.209(3)(s), Florida Statutes (1999). That provision makes it incumbent upon the Board of Regents to monitor and report information concerning the performance of limited access programs. It does not empower or create the duty for the Board of Regents to be involved with enrollment criteria for admissions to those programs. To the extent that Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code, addresses Board adoption of rules for assigning limited access status, the Board has authority under Section 240.2097(1), Florida Statutes (1999), to adopt rules that further establish status for equal access enrollment goals in limited access educational programs. Authority is found in Section 240.209(3)(v), Florida Statutes, created by House Bill 1567, to set equal access enrollment levels in the programs. Under the circumstances, there is necessary rulemaking authority for the Board of Regents to repeal Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code. 2/
      Enlargement, Modification, Contravention
    25. Concerning the challenge provisions that have been described, NAACP et al. allege that the proposed amendments enlarge, modify, or contravene specific provisions of law implemented. Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). Having considered the language in the challenged provisions,
      together with the grant of rulemaking authority and the specific laws implemented, that claim is rejected in relation to the following: The proposed repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6; the proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) that deals with the prohibition against additional admissions factors including preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race; the proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) that refers to the number of first-time-in-college students admitted through profile assessment at each university, limited each year to 10 percent of the total first-time-in-college students; the proposed repeal of existing Rule 6C-6.002(5) in relation to the reaffirmation of Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO) commitments and the utilization of the above alternative admissions methods to increase enrollment of a diverse student body, and the proposed addition of Rule 6C-6.003(5) that makes admissions requirements effective 2001, subject to the prohibition against the admissions process of preferences for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex.
    26. By the proposed amendments creating Rule 6C-6.002(5) the Board of Regents adopts by reference the 19 academic unit requirement set forth in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The universities petitioned the Board of Regents in accordance with Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, to be relieved of compliance with the literal requirements in that
      rule concerning the four academic electives out of the 19 units, to be achieved within the listed course areas of English, math, natural science, social science, and foreign language. In substitution, the universities sought a broader interpretation of the requirement for the four electives by resort to courses described in counseling materials attached to the petition for variance. When the variance was granted, this allowed the universities to make their admissions decisions for freshmen consistent with the Florida Department of Education's 1999-2000 counseling materials until the summer term of 2003. As a consequence, the requirements in proposed rule 6C-6.002(5) that incorporated by reference requirements in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, were also modified.
    27. A new Section 240.233(2), Florida Statutes, was created by House Bill 1567. It addressed the four electives within the 19 credits constituting the college-preparatory curriculum required for freshmen admissions. This refers to the academic unit requirement in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. It established alternative means for meeting those admissions standards. By its effect the statutory scheme supercedes requirements to achieve the four electives contemplated by Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and its variance. The statutory optional admissions standards announced in Section 240.233(2), Florida Statutes,
      created by House Bill 1567, for the four electives, constitute part of the 19 required high school units described in Rule 6C- 6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and proposed rule 6C- 6.002(5). Consistent with Section 240.233(1)(b), Florida Statutes, amended by House Bill 1567, the remaining 15 credits set forth in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as adopted by reference in proposed Rule 6C-6.002(5) remain constant.
    28. Section 240.233(2), Florida Statutes, created by House Bill 1567, contemplates the opportunity for the Board of Regents to adopt additional minimum admissions standards for undergraduates, aside from the 19 credits constituting the college-preparatory curriculum required for admission. Section 240.233(1)(b) This statutory authority allows for consideration of those persons who rank in the top 20 percent of his or her high school graduating class, in connection with compliance with the 19 high school college-preparatory curriculum credits (academic units) to be a part of the undergraduate admissions process in proposed rule 6C-6.002(5). This consideration does not offend the enabling statute. Nor does reliance upon the Florida Department of Education to determine the class rank constitute a violation of the enabling statute, with a caveat.
    29. Section 240.233(4)(b), Florida Statutes, as renumbered by House Bill 1567, states:
      Within the admissions standards provided for in subsection (1), the Board of Regents shall develop procedures for weighting courses which are necessary to meet the requirements of a college-preparatory curriculum in a higher value than less rigorous courses. Credits received in such courses shall be given greater value in determining admission by universities than cumulative grade point averages in high school.
    30. The Board of Regents, through its proposed Rule 6C- 6.002(5) establishing class rank for the top 20 percent, cannot ignore the statutory requirement in computing the high school GPA for purposes of admission to a state university. Although the stated intention to this point is to rely upon individual school districts in establishing class-ranking under the proposed rule, by the use of weighted and unweighted procedures common to the school districts, that approach cannot endure. Only a weighted system may be employed.
    31. Notwithstanding the views held by persons responsible for the rule promulgation who are intimately familiar with proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), there is the expectation that students submit a test score from the SAT or the ACT to meet minimum academic standards for admission to a university. This conclusion is reached when reading the provision in context with overall Rule 6C-6.002 and the establishment of testing and submission of test results found in Rule 6C-6.002(2), Florida Administrative Code.
    32. Should the reading given proposed Rule 6C-6.002(5) by its proponents be accepted as precluding submission of the test score, such preclusion is unacceptable. Section 240.233(1)(c), Florida Statutes, created by House Bill 1567, mandates that the test by taken, and the results submitted as part of the application. A student may not be admitted to a university without submitting the test score.
    33. In relation to proposed rule 6C-6.002(7),
      
      Section 240.227(8), Florida Statutes (1999), and the preamble to Section 240.233, Florida Statutes, as amended by House Bill 1567, give primacy to Board of Regents' rules compared to rules of individual universities. There is also authority to control actions of the SUS. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not violate specific provisions of law implemented.
      The Merits
    34. The NAACP et al. allege that the term "preferences" as set forth in proposed rules 6C-6.02(3)(c), 6C-6.002(7), and 6C-6.003(5) is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the Board of Regents in applying the rules. Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). A separate definition for the term "preferences" is not provided in the rules. In response to the allegation, the Boards have proven that under the circumstances it is appropriate to apply the common ordinary meaning to the
      word "preferences" read in context. Florida, Dep't of Adm. Div.
      
      Of Retirement vs. Moore, 524 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA); Florida E. Coast Indus. Inc. vs. State, Dept. of Community Affairs, 677 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Cole Vision Corp. vs. Board of Optometry, 688 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
    35. The word "preference" is defined in Webster's II New College Dictionary 871 (1999) as "the granting of precedence or advantage to one over others." Here, "preference" refers to the giving of an advantage or placing in higher priority when considering university admissions by taking into account race, national origin, or sex. The term "preference" carries no connotation outside the immediate prohibition related to the admissions decision. It does not limit minority recruitment, outreach, financial aid, or other assistance prior to deciding upon an application for admission to a SUS university, nor does the prohibition against using "preferences" on the basis of race, national origin, or sex prohibit other assistance to students who have been enrolled. A restriction against "preferences" in admissions does not envision a process that is so vague that men and women of common intelligence need guess at the meaning, thus, promoting differences in the application of the term. Witmer vs. Fla. Dep't of Bus. and Prof. Reg., Div. Of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 662 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
    36. NAACP et al. argue that the prohibition against
      
      "preferences" in the SUS and individual universities admissions practices expressed in proposed rule 6C-6.002(7), and set forth in the amendment to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c), for admitting entering freshmen, and set forth in the amendment to Rule 6C-6.003(5), for admitting entering or transferring graduate students and post-baccalaureate professional students is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.52(8)(f), Florida Statutes (1999). The Boards' proof in response to show that the proposed rules are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority when considering the competence and substantiality of the evidence justifying the prohibition are sufficient. Officials within Florida who are responsible for establishing the admissions policies to SUS universities had evidence that race was a factor in admissions practices pursued by SUS universities. By contrast, in its review the Board of Regents did not find that gender was being considered as a factor for admissions to the SUS universities. Persons responsible for the proposed rules were aware that California, through a voter initiative known as Proposition 209, had established race-blind admissions policies to be used in their public universities system, leading to drastic reductions in minority enrollment in their public universities, with the longer-term prospects of improved levels of minority enrollment.
      Those persons responsible for promoting the changes to admissions policies in Florida were most impressed with the experience in Texas and the decision in Hopwood vs. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) wherein the court considered the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act). In reviewing the admissions policies of the University of Texas Law School, the court employed the "strict scrutiny test" in examining racial classifications to decide:
      (1) does the racial classification serve a compelling government interest and (2) is it narrowly tailored to the achievement of that goal. The Hopwood court referred to the compelling state
      interest that would be permissible to justify use of racial classifications in admissions policies as being in the interest of remedying present effects of past discrimination, based upon a strong basis in the evidence that remedial action was needed. In Florida it was not found that present effects of past discrimination exist. Therefore, from the policy perspective, consideration of race as a factor in admissions should not be allowed, if Florida were to avoid the problems experienced in California and Texas where race as a consideration in admissions policies was removed without the prior opportunity to adjust to that eventuality. In its analysis the Board of Regents looked at the SUS admissions policies in the overview and at the
      individual universities. By the outcome the Board of Regents intends to disallow consideration of race, national origin, or sex in its admissions practices, lacking evidence that consideration of those factors is necessary to maintain equal access to public education. There is competent substantial evidence justifying the prohibition.
    37. Concerning proposed amendments to Rule 6C- 6.002(3)(c), in response to NAACP et al. allegations that the
      Board of Regents acted arbitrarily and capriciously, the Board has proven justification for its decisions. Section 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes (1999). The Boards have proven that the proposed rule is not arbitrary or capricious as defined in Agrico Chem. Co., vs. State, Dept. of Envtl. Regulation, 363 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The actions taken in adopting the proposed amendments were supported by thought, reason, and rationality. The decisions taken from the case were supported by facts and logic, lacking despotism. Although disallowing the consideration of race, national origin, or sex as factors for admissions, the proposed rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) for alternative admissions, describes admissions factors that would benefit minorities, without excluding others, such as family educational background, socio-economic status, graduate of a low-performing high school and geographic location.
    38. In response to the NAACP et al. challenge, the Boards
      
      have provided competent substantial evidence justifying the proposed amendments to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c), limiting the number of alternatively admitted FTIC students to 10 percent of total FTIC students. This was not an arbitrary or capricious decision.
    39. NAACP et al. argue that proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), lacks competent substantial evidence to support its adoption and is arbitrary and capricious. To those points, the assumption by the Board of Regents about compliance with the four electives in the required academic units in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), and its variance, has been changed by law. This change mandates conformance with the statute on electives, Section 240.233(2), House Bill 1567. It is reasonable to rely upon the statement of required academic units in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), as modified by statute, in designing the admissions policy in proposed rule 6C- 6.002(5). On the subject of the related criterion, an admissions policy recognizing the top 20 percent of graduating classes is acceptable. In establishing class rank, the SUS may not use class rank determined by the Florida Department of Education on the basis that school districts employ both weighted and unweighted calculations. This is not a competent process. It not only runs contrary to Section 240.233(4)(b), renumbered by House Bill 1567, it is arbitrary and capricious in
      its effect. It is so, by treating students differently from one district to the next, recognizing some for more rigorous academic achievement, as the law intends, while penalizing others for the same accomplishments in allowing less qualified students to take their place in this selection. Finally, the assumption which was erroneously made, contrary to law, that those students could be admitted without required SAT or ACT scores does not invalidate the proposed rule. Absent the ability to gain admission without standing the examination, and the resultant reductions in numbers of qualified applicants, it is still a rational and reasonable admissions policy as written.
    40. In summary, proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), as it is written, creating an admissions policy that admits students who have completed the required 19 academic units and who are in the top 20 percent of their graduating class, subject to submission of requisite test scores is not one lacking sufficient evidential support. Such a process does not represent arbitrariness and caprice.
    41. The Board of Regents' adoption of proposed rule 6C- 6.002(7) is not arbitrary or capricious.
    42. In relation to proposed rule 6C-6.003(5) the effective date of the prohibition against considering race, national origin, or sex in admissions practices is delayed until fall of 2001. This delay allows the program administrators of
      the myriad programs for graduate students and post-baccalaureate professional students, in conjunction with the Board of Regents to establish admissions factors beneficial to all students seeking admission, recognizing that in the past race and ethnicity have been prevalent factors in the admissions policies for post-graduate studies. To accommodate the process for admitting students at this academic level, a limited number of alternative admissions as exceptions to regular admissions are already allowed by Rule 6C-6.003(6), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed amendment is not arbitrary or capricious.
    43. NAACP, et al, argue against repeal of existing
      
      Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, as lacking competent substantial evidence for the choice and constituting an arbitrary and capricious act. To justify its repeal, the Boards refer to other provisions within existing Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e), that allow the Board of Regents to control criteria used by universities for admissions into limited access programs and the belief that the repeal does not constitute a significant change. Moreover, the Boards point to the lack of formal use of existing Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, to achieve equal access enrollment goals in limited access programs through different admissions criteria. The practice in universities has been to promote diversity in the limited access programs by means unapproved by the Board of Regents. These circumstances do not militate against the maintenance of
      existing Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6. Nor do they justify its repeal. The rule should be left available to meet the contingency that established equal access enrollment goals cannot be otherwise achieved without use of approved admissions criteria that are different for up to 10 percent of students in the program.
    44. Contrary to NAACP et al. allegations, in relation to repeal of existing Rule 6C-6.002(5), in its re-affirmation of Equal Educational Opportunity, through use of alternative, diverse admission methods to increase enrollment of a student body, this Board choice is not invalid. It is not a decision based upon a lack of competent substantial evidence, or made for reasons of arbitrariness or caprice. The commitment to promote diversity through alternative admissions for entering freshmen is replaced by an unchallenged proposed rule affirming commitment to Equal Educational Opportunity for all applicants at every level in the SUS, while increasing student diversity. Proposed Rule 6C-6.001(3).
      Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
    45. Florida has a continuing commitment to the United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) as set forth in the Partnership Report and Commitments 1998. Central to the agreement is the expectation that Florida not engage in discriminatory practices in providing public education in SUS universities. The Partnership Report and Commitments
      reflects that level of concern, with particular attention devoted to the needs and opportunities of minorities. The partnership agreement commits the parties to maintaining student diversity. With this in mind, the Board of Regents made OCR aware of the proposed amendments to the rules and OCR entered into discussions with Florida officials concerning the changes to admissions policies envisioned by the proposed rules. OCR expressed its views in writing concerning the changes and its willingness to work with the Board of Regents on the subjects raised by the proposed amendments, particularly the "Talented 20" program and graduate and professional school admissions.
      While recognizing the importance of the partnership agreement between Florida and OCR, and the continuing interest expressed by OCR in the changes contemplated by the proposed rules, these circumstances do not preclude adoption of the proposed amendments.
      Pre-teacher and Teacher Education Pilot Programs
    46. Section 240.529(9), Florida Statutes (1999), allows the establishment of university and community college pre- teacher education and teacher education pilot programs where it states:
      
      Universities and community colleges may establish pre-teacher education and teacher education pilot programs to encourage promising minority students to prepare for a
      career in education. These pilot programs shall be designed to recruit and provide additional academic, clinical, and counseling support for students whom the institution judges to be potentially successful teacher education candidates, but who may not meet teacher education program admission standards. Priority consideration shall be given to those pilot programs that are jointly submitted by community colleges and universities.
    47. While no programs have been established in SUS universities, that potential is recognized in law. The statutory provision takes precedence when compared to the prohibition against "preferences" in admissions standards set forth in the proposed rules. Should the pilot programs be instituted in SUS universities, the proposed rules prohibiting "preferences" on the basis of race or national origin could not be applied to admissions standards for the pilot programs. That contingency does not require invalidation of proposed rules using the term "preferences."
      Florida Educational Equity Act
    48. Section 228.2001, Florida Statutes (1999), the "Florida Educational Equity Act" establishes policies prohibiting discrimination against students in Florida public education. In pertinent part it states:
      (2)(a) Discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, handicap, or marital status against a student . . . in the state system of public education is prohibited.
      No person in this state shall, on the basis
      or race, national origin, sex, handicap, or marital status, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity, . . . conducted by a public educational institution which receives or benefits from federal or state financial assistance.
  2. The criteria for admission to a program or course shall not have the effect of restricting access by persons of a particular race, national origin, sex, handicap, or marital status.
  3. All public education classes shall be available to all students without regard to race, national origin, sex, handicap, or marital status; however, this is not intended to eliminate the provision of programs designed to meet the needs of students with limited proficiency in English or exceptional education students.

* * *

(4) Educational institutions within the state system of public education shall develop and implement methods and strategies to increase the participation of students of a particular race, national origin, sex, handicap, or marital status in programs and courses in which students of that particular race, national origin, sex, handicap, or marital status have been traditionally underrepresented, including, but not limited to, mathematics, science, computer technology, electronics, communications technology, engineering, and career education.

* * *

The proposed amendments are not contrary to the "Florida Educational Equity Act" read in context. Section
228.2001(4), Florida Statutes (1999), addresses increased participation but is not read to differentiate between members of a particular race, national origin, or sex who, have been traditionally underrepresented, from other students, when considering applications for admissions to the select programs. Funds Appropriation
NAACP et al. claims that proposed rule 6C-6.002(5) commits the Board of Regents to expend state money, without inclusion of those expenditures in the state legislative appropriations process, contravening the Florida Constitution.
Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides for the separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and prohibits the exercise of powers of the persons belonging to one branch in relation to another branch absent express constitutional provision. Article III, Section 19(a) of the Florida Constitution requires that an annual state budget be adopted by the Legislature by general law. Article VII, Section 1(c) of the Florida Constitution prohibits the drawing of money from the treasury except in pursuance of appropriation made by law. The Legislature has exclusive power in deciding how, when, and for what purposes public funds shall be applied in government. Lawton Chiles et al. vs. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F, et al. 589 So. 2d 260, (Fla. 1991). Despite
the limitations, NAACP et al. misapprehend the nature of the
rule adoption process, specifically related to proposed rule 6C- 6.002(5).
The Boards have the authority to adopt or approve proposed rules when vested with sufficient rulemaking authority. In exercising that authority the Boards may establish substance without addressing funding. They have done so here. Whatever arrangements have been pursued in gaining needed funds to effectuate the substance in the proposed rule, for purposes of this review, the proposed rule stands or falls on its merits without addressing funding to support its terms. The proposed rule sets no guarantee that funding will be provided to establish the program and assist the students who gain admission to a university by this method. The affirmative statement that the students "shall be admitted" concerns itself with a student's academic credentials. Once that issue is attended, fiscal matters are addressed elsewhere as the Florida Constitution envisions. The level of enrollment as a funding consideration is addressed in Section 240.271, Florida Statutes (1999), separate and apart from this case.
DETERMINATION
With the exception of the repeal of Rule 6C- 6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code, the Boards have proven by a preponderance of evidence that the proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida

Administrative Code, are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority as to objections raised by NAACP et al. Section 120.56(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999).

Upon consideration, it is ORDERED:

The repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code is invalid. The proposed amendments to existing Rules 6C- 6.002(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code are valid. The proposed repeal of existing Rule 6C-6.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, is valid. The proposed creation of the new Rule 6C-6.002(5),

Florida Administrative Code, is valid. The proposed creation of Rule 6C-6.002(7), Florida Administrative Code, is valid. The proposed amendment to Rule 6C-6.003(5), Florida Administrative Code, is valid.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2000.

ENDNOTES

1/ On March 17, 2000, an order was entered to correct the assignment to reflect the change to the proposed rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003.

2/ NAACP et al. having withdrawn its challenge to the Board repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)1, Florida Administrative Code, no discussion is needed related to the enabling legislation, Section 240.209(3)(s), Florida Statutes (1999), cited as law implemented for that decision.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John D. C. Newton, II, Esquire Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Berger, Davis & Singerman, P.A.

215 South Monroe Street Suite 705

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

James C. Cunningham, Esquire Berger, Davis & Singerman, P.A.

350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Jim Rossi

Patricia A. Dore Associate Professor College of Law

Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1034

William E. Williams, Esquire Vikki R. Shirley, Esquire Elizabeth G. Deeme, Esquire Huey, Guilday & Tucker, P.A.

106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Post Office Box 1794

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1794

Barry M. Silver, Esquire Barry M. Silver, P.A. Corporate Centre

7777 Glades Road, Suite 308 Boca Raton, Florida 33434

Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Post Office Box 14922

Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4922

Honorable Jeb Bush

Governor of the State of Florida

Chair and Member of State Board of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Secretary, Executive Officer, and

Member of State Board of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State

Member of State Board of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Honorable Robert Butterworth Attorney General

Member of State Board of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller

Member of State Board of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 09 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

Honorable Bill Nelson Treasurer

Member of State Board of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture

Member of State Board of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810

Gregg Gleason, General Counsel Board of Regents

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Liz Cloud, Chief

Bureau of Administrative Code The Elliott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee

120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Docket for Case No: 00-000952RP

Issue Date	Proceedings
Jul. 08, 2004	Mandate filed.
Jun. 21, 2004	Opinion filed.
Dec. 10, 2003	BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellants/cross-appellees shall have 30 days from the date of this order within which to serve and file a brief demonstrating why the appeal and cross-appeal should not be dismissed as moot.
Nov. 14, 2003	Order, Supreme Court of Florida filed.
Aug. 14, 2002	Mandate filed.
Feb. 27, 2002	Opinion filed.
Oct. 31, 2000	Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out.
Oct. 30, 2000	Received payment in the amount of $31.00 for record filed.
Oct. 26, 2000	BY ORDER OF THE COURT (Extension of time to file initial brief is granted) filed.
Oct. 02, 2000	Invoice in the Amount of $31.00 sent out.
Oct. 02, 2000	Index sent out.
Sep. 29, 2000	(J. Newton) Supplement to Appellants` Directions to the Clerk filed.
Sep. 29, 2000	(C. Licko) Statement of Judicial Act to be Reviewed filed.
Sep. 27, 2000	(C. Licko) Statement of Judicial Act to Be Reviewed (filed via facsimile).
Aug. 30, 2000	(C. Licko) Directions to the Clerk filed.
Aug. 23, 2000	Certified Notice of Respondents` Notice of Administrative Cross-Appeal issued.
Aug. 22, 2000	Respondents` Notice of Administrative Cross-Appeal filed.
Aug. 22, 2000	Respondent`s Notice of Appearance (C. Licko) filed.
Aug. 21, 2000	Appellant`s Directions to the Clerk (filed via facsimile).
Aug. 16, 2000	Letter to DOAH from the District Court of Appeal filed. DCA Case No. 1D00-3138 filed.
Aug. 11, 2000	Certified Petitioners` Notice of Administrative Appeal issued. (1st District Court of Appeal)
Jul. 12, 2000	Final Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held April 24-26, 2000.
Jun. 27, 2000	Florida Now`s Supplement to Proposed Final Order (filed via facsimile).
Jun. 26, 2000	Petitioner`s Supplement to Proposed Final Order on Effect of House Bill 1567 filed.
Jun. 26, 2000	Supplement to Respondent`s Proposed Final Order filed.
Jun. 19, 2000	Order sent out. (the proposed final order submitted by Florida now is accepted as timely filed)
Jun. 19, 2000	Order sent out. (official recognition is denied the fiscal year 2000-20001 appropriations act line items 55, 87, 93A, 94, 107, and 161, parties may supplement their proposed final orders to address the effect of the amendments in house bill 1567)
Jun. 19, 2000	Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority filed.
Jun. 13, 2000	Amended Certificate of Service for Petitioner`s Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion for Official Recognition filed.
Jun. 12, 2000	Petitioners` Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Respondents` Motion for Official Recognition filed.
Jun. 07, 2000	Petitioner`s Joinder in Florida National Organization for Women`s Motion to Accept as Timely its Proposed Final Order filed.
Jun. 07, 2000	Florida National Organization for Women Motion to Accept as Timely its Proposed Final Order (filed via facsimile).
Jun. 07, 2000	Ltr. to Judge Adams from J. Newton RE: Proposed Recommended Order on diskette filed.
Jun. 06, 2000	Apendix to Intervenor`s Proposed Final Order: Citations to Hearing Transcript for Proposed Findings of Fact (filed via facsimile).
Jun. 05, 2000	Florida Now`s Proposed Final Order (filed via facsimile).
Jun. 05, 2000	(W. Williams) Motion for Official Recognition filed.
Jun. 05, 2000	Proposed Final Order of Petitioners filed.
Jun. 05, 2000	Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Proposed Final Order filed.
Jun. 05, 2000	Respondents` Proposed Final Order (For Judge Signature) filed.
May 31, 2000	Order Granting Enlargement of Page Limit and Time for Filing Proposed Final Orders sent out.
May 25, 2000	(Respondents) Motion for Enlargement of Page Limit and Time for Filing Proposed Final Orders filed.
May 24, 2000	Letter to Judge Adams from W. Williams RE: Potentially Missing Exhibit filed.
May 22, 2000	Notice of Filing; (Transcripts Volumes 1 through 6) filed.
Apr. 24, 2000	CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Apr. 24, 2000	NAACP Amended Final Hearing Exhibits List filed.
Apr. 24, 2000	(J. Cunningham) Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition; Re Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition filed.
Apr. 24, 2000	Intervenor Florida National Organization for Women`s Pre-Trial Statement (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 24, 2000	Pre hearing Stipulation (Respondents) filed.
Apr. 19, 2000	(J. Newton) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Apr. 19, 2000	(V. Shirley) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
Apr. 19, 2000	Order Extending Time for Filing Pre hearing Stipulation sent out.
Apr. 19, 2000	Florida National Organization for Women Production of Documents for Witness Toni Van Pelt (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 18, 2000	Memorandum to J. Cunningham from L. Russell Re: changes to my deposition filed.
Apr. 18, 2000	Letter to F. Vignochi from L. Miklowitz Re: Response to Respondent`s second motion for sanctions filed.
Apr. 18, 2000	Agreed to Motion to Extend Time for Filing Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
Apr. 18, 2000	Order on Respondents` Motion to Strike Expert Witness and for Sanctions Against Florida NOW; and Intervenor`s Motion for Protective Order and to Amend Prior Order sent out. (all requests for attorneys` fees and costs are denied)
Apr. 18, 2000	Order on Petitioners` Motion for Summary Final Order sent out. (motion for summary final order is denied)
Apr. 18, 2000	Florida National Organization for Women`s Reply to Respondent`s Second Motion for Sanctions and Intervenor`s Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent filed.
Apr. 18, 2000	Florida National Organization for Women Production of Documents for Witnesses Carla Denise Edwards and Dr. Barbara Newell (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 18, 2000	Florida National Organization for Women Motion for Protective Order From Depositions and Motion to Amend Order (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 17, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Response to Petitioners` Sixth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Apr. 17, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Second Supplemental Response to Petitioners` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Apr. 17, 2000	Florida NOW`s Response to Respondent`s Second Request to Produce (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 17, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Second Supplemental Response to Petitioners` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Apr. 14, 2000	(E. Demme) Motion to Suppress Consideration of Corrections to Deposition of Leon W. Russell filed.
Apr. 14, 2000	Respondents` Motion to Strike Expert Witnesses and for Sanctions Against Florida NOW filed.
Apr. 14, 2000	Notice of Service of Respondent, Florida Board of Regents` Answers to Petitioners` Third Set of Interrogatories filed.
Apr. 14, 2000	(J. Newton) Notice of Filing Corrections to Deposition of Leon W. Russell filed.
Apr. 13, 2000	Notice of Filing; (Volume 1 of 1 of the motion hearing) DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript filed.
Apr. 13, 2000	(E. Demme) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
Apr. 12, 2000	(E. Demme) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 12, 2000	Respondents` Response to Petitioners` Motion for Summary Order filed.
Apr. 12, 2000	Petitioners` Sixth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Apr. 12, 2000	Petitioners` Notice of Filing; Affidavit of Mattie Garvin; Affidavit of Keith Garvin filed.
Apr. 12, 2000	Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (B. Newell) filed.
Apr. 11, 2000	Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Apr. 11, 2000	Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (T. Van Pelt) filed.
Apr. 11, 2000	Order on Respondents` Motion to Compel Intervenor`s Response to Respondents` First Request for Admissions sent out.
Apr. 11, 2000	Order on Respondents` Motion for Sanctions Against Intervenor or in the Alternative Compelling Responses to Discovery sent out.
Apr. 11, 2000	Notice of Service of Petitioners` Third Set of Interrogatories to Respondents filed.
Apr. 11, 2000	Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum (M. Tuchman, S. Seguin, C. Edwards) filed.
Apr. 11, 2000	Petitioners` Supplemental Response to Respondents` First Request for Admissions filed.
Apr. 10, 2000	Respondent`s Motion for Protective Order filed.
Apr. 10, 2000	Letter to CCA from J. Newton Re: Requesting a longer lunch recess in the final hearing on April 27, 2000 filed.
Apr. 10, 2000	Response of Petitioner NAACP, Inc., Through Its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP`s to the Board of Regents` Third Request for Production of Documents filed.
Apr. 10, 2000	Petitioner NAACP`s Notice of Serving Answers to the Board of Regents` Third Set of Interrogatories filed.
Apr. 10, 2000	(J. Newton) (2) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition; Amended Notice of Taking Party Deposition; Supplemental Response to Petitioner NAACP, Inc., Through Its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP`s to the Board of Regents` Third Request for Production of
Apr. 10, 2000	Certificate of Service of Florida National Organization for Women`s Answers to Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 07, 2000	(J. Newton) Response of Petitioner NAACP, Inc., Through Its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP`s to the Board of Regents` Fourth Request for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 07, 2000	Notice of Hearing sent out. (oral arguments will be conducted on April 17, 2000; 1:00 p.m.)
Apr. 06, 2000	Respondents` Second Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Florida NOW, Inc. filed.
Apr. 06, 2000	Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel for Florida National Organization for Women (filed by Linda G. Miklowitz via facsimile) filed.
Apr. 06, 2000	(B. Silver) Adoption of NAACP`s Motion for Final Summary Order (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 05, 2000	Order of Continuance and Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10:00 A.M. on April 24 and at 9:00 a.m. on April 25-28, 2000; Tallahassee)
Apr. 05, 2000	Letter to CCA from W. Williams Re: Parties have reached an agreement on upcoming deadlines filed.
Apr. 05, 2000	Intervener`s Joinder in Joint Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile).
Apr. 05, 2000	Respondents` Motion to Compel Florida NOW to Respond to Respondents` First Request for Admissions filed.
Apr. 05, 2000	Respondents` Motion for Sanctions Against Florida NOW w/exhibits filed.
Apr. 05, 2000	Joint Motion for Continuance and to Reschedule Final Hearing filed.
Apr. 04, 2000	Petitioners` Second Notice of Filing Additional Authority filed.
Apr. 04, 2000	Petitioners` First Notice of Filing Additional Exhibits filed.
Apr. 03, 2000	Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Tonie Van Pelt) , Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Maxem Tuchman) filed.
Mar. 31, 2000	(B. Silver) Response to Request for Admissions; Response to Interrogatories and Request for Production (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 31, 2000	Petitioners` Notice of Filing Additional Authority w/case law filed.
Mar. 31, 2000	(B. Silver) Witnesses for Intervenor Florida National Organization for Women, Inc. (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 31, 2000	Letter to CCA from J. Newton Re: Articles cited in the Motion for Summary Order; Articles filed.
Mar. 30, 2000	Petitioners` Motion for Summary Order filed.
Mar. 30, 2000	Video Deposition (of Leon Russell) filed.
Mar. 30, 2000	Notice of Service of Respondents` Third Set of Interrogatories to NAACP, Inc.; Respondents` Fourth Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner NAACP, Inc. filed.
Mar. 30, 2000	Order on Respondents` Motion to Compel NAACP, Inc. to Respond to Respondents` First Request for Production sent out. (respondents` motion to compel NAACP to submit responses to first request for production numbers 5,12, and 15 is denied)
Mar. 30, 2000	Order on Respondents` Motion to Compel Petitioners` Response to Respondents` First Requests for Admission sent out.
Mar. 30, 2000	Order on Intervention by Florida National Organization for Women, Inc. sent out.
Mar. 30, 2000	Index to Exhibits to Petitioners` Motion for Summary Order; Exhibits filed.
Mar. 30, 2000	Respondent`s Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript; Video Deposition of: Leon Russell W/exhibits (Judge has original and copy of depositions) filed.
Mar. 30, 2000	Mattie Garvin`s Responses to Respondents` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 29, 2000	Petitioners` Notice of Filing filed.
Mar. 29, 2000	(J. Newton) Motion for Leave to File Late Response to Respondents` First Request for Admissions; Respondent`s Answers to Petitioner
Mar. 29, 2000	Respondents` Fourth Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner NAACP, Inc. filed.
Mar. 29, 2000	(V. Shirley) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
Mar. 29, 2000	(J. Newton) Notice of Taking Party Deposition; (2) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Mar. 29, 2000	Notice of Service of Petitioners` Answers to the Board of Regents` Expert Interrogatories; Petitioner Keith Garvin`s Response to the Board of Regents` Second Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 28, 2000	Respondents` Third Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner NAACP, Inc. filed.
Mar. 27, 2000	Petitioners` Response to Motion to Intervene of Florida National Organization of Women filed.
Mar. 27, 2000	Petitioners` Response to Respondents` Motion to Compel on Petitioners` Response to Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 27, 2000	Petitioners` Memorandum in Opposition to Respondents` Motion to Compel on Petitioners` Response to Requests for Admission filed.
Mar. 27, 2000	Petitioners` Objections to Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
Mar. 27, 2000	Respondents` Response in Opposition to Florida National Organization for Women, Inc`s Motion to Intervene filed.
Mar. 27, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` First Supplemental Response to Petitioners` Second Request for Production filed.
Mar. 27, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Second Supplemental Response to Petitioners` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 24, 2000	(J. Newton) Amended Notice of Service of Petitioner NAACP, Inc., Through Its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP s Answers to the Board of Regents` Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 24, 2000	Order on Respondents` Motion to Strike sent out.
Mar. 24, 2000	Order on Respondents` Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing sent out.
Mar. 24, 2000	Notice of Service of Petitioner, NAACP, Inc. Through Its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP`s Answers to the Board of Regents` Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 23, 2000	(E. Demme) Notice of Service of Respondents` Expert Interrogatories to Mattie Garvin; Notice of Service of Respondents` Expert Interrogatories to NAACP, Inc. filed.
Mar. 23, 2000	Respondents` Second Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Keith Garvin; Notice of Service of Respondents` Expert Interrogatories to Keith Garvin filed.
Mar. 23, 2000	Notice of Filing; Transcript (Motion Hearing) filed.
Mar. 23, 2000	The Florida National Organization for Women, Inc.`s Motion to Intervene filed.
Mar. 22, 2000	Order sent out. (ruling on motion to intervene)
Mar. 22, 2000	Respondents` Motion to Compel on Petitioner`s Response to Request for Production of Documents; Respondents` Motion to Compel on Petitioners` Response to Requests for Admission filed.
Mar. 22, 2000	Respondents` First Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor, Florida Now, Inc. filed.
Mar. 22, 2000	Respondent`s First Request for Admissions to Intervenor, Florida Now, Inc. filed.
Mar. 22, 2000	Notice of Service of Respondent`s First set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Florida Now, Inc. filed
Mar. 22, 2000	Notice of Appearance (James C. Cunningham, Jr.) filed.
Mar. 21, 2000	The Florida National Organization for Women, Inc.`s Motion to Intervene (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 21, 2000	Notice of Service of Petitioner Keith Garvin`s Answers to the Board of Regents` First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 21, 2000	Notice of Service of Petitioner Mattie Garvin, on Her Own Behalf and as Mother of Keigh Garvin`s Answers to the Board of Regents` First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 21, 2000	Notice of Service of Petitioner NAACP, Inc., Through its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP`s Answers to the Board of Regents` First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 20, 2000	Agency Action Letter; Notice of Intent to Deny; Statement of Disputed Facts filed.
Mar. 20, 2000	(V. Shirley) Notice of Service of Respondent`s Answers to Petitioners` Second Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 20, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Corrected Response to Petitioners` Fourth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 20, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Response to Petitioners` Fifth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 20, 2000	(W. Williams) Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
Mar. 20, 2000	(V. Shirley) Notice of Service of Respondents` Amended Interrogatory No. 18 to NAACP, Inc. filed.
Mar. 17, 2000	Petitioners` Response to Respondents` Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
Mar. 17, 2000	Letter to CCA from D. Thompson Re: Enclosing copies of cases cited in Response to Respondents` Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
Mar. 17, 2000	Petitioners` Response to Respondents` Motion to Strike filed.
Mar. 17, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Response to Petitioners` Third Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 17, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Response to Petitioners` Fourth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 17, 2000	Corrected Order of Assignment sent out.
Mar. 16, 2000	Notice of Service of Respondents` Second Set of Interrogatories to Keith Garvin filed.
Mar. 16, 2000	(V. Shirley) Notice of Service of Respondents` Second Set of Interrogatories to Mattie Garvin; Notice of Service of Respondents` Second Set of Interrogatories to NAACP, Inc. filed.
Mar. 16, 2000	(J. Newton) Response of Petitioner NAACP, Inc., Through Its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP`s to the Board of Regents` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 16, 2000	Petitioner Keith Garvin`s Response to the Board of Regents` Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 14, 2000	Notice of Service of Respondent`s Answers to Petitioners` First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 14, 2000	Order sent out. (Jim Rossi, Patricia A. Dore Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, is qualified to represent petitioners)
Mar. 14, 2000	Order sent out. (the hearing will be held in the Burns Auditorium, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee; April 7 and 10 at 10:00am; April 11 through 13 at 9:00am)
Mar. 14, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` First Amended and Supplemental Response to Petitioners` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 14, 2000	Petitioners` Fifth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 13, 2000	Petitioners` Response to Respondents` First Request for Admissions filed.
Mar. 13, 2000	Respondent Florida Board of Regents` Response to Petitioners` Second Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 13, 2000	Petitioners` Fourth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 13, 2000	Notice of Service of NAACP, Inc., Through its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP, Mattie Garvin, on her own behalf and as mother of Keith Garvin, and Keith Garvin`s Second Interrogatories to Board of Regents, State of Florida filed.
Mar. 10, 2000	Letter to CCA from J. Newton Re: Conference rooms filed.
Mar. 10, 2000	Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 7, April 7 and 10 through 13, 2000; 10:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL)
Mar. 10, 2000	Order of Pre-hearing Instructions sent out.
Mar. 10, 2000	Petitioners` Third Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 10, 2000	Respondent, Florida Board of Regents` Response to Petitioners` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 10, 2000	Order sent out. (petitioner`s written responses to motion to strike and dismiss shall be filed by 3/21/00)
Mar. 10, 2000	Notice of Hearing sent out. (oral argument will be conducted on 3/21/2000; 10:00 a.m.; Tallahassee)
Mar. 10, 2000	Petitioners` Notice of Filing Board of Regents Rule and Final Version of Challenged Rules filed.
Mar. 10, 2000	(E. Demme) Unreported decision w/cover letter filed.
Mar. 09, 2000	Letter to Judge from John D. C. Newton (re: Pages 17 & 18 were inadvertently omitted from the original Second Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of Proposed Rule) filed.
Mar. 08, 2000	Motion to Expedite Discovery filed.
Mar. 08, 2000	Respondents` Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
Mar. 08, 2000	(D. Thompson, J. Newton, J. Rossi, J. Cummingham) Second Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of Proposed Rules filed.
Mar. 08, 2000	(J. Newton) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 08, 2000	Respondents` Motion to Strike filed.
Mar. 08, 2000	Order of Assignment sent out.
Mar. 07, 2000	Respondents` Response to Petitioners` Request for Admissions filed.
Mar. 06, 2000	Respondents` First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Mattie Garvin filed.
Mar. 06, 2000	Respondents` First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner NAACP, Inc.; Respondents` First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Keith Garvin filed.
Mar. 06, 2000	Notice of Service of Respondents` First Set of Interrogatories to Mattie Garvin; Notice of Service of Respondents` First Set of Interrogatories to Keith Garvin filed.
Mar. 06, 2000	(W. Williams) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Respondents` First Request for Admissions to Petitioners; Notice of Service of Respondents` First Set of Interrogatories to NAACP, Inc. filed.
Mar. 03, 2000	Petitioners` Second Request for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 03, 2000	(D. Thompson, J. Newton, J. Rossi) Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of Proposed Rules filed.
Mar. 03, 2000	Amended Notice of Appearance filed. (William E. Williams)
Mar. 01, 2000	(D.Thompson) Motion to Expedite Discovery (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 01, 2000	Notice of Service of NAACP, Inc., Through Its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP, Mattie Garvin, on her own behalf and as mother of Keith Garvin, and Keith Garvin`s First Set of Interrogatories to Board of Regents, State of Florida (filed via facsimile)
Mar. 01, 2000	Letter to Liz Cloud from M. Lockard w/cc: Carroll Webb and Agency General Counsel sent out.
Feb. 28, 2000	Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile).
Feb. 28, 2000	Petitioner`s First Request for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile).
Feb. 28, 2000	Motion to Permit Appearance as Qualified Representative (filed via facsimile).
Feb. 28, 2000	Notice of Appearance filed.
Feb. 28, 2000	Petition to Determine invalidity of a Proposed Rule (filed via facsimile).

Orders for Case No: 00-000952RP

Issue Date	Document	Summary
Jun. 18, 2004	Opinion
Jun. 18, 2004	Mandate
Nov. 14, 2003	Other
Jul. 12, 2000	DOAH Final Order	Proposed amendments to the Board of Regents` rules on student admissions were valid, with the exception that attempt at repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 is invalid.

Source: Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

NAACP, INC., THROUGH ITS FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NAACP, MATTIE GARVIN, ON HER OWN BEHALF AND AS MOTHER OF KEITH GARVIN, AND KEITH GARVIN vs FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS AND THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 00-000952RP (2000)

Docket for Case No: 00-000952RP

Orders for Case No: 00-000952RP

Jeff Goodman

Michael James Rossi

Vikki R Shirley

Barry Morris Silver

John D Campbell Newton

Linda Gurfein Miklowitz

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.

Summer 99	783	400	484	302		20		15
*Summer 99	134	87	258	144		8		7
Fall 99	546	211	1008	407		35		20
*Fall 99	329	117	847	348		24		4
Total 99	1329	611	1492	709		55		35
Total 00 11@	463	204*	1105		492#		32

GPA	SAT	SAT*	ACT
2.0	1,050	1140	25
2.1	1,020	1110	24
2.2	990	1090	23
2.3	960	1060	22
2.4	930	1030	22
2.5	900	1010	21
2.6	890	1000	21
2.7	880	990	21
2.8	870	980	20
2.9	860	970	20

NAACP, INC., THROUGH ITS FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NAACP, MATTIE GARVIN, ON HER OWN BEHALF AND AS MOTHER OF KEITH GARVIN, AND KEITH GARVIN vs FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS AND THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 00-000952RP (2000)

Docket for Case No: 00-000952RP

Orders for Case No: 00-000952RP

Lawyers who claimed

Jeff Goodman

Michael James Rossi

Vikki R Shirley

Barry Morris Silver

John D Campbell Newton

Linda Gurfein Miklowitz

Counsels

Cites

USC (1)

Florida Laws (12)

Florida Administrative Code (16)

Authorities (14)

Cited By (14)

Similar Cases

Note

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.