BILL NUMBER: S4669

SPONSOR: COMRIE
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the executive law, in relation to harassment of students
and applicants at certain educational institutions

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

The ACCESS Act would strengthen protections under the State Human Rights
Law against unlawful discriminatory practices at educational insti-
tutions, including by aligning the protections afforded students with
the protections that the law presently provides to employees, with the
goal of encouraging educational institutions to more effectively protect
students from discriminatory harassment.

 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

Section 1 titles the bill the "assuring college campus and educational
safety and support (ACCESS) act".

              

Section 2 amends subdivision 4 of section 296 of the Executive Law,
pertaining to educational institutions, to include in the definition of
unlawful discriminatory practices when an educational institution, with
respect to any program or activity, excludes an individual from partic-
ipation, denies the benefits thereof, or subjects to discrimination
based on the student's identity. This is consistent with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Section 2 also defines harassment as unlawful discriminatory conduct
consistent with its definition in paragraph h of subdivision 1 of
section 296 of the Executive Law, which defines harassment for employ-
ees, so that students do not have to suffer a higher level of harassment
to warrant the law's protection.

Section 2 also requires educational institutions to take reasonable care
to prevent or to promptly curtail and remedy acts of harassment, and
enumerates steps that colleges and universities must take in order not
to be deemed to have permitted an incident of harassment, including the
promulgation of rules; the establishment of mechanisms for reporting,
investigation, and adjudication; the establishment of penalties; the
clear communication and consistent administration of such rules, mech-
anisms and penalties; and the undertaking of reasonable measures to
prevent the on-campus presence of unaffiliated individuals who engage in
harassment.

Section 3 establishes the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

According to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary
Education, 118 hate crimes were reported at colleges and universities in
New York in 2022. 41.5t of these were hate crimes based on race; 31.4t
were based on religion; and 7.6t were based on gender, gender identity,
or sexual orientation.

Hate crimes, of course, represent a severe but small subset of incidents
of bias at educational institutions.
Jewish students have experienced a dramatic increase in incidents of
antisemitism since the terrorist attack by Hamas against Israel on Octo-
ber 7, 2023. Hillel International, the largest Jewish student organiza-
tion in the world, tracks antisemitism on college campuses, and reports
an increase from 290 incidents in the 2022-23 school year to 1,854 in
the 2023-24 school year. The problem of antisemitism on campus is
particularly acute in New York. In a 2023 study conducted by Cohen
Center for Modern Jewish Studies, three of twelve institutions of higher
education identified as having the nation's highest levels of anti-Semi-
tic hostility are located in New York.

Likewise, a 2023 report by the Lumina Foundation found that more than
one-fifth of Black students at colleges and universities felt "frequent-
ly" or "occasionally" discriminated against, and that this was a signif-
icant factor contributing to non-completion. More than a quarter of
Black students who attended schools with little diversity felt phys-
ically unsafe.

Many other groups of students are victimized because of their identity,
and educational institutions in New York have significantly more work to
do to prevent and address incidents of discriminatory harassment. The
vagueness of New York State's Human Rights Law (HRL), however, gives
them little reason to do so.

Subdivision 4 of HRL section 296 makes it an "unlawful discriminatory
practice" for an educational institution to "permit the harassment of
any student or applicant" based on aspects of the student's identity,
but says nothing about what it means to "permit" such conduct, or what
constitutes "harassment." Moreover, amendments to the HRL enacted in
2019 that clarified and strengthened its protections against discrimi-
nation in other contexts, particularly for employees, were not made to
apply to educational institutions.

This legislation amends HRL 296 to establish a standard for demonstrat-
ing that an educational institution has violated the law that is the
same as the standard currently in effect for an employer, licensing
agency, employment agency, or labor organization. It also requires
educational institutions to take reasonable care to prevent and correct
acts of harassment, and defines more precisely what it means for a
college or university to "permit harassment" under subdivision 4,
including a failure to promulgate rules; establish mechanisms for
reporting, investigation, and adjudication; establish penalties; clearly
communicate and consistently administer such rules, mechanisms and
penalties; or take reasonable measures to prevent the on-campus presence
of unaffiliated individuals who engage in harassment.

As is currently the case, this law would be enforceable by the Division
of Human Rights, by the Attorney General (in the case of a pattern of
violations), or through a private right of action. The aim of the legis-
lation, of course, is to focus educational institutions on adequately
protecting students and responding appropriately to incidents of harass-
ment.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

This is a new bill.

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.