II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3232 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the standards for 

accreditation of an institution of higher education to assess the institution’s adoption of admissions practices that refrain from preferential 

treatment in admissions based on an applicant’s relationship to alumni 

of, or donors to, the institution, to authorize a feasibility study on 

data collection, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

the standards for accreditation of an institution of higher 

education to assess the institution’s adoption of admissions practices that refrain from preferential treatment 

in admissions based on an applicant’s relationship to 

alumni of, or donors to, the institution, to authorize 

a feasibility study on data collection, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3232 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Merit-based Edu3 cational Reforms and Institutional Transparency Act’’ or 

4 the ‘‘MERIT Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ASSESSMENT OF ADMISSIONS PRACTICES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.— 

7 (1) STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION.—Section 

8 496(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

9 U.S.C. 1099b(a)(5)) is amended— 

10 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), 

11 (H), (I), and (J), as subparagraphs (H), (I), 

12 (J), and (K), respectively; 

13 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (F) 

14 the following: 

15 ‘‘(G) adoption of admissions practices that 

16 refrain from any manner of preferential treat17 ment in the admission process to applicants on 

18 the basis of the applicant’s relationship to— 

19 ‘‘(i) alumni of the institution; or 

20 ‘‘(ii) donors to the institution;’’; 

21 (C) in subparagraph (H), as redesignated 

22 under subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and ad23 missions’’; and 

24 (D) in the flush matter at the end, by 

25 striking ‘‘subparagraphs (A), (H), and (J)’’ and 

26 inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (A), (I), and (K)’’. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3232 IS

1 (2) PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT DEFINITION.— 

2 Section 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

3 (20 U.S.C. 1099b) is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(r) PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.—For the purpose 

6 of subsection (a)(5)(G), the term ‘preferential treatment’ 

7 means making an admissions decision or awarding tan8 gible education benefits where an applicant’s relationship 

9 with an alumni of, or donor to, the deciding institution 

10 serves as the determinative factor.’’. 

11 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Section 496(p) of the 

12 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(p)) is 

13 amended— 

14 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 

15 subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and mov16 ing the margins of such subparagraphs (as so redes17 ignated) 2 ems to the right; 

18 (2) by striking ‘‘Nothing in subsection (a)(5) 

19 shall be construed to restrict the ability of’’ and in20 serting the following: 

21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in subsection 

22 (a)(5) shall be construed to restrict the ability of’’; 

23 and 

24 (3) by adding at the end of the following: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 3232 IS

1 ‘‘(2) DEMONSTRATED INTEREST.—Nothing in 

2 subparagraph (G) of subsection (a)(5) shall be con3 strued to prevent institutions from considering the 

4 demonstrated interest of an applicant as a factor in 

5 admissions decisions if— 

6 ‘‘(A) the criteria for assessing dem7 onstrated interest are clearly defined and made 

8 publicly available; 

9 ‘‘(B) the applicant is provided the oppor10 tunity to explain why they have a demonstrated 

11 interest in the institution, which may be in12 formed by lived experiences, values, attributes, 

13 and faith; and 

14 ‘‘(C) the opportunities to demonstrate in15 terest are equally accessible to all applicants, 

16 regardless of their financial resources, alumni 

17 affiliation, or donor affiliation. 

18 ‘‘(3) FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS.—Nothing in 

19 subparagraph (G) of subsection (a)(5) shall be con20 strued to inhibit the right of a religious institution 

21 to make admissions decisions consistent with the in22 stitution’s faith-based values.’’. 

23 (c) REPORT.— 

24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

25 after the date of completion of the negotiated ruleVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:04 Nov 09, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3232.IS S3232

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
5 

•S 3232 IS

1 making process under section 492 of the Higher 

2 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1098a) with re3 spect to the amendments made by this section, and 

4 biennially thereafter, the Secretary of Education 

5 shall submit to the Committee on Health, Edu6 cation, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the 

7 Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 

8 House of Representatives a report that identifies the 

9 efforts taken to ensure compliance with the require10 ments of this section and the amendments made by 

11 this section, including— 

12 (A) any technical assistance the Secretary 

13 has provided; 

14 (B) any regulatory guidance the Secretary 

15 has issued; and 

16 (C) any compliance monitoring the Sec17 retary has conducted. 

18 (2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Each report de19 scribed under paragraph (1) shall be made available 

20 to the public. 

21 SEC. 3. FEASIBILITY STUDY TO IMPROVE DATA COLLEC22 TION. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the 

24 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education 

25 shall explore the feasibility of working with the National 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
6 

•S 3232 IS

1 Student Clearinghouse to establish a third-party method 

2 to collect and produce institution-level analysis of data on 

3 the impact of an admissions decision based on an appli4 cant’s relationship with an alumni of, or donor to, the de5 ciding institution, and how such data reported to the Na6 tional Student Clearinghouse could be secured, while con7 sidering the following: 

8 (1) Whether data reported to the National Stu9 dent Clearinghouse can accurately capture the im10 pact and prevalence of admitting students with 

11 alumni or donor affiliations at various institutions. 

12 (2) Whether institutions have clear and defined 

13 policies regarding admitting students with alumni or 

14 donor affiliations that can be transparently reported 

15 to the National Student Clearinghouse. 

16 (3) Whether this new data stream can be inte17 grated with reporting to the Integrated Postsec18 ondary Education Data System (IPEDS) while en19 suring that the quality of data remains consistent or 

20 improves compared to the data provided through 

21 IPEDS. 

22 (4) Whether reporting this new data might 

23 alter the current interaction between institutions and 

24 the National Student Clearinghouse. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
7 

•S 3232 IS

1 (5) Whether reporting such data can maintain 

2 confidentiality, especially regarding private dona3 tions and donor identities, while still producing accu4 rate measures of institutional practices. 

5 (6) Whether the National Student Clearing6 house can satisfy data reporting requirements with7 out transferring any disaggregated data that would 

8 be personally identifiable to the Department of Edu9 cation. 

10 (7) Whether the data can be reported in such 

11 a way that it separates students with familial ties to 

12 alumni from those admitted due to direct donor af13 filiations. 

14 (8) Whether there’s a distinction in admissions 

15 criteria for legacy and donor-affiliated applicants 

16 compared to traditional applicants. 

17 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec18 tion shall be construed to authorize the development of 

19 a nationwide database of personally identifiable informa20 tion on individuals involved in studies or other collections 

21 of data under this Act or an amendment made by this 

22 Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS