C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 106—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE › Subpart C—Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Admission and Recruitment Prohibited

34 C.F.R. § 106.21

Admission

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be denied admission, or be subjected to discrimination in admission, by any recipient to which this subpart applies, except as provided in §§ 106.16 and 106.17.

(b) Specific prohibitions. (1) In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which this subpart applies shall not:

(i) Give preference to one person over another on the basis of sex, by ranking applicants separately on such basis, or otherwise;

(ii) Apply numerical limitations upon the number or proportion of persons of either sex who may be admitted; or

(iii) Otherwise treat one individual differently from another on the basis of sex.

(2) A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for admission which has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless the use of such test or criterion is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria which do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable.

(c) Prohibitions relating to marital or parental status. In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which this subpart applies:

(1) Shall not apply any rule concerning the actual or potential parental, family, or marital status of a student or applicant which treats persons differently on the basis of sex;

(2) Shall not discriminate against or exclude any person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, or establish or follow any rule or practice which so discriminates or excludes;

(3) Shall treat disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability or physical condition; and

(4) Shall not make pre-admission inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for admission, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.” A recipient may make pre-admission inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for admission, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with dis-crimination prohibited by this part.

[45 FR 30955, May 9, 1980, as amended at 85 FR 30579, May 19, 2020; 89 FR 33886, Apr. 29, 2024; 91 FR 61317, Sept. 29, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (1982). · cites it 2× “[28] Similarly, for example, the specific Title IX regulations governing student admissions policies — which are indisputably covered by the statute — are phrased generally, providing that "[n]o person shall, on the basis of sex, be denied admission, or be subjected to…”
Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corr. v. Dist. of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994). “22 (no admission preference for graduates of single sex schools if preference has *675 discriminatory effect), 106.23(b) (no recruitment primarily at single sex schools if it has discriminatory effect), 106.”
Pederson v. Louisiana State Univ., 213 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2000). “, 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.21 (admissions), 106.42 (textbooks), 106.”
Sharif ex rel. Salahuddin v. New York State Educ. Dep't, 709 F. Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). “For example, the provision governing admissions procedures, 34 CFR § 106.21 (b)(2), prohibits a recipient from administering] or operating] any test or other criteria for admission which has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless the use of…”
Hillsdale Coll. v. Dep't of Health, 696 F.2d 418 (6th Cir. 1982). “9 ), the tests which Hillsdale may require the students to take as a condition of admission ( 34 C.F.R. § 106.21 (2)), how Hillsdale may use its own funds to aid the students ( 34 C.”
Pederson v. Louisiana State Univ., 201 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2000). “, 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.21 (admissions), 106.42 (textbooks), 106.”
Mabry v. State Bd. of Cmty. Colleges & Occupational Educ., 813 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1987). “As we discuss in this opinion, we see no reason to establish different substantive standards for sex discrimination under Title IX and under Title VII. . Mabry’s counsel argued as follows: Now, I think Your Honor has the discretion to say, Well, this is not a Title IX case, this…”
Doe v. Harvard Univ., 410 F. Supp. 3d 332 (D. Mass. 2019). “677, 688-89 (1946); 34 C.F.R. § 106.21 . Neither plaintiff’s complaint nor her briefing identifies which of the several theories of Title IX liability she intends to pursue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.