The Combating Hate Across Campus Act amends the Higher Education Act’s disclosure rule for campus security policy and crime statistics (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii)) to require institutions of higher education to disaggregate reported hate-crime data by subcategory of the targeted individual or group using the identity categories listed in the FBI’s Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual.
The change forces colleges and universities subject to federal reporting to align campus hate-crime reporting with the FBI’s identity-based subcategories and to adopt whatever updates the FBI publishes as the “most recently available” manual. That creates immediate compliance work for campus safety offices, IT systems, and reporting workflows, while raising questions about privacy, comparability over time, and resourcing for smaller institutions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii) to add a requirement that campus hate-crime data be disaggregated by subcategory based on the identity of the targeted individual or group, using the FBI’s Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual. It specifies that the disaggregation follow the categories in the most recently available FBI manual.
Who It Affects
All institutions of higher education that currently must disclose campus security policy and campus crime statistics under the Higher Education Act (commonly those subject to the Clery Act). Campus public-safety offices, institutional compliance teams, IT/reporting vendors, and researchers who use campus crime data will be directly affected.
Why It Matters
This aligns campus-level reporting with federal hate-crime taxonomy, increasing granularity for researchers and policymakers while shifting operational burden to institutions. Because the bill adopts the FBI manual as the authoritative list and references the “most recently available” edition, it creates an automatic update mechanism that affects longitudinal comparability and implementation planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes a targeted amendment to the Higher Education Act’s disclosure provision for campus security and crime statistics. Right now, institutions collect and report hate-crime data by broad categories of prejudice.
The bill keeps that requirement but adds a new layer: institutions must break those counts down by the identity-based subcategories the FBI sets out in its Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual.
Practically, that means campuses will need to map each reported incident to the FBI’s subcategories for the targeted party — for example, the FBI’s subcategories under race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and other listed identities. The bill ties the required taxonomy to the “most recently available” FBI manual, so when the FBI changes or refines categories the campus reporting standard changes automatically.
The statutory change is narrow in text but broad in operational effect: it changes what counts get collected and what gets published in institutional crime statistics.The amendment does not in itself create new penalties, funding, or enforcement mechanisms; it only changes the content institutions must collect and report. Implementation therefore will be an administrative task: updating incident-reporting forms, training campus responders and records staff on the FBI subcategories, adjusting public reporting templates, and coordinating with local police records where appropriate.
Because the FBI manual can be updated, institutions must also build a process to adopt future categorical changes and preserve comparability for past data.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii) — the statutory disclosure subsection governing campus security policy and crime statistics.
It requires hate-crime data to be disaggregated by subcategory “based on the identity of the targeted individual or group” as listed in the FBI’s Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual.
The statute ties required categories to the “most recently available” FBI manual, so institutions must follow future FBI revisions without additional legislative action.
The amendment does not specify funding, enforcement mechanisms, or deadlines for institutions to change their reporting systems.
The change will affect institutions subject to Clery-style reporting, their campus safety and compliance offices, and researchers who rely on campus hate-crime statistics for analysis.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Combating Hate Across Campus Act
Provides the Act’s short title; no substantive effect on reporting or compliance. This is the formal name used to cite the amendment in legal references and communications.
Add mandatory disaggregation by FBI identity subcategory
Strikes existing language that required reporting "according to category of prejudice" and inserts a two-part requirement: keep category-level reporting and add disaggregation by subcategory based on the identity of the targeted individual or group as listed in the FBI manual. Mechanically, institutions must now capture and report both the broad prejudice category and the FBI’s more granular target-identity subcategory for each hate-crime incident the statute covers. Because the bill references the "most recently available" FBI manual, compliance will require institutions to track and adopt FBI updates over time, not just a single static checklist.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students and targeted communities — More granular public reporting can reveal patterns of targeted hostility (for example, by religion, sexual orientation, or disability) that inform prevention and support efforts.
- Researchers and civil-rights organizations — Standardized, identity-disaggregated campus data improves the ability to analyze trends, compare campuses, and support policy or litigation efforts grounded in consistent federal categories.
- Federal policymakers and the FBI — Aligning campus reports with the FBI taxonomy produces data that more readily aggregates into federal hate-crime statistics and policy analysis.
Who Bears the Cost
- Institutions of higher education — Campus safety, compliance, and IT teams must update intake forms, recordkeeping systems, public reports, and training protocols to capture FBI subcategories; smaller colleges may face disproportionate administrative and financial burdens.
- Campus public-safety and records staff — Staff will need new training to classify incidents accurately under FBI subcategories, increasing workload and potential for classification errors that affect data quality.
- Students (privacy and stigma risks) — Recording and publishing more granular target-identity data may raise privacy concerns for victims or targeted groups and could risk re-stigmatizing individuals if not reported carefully and aggregated appropriately.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the public-value of more granular, standardized hate-crime data and the costs and risks of collecting and publishing identity-based detail: better data strengthens prevention and accountability but imposes resource burdens, creates privacy challenges, and risks unstable time-series comparability when the FBI’s taxonomy changes.
The amendment is precise in scope but opens several practical and policy complications. First, tying campus reporting to the FBI manual improves standardization but reduces local discretion: campuses and local law enforcement currently use varied practices, and automatic adoption of FBI revisions can create backward-compatibility issues for longitudinal analysis.
Second, the bill does not address how identity information should be collected in ways that protect victims’ privacy or comply with student-record privacy laws. The statute mandates identity-based disaggregation but does not specify whether reports must include counts only, de-identified summaries, or any limits on publishing potentially sensitive cross-tabulations.
Third, implementation will require resources that the bill does not provide. Smaller institutions and those relying on third-party vendors for Clery reporting will need to renegotiate systems and add staff time for mapping old categories to new subcategories.
Finally, the operational distinction between the identity of a targeted individual/group and the perpetrator’s characteristics can be legally and factually messy; the bill assumes straightforward identification of target identity, but real incidents often involve ambiguous intent or multiple targets, which raises classification disputes and potential challenges to data accuracy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.