You can access the Equity Review Procedure Here

1. Reviewer Training & Preparation

Before touching a single application, all reviewers complete required preparation to ensure consistency and fairness.

This includes:

• Implicit bias education through UC Learning Center modules

• Review of a standardized scoring rubric focused on content, lived experience, and alignment with advocacy values

• Commitment to confidentiality and equity-focused evaluation

This creates shared expectations and reduces inconsistencies or subjective interpretations.

2. Individual & Independent Review of Applications

Each reviewer independently evaluates all applications using the same rubric. We do this to avoid group bias and ensure applicants are assessed on their merits.

Reviewers are instructed to focus on:

• The substance and sincerity of responses

• The applicant’s lived experience, community context, or personal insight relevant to policy issues

• Broad definitions of leadership, including caregiving, work, cultural responsibilities, community roles, and activism
  
  

Importantly, reviewers are prohibited from:

• Overvaluing writing polish, grammar, or formal policy experience

• Prioritizing institutional privilege or “traditional” leadership

• Considering assumptions about identity (only voluntary disclosures)
  
  

This approach levels the playing field for students from all backgrounds.

3. Scoring Before Discussion

Reviewers submit all scores independently before any group conversation begins. This step:

• Prevents stronger personalities from influencing others

• Protects applicants from comparison-based judgments

• Ensures that the first evaluation of every application is unbiased and grounded in rubric criteria
  
  

All identifying information is omitted from discussion materials unless voluntarily disclosed by the applicant.

4. Equity-Informed Consensus Meeting

Once individual reviews are complete, the committee meets to:

• Review aggregated scores

• Discuss applicant strengths

• Consider how each student’s lived experience enriches the delegation

• Evaluate representation needs across identity groups (never based on assumptions)
  
  

In this meeting, reviewers avoid subjective language like “fit,” which can reinforce bias. Instead, deliberations are grounded in values of inclusion, fairness, and relevance to advocacy goals. This ensures the final delegation is not only strong but also reflective of the diversity of the communities we advocate for.

5. Final Selection & Equity Check

Before selections are confirmed, the committee performs a deliberate equity check to ensure:

• Balanced representation across marginalized identities

• No group is unintentionally underrepresented

• Decisions align with the purpose of each advocacy trip

• Waitlist determinations follow the same transparent criteria

Adjustments at this stage are made only for equity, not preference or convenience.

6. Documentation, Transparency, and Annual Reflection