Free Application Code
A $25 Value
"*" indicates required fields
Colleagues – by now I imagine that most of you are aware of the Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education concerning what it terms “illegal” DEI activities. The Department has promised more guidance in the days ahead, and while we’ll see what that holds, the 2-week time frame referenced in the letter has been driving us to think through options to remain in compliance with the new interpretation of federal law. You’ve seen communications concerning responses from your campus leaders. My goal here is to share with you some of the thinking across our system that underpins these approaches.
At all of our campuses to some extent, programs that we see as integral to student success are squarely in the areas being targeted by the Department of Education. We have argued, and continue to believe, that these programs are fully legal. They are open to all students, and, at their core, they speak to two fundamental principles as old as CSU: that every student, regardless of race, gender, background, etc., should feel welcome here; and that we want to provide the resources for every student to succeed. Such programs give students a place to feel at home, exchange experiences with people from similar backgrounds who are experiencing similar things, and generally to be affirmed as belonging and being welcomed at CSU – and having what it takes to be successful here. It’s odd for me to write about such experiences because, as a white man who has spent 29 of my 33 years at CSU in various positions of authority, I simply can’t experience these spaces the way so many others did and do. But I have spent time listening to many people who treasured these experiences, and I have come to understand what an important role such programs play in the journeys of so many of our alumni. Transformational, lifesaving – these are words applied to such experiences.
And….such programs may be, under the current Department of Education interpretation of federal law, viewed as illegal in that they utilize race or gender or sexual orientation as a factor in providing differential support to students, thus theoretically creating an unequal educational experience. It’s difficult for me to type that sentence because I find it silly – even offensive. I believe our approach has long been based on the pretty simple principle that providing student support and assistance tailored to the needs of the student is an attempt to create opportunities for all our students to be successful. We know that our students arrive at our doors with unequal preparation for the college experience – both academically and socioeconomically. It’s difficult to design programs that fit the needs of all CSU students because CSU students come from such wonderfully different backgrounds. Personally, I view students as guests in our home, and as one of their hosts I want to do everything possible to make them feel welcome.
Obviously, I would have arrived at a different conclusion about our programs than does our current Department of Education. And I’m also aware that my opinion isn’t very relevant to them.
I say that because I can see the flaws in my argument above. We’re all aware of the challenges that have arisen across American society around what is and what isn’t viewed as welcoming. I give you pronouns. Once the material of sleepy afternoons in middle school English classes, these little collections of letters designed for communication simplicity have become a symbol of welcome and inclusion for some students, and simultaneously for other students it may be an unwelcome intrusion that tries to dictate what they should think or are allowed to say – a stark choice that offers a pluralistic community no winning option. I personally worry that things we used to see as simply a way to get along with our neighbors are now viewed as threats to the way we believe we’re entitled to exist in the world, but clearly my views here are not uniformly shared as many others see such issues through a very different lens, and, if you’re still reading, it’s certainly not to learn about my concerns. Suffice it to say that I understand that there are people who will see the Department of Education’s position in a very different light than I do.
And so, we arrive at our current situation at the national policy level – a policy that impacts us on many local levels. Financial and organizational, certainly, but also, I think, in powerful ways in terms of how we see ourselves and what we do as an organization in the broader world. These challenges to a collective sense of being combine with the pragmatic steps that we believe we need to take to respond to the new interpretations and potential enforcement of federal law to create deep emotional impacts for many members of our community. And we’re hearing that play out as we consider implementation responses to the Dear Colleague letter.
Our approach to the Dear Colleague letter has been driven by the belief that in roughly two weeks we will have to affirm that we are functioning in accord with the Department of Education’s new interpretation of federal law regarding DEI programs. And that failing to do so will place all manner of federal funding at risk. And that enforcement actions could well be taken – and do extremely serious damage – before the issue is eventually sorted out by the courts – whose final decision seems anything but certain.
But I need to acknowledge that every aspect of the above beliefs that I just articulated is open to debate. When will affirmations actually arrive? What will the affirmations ask of us? Will CSU be selected for scrutiny? Would we be found to fall short without the changes we are making? Would court challenges to such a finding result in injunctive relief or other actions that could allow time for the judicial branch to speak? Are we over-responding? Are we responding too soon? Is this a situation that demands us to “resist” as some would call it?
As one asks and answers those questions, deploying one’s responses against the backdrop of each of our own world views, it’s easy to see why people come up with different approaches they favor toward the Dear Colleague letter. Some argue that we should stand firmly with our existing interpretation, defend our programs, and fight the legal battle to defend them if and when it comes to us. The concern that I have with this approach is that the risk we incur rests upon our employees and upon funding that is critical to supporting our students. Such a decision seems to me a bit like gambling with someone else’s stakes. If we gamble here and are wrong, someone else will pay the price. I’m always skeptical of making risky decisions where the decision maker doesn’t have to live with the risk.
An alternative is to argue that our mission still requires us to create an environment that welcomes everyone and tries to provide every student what they need to be successful; and that redeploying, reorganizing, and reorienting allows us to continue to provide critical support services for our students and jobs for our people while assuring that we are fully compliant with the Department of Education’s current interpretation of law. But there is risk here, as well. There is the risk that those who want to call the question and confront the Department of Education will see such an approach as failing in our commitment to values we all cherish. Is it courageous or foolish to pick a fight here? Is it cowardly or a sign of unbending commitment if we reorient and have our folks deliver student support in a different manner, protecting their jobs in the process? People who care deeply about these issues can ask those questions and come to different conclusions, I think.
And those differences in conclusions are reflected in responses to the options we are considering in response to the Dear Colleague letter. And our responses are different – and need to be different – across our campuses. The environment that CSU Global creates for its students is, for obvious reasons, under vastly different pressures than those faced by our face-to-face campuses. CSU Pueblo is a Hispanic Serving Institution, designated under Title V, which provides some legal protections for many of the programs offered at CSUP. In both these institutions, reviews of position descriptions and policies are on-going to assure we are compliant with the current interpretation of federal law. The situation at CSU Fort Collins is more complex. Here we find a face-to-face campus without Title V designation and with a rich, half-century tradition of supporting students from diverse backgrounds via a well-developed support system that is arguably now non-compliant with the Department of Education’s interpretation of federal law. Unless one wants to take up the argument that we should challenge this interpretation of federal law, the response here will likely need to consider redeploying people who have dedicated their careers to student success within focused areas into student success programs across the university and within colleges that have a broader reach and applicability. And the responses to such a potential change are predictably polarized. On the one hand, we have employees who are extremely grateful we have options to reassign them to jobs where they still play a critical role in student success, including the success of students currently served by their Centers. They see the changes being implemented as a change in approach, but not a fundamental underlying change in values in that we still are pursuing student success for all students. And we have employees – and students, and alumni – who see these actions as a betrayal – a capitulation to the illegal actions of an Administration that will eventually be corrected by the judicial branch of our government. The tearing down of 50 years of progress without lifting a finger to stop it. There’s pain and anger here, and that’s understandable.
To me, such different responses within a community with so many shared ideals imply that we each need to step back for a moment and challenge ourselves and our thinking, and to ask the fundamental question: what’s the right thing to do here? Is “bold resistance” simply us gambling with our employees’ careers and with our students’ futures? Or is that logic simply justification for taking the easiest path and avoiding doing the “right” thing because doing the “right” thing is difficult? I hope these are questions we will all wrestle with. And I’m certainly not here to tell you what to think. Each of you will have to find that answer within your own conscience. What is the “right” path forward? Is “courage” protecting our people by reorganizing in ways that many will find unpopular, even cowardly? Or is “courage” not taking those steps and defending things that have underpinned our approach as an educational organization for ½ a century – risks be damned? Again, people of goodwill may well find different answers to those questions. My dad used to say, “It’s a fine line between courage and foolishness; too bad it’s not a fence.” I find myself wishing our lines were clearer.
For my part, I have argued for the path of adaptation to our new environment. And this is an approach that I think many universities are following. The key, it seems to me, is resolutely supporting our students and the employees who provide that support. In today’s environment, that may mean reorganization. But it does not mean a retreat from a commitment to the values that have driven us and the outcomes that remain our goals – for every student to feel welcome and to succeed. Taking this path, in turn, means we’ll take some arrows from our friends and colleagues who see the situation differently. But, to me, the risk of the alternate approach – to our students, our people, and the long-term health of a university now entrusted to our care – is simply too great.
It is a risk that I cannot recommend to our Board of Governors, and so I have asked our campuses to take the necessary steps to begin planning to assure that we remain in compliance with the Department of Education’s Dear Colleague letter.
It remains my hope, and I know the hope of all our campus leaders, that while we are planning, new information may change our calculus. We would all embrace that. But to fail to begin to plan now in the face of the pace set by the Dear Colleague letter would, in my opinion, create a risk we should not take. That’s the conclusion I’ve reached in my own deliberations.
Is this conclusion appeasement? Or is it recognizing that to accomplish our mission and our goals, a different approach is needed for a different moment in time?
History will adjudicate that, as it does all things. All we can do is to wrestle with our challenge, and to do our best to do the right as God has given us to see the right (to quote Lincoln’s Second Inaugural).
I wish we didn’t have to wrestle with these challenges, but since they have found us, I’m proud to be wrestling with them alongside all of you.
Be well – Tony
Dr. Tony Frank
Chancellor, Colorado State University System