Emilie Waggoner, University of Colorado Denver

Abstract

In the past five years, institutions have continued to push back against political leaders and critics who seek to undue diversity and equity work at public institutions. From Florida legislature banning state and federal funds for DEI work to the overturning of affirmative action by the Supreme Court in 2023, colleges and universities have had to navigate new was of providing support and services for its most marginalized student populations, while students work to find their sense of belonging on their campuses. This case study highlights a situation where an institution has the ability to provide funding support for two identity-based courses for students, but must work amidst an ongoing legal challenge by an outside group focused on an identity-based office on the campus.

Keywords: diversity, equity, inclusion, DEI work, four-year college, leadership, legal cases, funding sources

Institution Background and Setting  

Bowing University is a four-year, R1 public university offering bachelor's, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Bowing University is in a state that currently does not have any legislature banning diversity, equity, or inclusion work at campuses and continues to run various offices dedicated to such programs, including a TRIO program office, an office focused on providing support and space for students in the LGBTQIA community, a Black Student Services Office, and a Latinx Community Office. The university serves roughly 15,000 students and has a population that identifies as 45% White, 30% Hispanic, 13% Black, and 12% Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander. The university is currently 60% female-identifying students and 40% male-identifying students. The university caters to 70% in-state students, 20% out-of-state students, and 10% international students. Two years ago, the university gained Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) status and applied for Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution (AANAPISI) status in the coming year.

Key Players

Dr. Cruz - Director of the Latinx Community Office and adjunct instructor in the Latinx Studies certificate program. Dr. Cruz has been at the university for 10 years and received her doctorate in educational leadership from the university two years prior. She was one of the key partners who worked on the university's HSI status committee. Dr. Cruz identifies as Hispanic and works closely with the Latinx Community Office to provide mentorship for students who identify as Hispanic.

Dr. Jones - Director of the Undergraduate Studies and First-Year Program. Dr. Jones oversees the university's first-year success programs and teaches a few of the college 101 courses. He has been at the university for five years and works closely with the TRIO Program Office to create a pipeline of students for recruitment via the first-year courses his program offers. Dr. Jones identifies as White and works to provide more access to college for students who identify as first-generation.

Lucas Smith - Community member who is the head of the group suing the University for what it claims to be race-based programs through the TRIO Office. Mr. Smith believes Bowing University is discriminating against White students by offering the TRIO programs. He also objects to how the university recruits for this program. His goal is to get the program to be discontinued. Mr. Smith identifies as White and attended a private liberal arts university on the East Coast, where he resides and works.

Lucille Watts - Head of Legal. Ms. Watts has been working for Bowing University for 13 years and received her JD from the large flagship university an hour from Bowing. Before taking up her position at Bowing University, Ms. Watts practiced law for 10 years and specialized in intellectual property rights. Ms. Watts identifies as White and has been following the affirmative action decision by the Supreme Court. She has already been working with the admissions office and other campus partners to review their program and practices to ensure they follow the new decision while furthering the university's goals.

Situation

Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones met to propose a new Latinx course that will be offered to all incoming first-year students and first-time transfer students. The course is a learning community that specifically pairs a college 101 course with a course about Latinx identity within American society and higher education. Dr. Cruz will use some of the HSI grant funding she received to pay for this learning community's instructor and cover the tuition and fees of the students who enroll in the courses. The goal is to target incoming students who identify as Hispanic to create community and identity within the community. Dr. Cruz will also include workshop requirements in the Latinx course for students to attend in the Latinx Community Office. Dr. Jones is excited about this new learning community and agrees to run it through the First Year Program for the upcoming fall. Dr. Jones has also been approached by the Director of the Black Student Services Office about creating a College 101 course for students who identify as Black. Again, the goal is to provide ongoing support and community-building within the course and the office throughout the students’ first semester. Dr. Jones sees the Latinx learning community as a pilot for this type of course in future semesters.

One day, Dr. Jones and Dr. Cruz are asked to meet with Ms. Watts, who informs them that a lawsuit by Mr. Smith has been announced on multiple news channels and that it is gaining a lot of views on social media. Dr. Jones and Dr. Cruz watched Mr. Smith's interview, in which he specifically targets Bowing University’s TRIO Office and Latinx Community Office. Mr. Smith says the TRIO program at Bowing University unfairly discriminates against white students and the Latinx Community Office does the same. Mr. Smith added that he’d heard from students and families concerned that there is a planned first-year learning community that will only allow in students who identify as Hispanic, which he claims further discriminates against other students. Mr. Smith’s interview has begun to circulate across various news sites, particularly dominating headlines on more conservative-leaning sites.

Ms. Watts shares that the university has not released an official statement and, currently, does not plan on shutting down the TRIO Program or the Latinx Community Office. However, Ms. Watts is concerned about running the proposed Latinx Learning Community. She shares that, while the HSI funds should not be impacted by this lawsuit since the HSI designation is a federal program, she does worry about how this will impact the lawsuit that Mr. Smith has filed against the university. She said the university is trying to downplay any additional press and does not want to remain in the spotlight. Ms. Watts shares that this lawsuit has shown up on many national news channels and is drawing a lot of community interest in the TRIO Program and the Latinx Community Office.

Dr. Cruz asserts, by not running the Latinx Learning Community, the university is folding under pressure from the lawsuit and that if HSI funds can be used to cover the program, then they should still be allowed to run the program. Dr. Jones is concerned about his office ending up in the press next and asks if there is a possibility that they could open up the learning community to other students. Ms. Watts shares that she would prefer, if the learning community runs, it be open to all students while sharing in the public description that it is highly recommended for students who identify as Hispanic.

Dr. Cruz does not agree and believes the learning community should remain only for Hispanic-identifying students, as the Latinx Community Office cannot offer other services outside of its student identity group. Dr. Jones believes, even if they must use this wording to open the learning community to non-Hispanic students, it will still naturally attract mostly Hispanic-identifying students based on the subject area of the courses. Dr. Cruz does not agree and says she will not fund the learning community if it does not remain focused on Hispanic-serving students.

Ms. Watts gives Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones one week to decide how to move forward. The lawsuit is still very new, and the details have not been made public to any staff members at the university other than the legal counsel and the university leadership, Ms. Watts shares, and asks Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones not to share this information with anyone, and to notify her via email once a decision has been made.

Teaching Notes

The case study reflects the current situations in which many universities and colleges across the nation are working, whether in regard to lawsuits targeting identity-based support offices or programs or having to find ways to maintain services under legislature banning DEI work at public institutions (Diaz, 2023; McGee 2023; Iyer, 2023). Understanding the impact of identity-based offices and support on-campus, as well as identification of belonging to institutions with federally designated programs such as HSI status, is important when looking at retention, persistence, and belonging (Gonzalez et al, 2020; Strayhorn, 2021). In addition, high-impact practices (HIPs), such as first-year experience programs and learning communities, continue to be implemented at universities and institutions to further student success and belonging (Gonzales and Baier, 2022). Other HIP practices that can assist historically excluded student groups or first-generation students include summer bridge programs, which connect students with faculty and staff and help students find identity as college students (Grace-Odeleye and Santiago, 2019). The balance of maintaining student support for historically excluded student identity groups, while also working with legal offices and potential outside threats of lawsuits, is difficult. Many higher education professionals have not had to deal with the scale of such an issue up until this point.

This case study asks students to consider the various stakeholders involved in this situation and how different decisions will impact the outcomes of the students, offices, and potential press. In addition, the case centers around relevant and ongoing issues public universities and colleges across America are grappling with as legislature and legal challenges impact diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, their staff, and their students. Presenting this case study to either undergraduate or graduate students allows for an opportunity for students to think through a complex higher education issue that has widespread impacts.

Discussion Questions and Activities

Small groups: Break students up into three groups of four to seven students and have them study on different perspectives in the case. For example: one group could take on the role of Dr. Cruz, another group could take on the role of Dr. Jones, and the last group could take on the role of Ms. Watts. Each group could discuss the following:

• With which stakeholders is this person most concerned?
• With which stakeholders is this person most concerned?
• How does this legal situation impact this person’s office?
• What are some key concerns the other people involved may have that you need to consider in making your decision?
• How might social media and news stories about this case impact the final decision of Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones?

Individual reflection questions: Instructors can assign this case to students individually and students could respond in written, video, or oral presentation in class, to the following questions:

• What are the key concerns each person in this case study may have, and why?
• Can collaboration help with making the final decision on whether or not to run the learning community? Why or why not?
• How might you suggest the three people involved come together to decide and move forward in a way that supports students, the various offices, and the goals of the university?
• Is anyone whose voice should be included in the decision missing from this group? If so, who?

Potential large-group discussions and topics to share: Instructors can also choose to share ongoing state cases that mirror the case study, including, but not limited to, the references made in the case study teaching notes as well as:

• Information on how legal counsels operate at universities
• Information on TRIO programs
• Information on federally funded programs such as HSI and AANAPISI statuses for colleges and universities
• Information and research on identity-based offices and program support and its impact on students from historically excluded communities

Large group discussion questions could include:

• How does identity play into a student’s experience on a college campus?
• How can offices continue to support students amidst limiting state legislature or legal court battles?
• How might community members impact how a university moves forward with a decision regarding identity-based offices or programs?
• What are factors we must consider when making decisions that impact staff, students, and community members while facing legislative order or legal challenges?

Additional part two for case study: Instructors can choose to include a follow-up to the case study, to add an additional layer of complex decision-making that higher education professionals can face. This follow-up could be added either after one of the aforementioned class activities or it can be added to the case study before discussion, reflection, or large-group questions. Part two allows the instructor to focus on the importance messaging plays for university leaders, and how different messages sent to different university stakeholders can shape the their perception of the university. The secondary part of the case study can be found below:

Additional case study information

One day after Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones meet with Ms. Watts, Bowing University sends out the following message from the President’s Office to all faculty and staff:

Dear Bowing University Faculty and Staff:

Bowing University is dedicated to the ongoing support of all our students, and we are aware of the legal challenge brought forward by Mr. Smith and his organization against our TRIO program and Latinx Community Office. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, we have included a link to Mr. Smith’s most recent interview at the bottom of this email.

As this is an ongoing legal case, we ask that staff and faculty refrain from giving interviews, writing personal blog posts, or making public comments on the legal situation we are facing. Our dedicated public relations team and legal counsel will be sending out a drafted statement to the press later this afternoon, and we will continue to keep our staff and faculty abreast of any updates we are legally allowed to share.

We know this case directly impacts our historically excluded student groups and many of our staff and faculty who identify within the communities being targeted or who work in the offices being named in this legal case. We encourage you to share with students that Bowing University does not plan on closing any of the programs or offices listed in the legal case, and that the university remains dedicated to supporting all our students.

As you may also know, we received HSI status two years ago and are hoping to apply to be considered for AANAPISI status within the next few years. As of now, HSI status continues to be a federally funded program, and our university will continue to operate within the funding structure granted by the United States Department of Education within HSI status institutions. If you or your office has been designated as a decision maker in utilizing HSI funding for current or future projects that have been created for our Hispanic-identifying students, we ask that you consult with our legal counsel before implementing any new programs. Please note that, while the funding can still be utilized, we are aware of the delicate balance we face in creating programs and maintaining a strong case against Mr. Smith’s organization.

Thank you for standing with our students, with one another, and with Bowing University. We will release a statement to students later this afternoon. Our legal counsel can answer any questions concerning your office or the case.

Sincerely,

Bowing University Presidential Cabinet

After reading the email, Dr. Cruz meets with Dr. Jones and says she feels the decision has already been made for them, as the email seems to imply that the learning community decision will ultimately be made for them by the legal counsel, led by Ms. Watts. Dr. Jones feels Ms. Watts wouldn’t have allowed them to work together if she intended to just make the final decision for them. Dr. Cruz says she has already had office staff asking if they are at risk of being fired if the program gets shut down. Also, they are worried about running any new programs because they don’t want to end up on social media or news sites. Dr. Cruz says she wants to push forward with the learning community and keep it open only for Hispanic-serving students, because if Bowing University’s presidential cabinet has said they stand with their students, that means they stand with supporting their Hispanic students and maintaining the goals and promises made to them when they received HSI status. Dr. Jones is worried about his program getting thrust into the spotlight if he agrees to host this learning community in the way Dr. Cruz wants to roll it out, but he also does not want to lose the opportunity to create a new learning community that could continue to be funded by the HSI grant rather than his office’s operating budget.

Questions for the small groups if the part two of the case study is used:

• Upon reading the email from Bowing University’s presidential cabinet, what are your first reactions to it?
• What stance do you think Bowing University is taking based on this email?
• Does this email impact your group’s decision regarding how Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones should move forward?
• Would you want to wait to read the email the university plans to send out to the students prior to making your decision? Why or why not?

Questions for individual reflections if part two of the case study is used:

• What are your reactions to reading the email from Bowing University’s presidential cabinet?
• How does this email impact your thoughts on how Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones should move forward with their decision?
• What new concerns does this email bring for Dr. Cruz, Dr. Jones, or Ms. Watts?
• Is there any additional information you need in order to make your final decision on what Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones should do moving forward?
• Would you want to wait to read the email the university plans to send out to the students prior to making your decision on how Dr. Cruz and Dr. Jones should move forward? Why or why not?

Questions for the large group:

• How does university messaging play into decisions made at the program level for higher education leaders?
• Do you think this email would change how you approach your decision in this case study? Why or why not?
• What additional information would you want to have before making your final decision?
• Would you want to wait to review the student email the university plans to send out? Why or why not?
• What are the additional layers of concern you must take into consideration after this email has been sent out?

References

Diaz, J. (2023, May 15). Florida gov. Ron DeSantis signs a bill banning DEI initiatives in public colleges. NPR.

Gonzales, S. M., & Baier, S. T. (2022). Are you HIP? How one Latinx learning community integrates ten high-impact practices to foster student success. A practice report. Student Success, 13(1), 74-79. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.1907.

Gonzalez, E., Ortega, G., Molina, M., & Lizalde, G. (2020. What does it mean to be a Hispanic-serving institution? Listening to the Latina/o/x voices of students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(8), 796-809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1751896.

Grace-Odeleye, B., & Santiago, J. (2019). A review of some diverse models of summer bridge programs for first-generation and at-risk college students. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Practice and Research, Summer 2019, 9(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.5929/9.1.2

Iyer, K. (2023, December 15). Oklahoma governor signs executive order defunding DEI efforts in public colleges. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12 /15/politics/oklahoma-dei-office-defund-reaj/index.html

McGee, K. (2023, May 27). Texas lawmakers find consensus on bill banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices in public universities. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/27/texas-university-diversity-equity-inclusion-dei-bill-conference/#:~:text=State%20lawmakers%20came %20to%20an,ago%2C%20with%20some%20minor%20changes.

Strayhorn, T.L. (2021). Exploring ethnic Minority First-year college students’ well-being and sense of belonging: A qualitative investigation of a brief intervention. American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR), 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/11422

About the Author

Emilie Waggoner serves as the Director of Student Transitions at the University of Colorado Denver, where she oversees the First-Year Experience Program, the Lynx Summer Academy Program, and the Peer Advocate Leader program. She also teaches in the FYE program in college success courses and in a course on Japanese anime. She is currently a doctoral student in the Leadership for Educational Equity in Higher Education program at the University of Colorado Denver.

CLEJHE

Read more posts by this author