Okay, well, let's go ahead and get started. Welcome to Is That Legal? Navigating Program Compliance for Student and Alumni Communities. I am Jessica Elmore. I am going to be facilitating our workshop today. Just a little bit about myself. What I am showing you is a tool that I like to use to introduce myself. It's called an identity slide. And I like to use it with participants to kind of share with folks about who I am behind the identities that people might see. And this also allows me to share like some of the identities that I'm bringing to the space that helps inform the work that I get to do. So the fact that I am an advancement practitioner, I have specialized in alumni relations for over 12 years. I developed alumni and student programming within that advancement space. Currently, I'm one of the lead trainers for CASE, and I use my expertise to help other practitioners expand their skills. I have the identity of an African-American, and this identity has informed a lot of my life experience no matter where I've traveled in the world. And that also helps me in processing nuanced and layered environments, what I think is important for this time in this space. I'm also sharing that I am a college graduate. And I share that because as we discuss auditing programs, I'm thinking about the programs that have impacted my own college going experience, and the programming that allowed me to cultivate relationships with alumni and donors that I manage. So that lens is informing what we're doing today. And then for the geographic, I am pulling from my experience of living and doing work on the West Coast and the Midwest, down South and now on the East Coast. And that's important because different regions are experiencing various state legislative restrictions, and regional cultural norms are important to understand in order for us to bring value to the institutions. And so I'm excited that I have the chance to bring that experience of that lens to this space as we get a chance to work together. Now for our time together, it's a pretty short agenda, but I think it's gonna be jam-packed with some wonderful information. You'll have a chance to work with one another. But we're gonna kick off with our legal expert, Erica Turret. I'm really excited about what she has to share with us today. Then we'll go into the strategic programming discussion where I'll talk about Kenji Oshoni's 3Ps framework, and then we'll actually end our time together with an activity where you will get to do some practice work on auditing some programs. And then we'll do some final and closing thoughts. Now at CASE, we have this habit that we have, which is called No Feel Do. And so it's pretty much as a facilitator, as I think about our time coming together, what would I like the audience to know? How would I hope or at least encourage you to feel? And then what would we like you to do when our time is over? And so what I'd like you to know, since this is a legal kind of conversation, the information provided in this workshop is for educational purposes only and does not constitute as legal advice. So please consult a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance. As for feel, I would hope or I would like for you to feel empowered to have meaningful conversations with your colleagues and stakeholders. That'll make a little bit more sense when we do our activities, but that is something that I am hoping I can bring to you. And then for the do, utilize the audit tool to help guide and document your programming decisions. You would have received, at least in the LMS, the documents, and then also we'll put that in the chat, but you will have received a toolkit and the activity and then also the slides for today. Now onto our wonderful legal expert. We have with us Erika Turrett is an associate at Jenner & Block Law Firm. Erika helps clients tackle complicated statutory and constitutional questions in a variety of areas. She assists clients in navigating high profile matters before trial and appellate courts, administrative agencies, and Congress. Erika supports the firm's proud tradition of addressing high impact issues by serving as an associate co-chair of the Organizational Values and Strategy Task Force. In this role, she advises educational institutions, foundations, nonprofit organizations, and companies on legal strategy, helping them review and fortify their diversity initiatives in evolving landscapes. A member of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, Erika is a core associate member of the firm's education practice. She assists colleges and universities with high profile issues and disputes, including those related to admissions, Title VI, Title IX, and free speech. Erika maintains a robust pro bono practice focusing on access to healthcare. She completed a pro bono fellowship at National Health Law Program. Erika continues to work closely with the organization representing low income Medicaid enrollees in high profile litigation at all levels of federal courts. Let us welcome Erika. I'm gonna stop sharing screen. There we go. Thanks so much, Jessica, for that warm introduction. And it's really great to be here with you all today to discuss these really important issues. As Jessica said, I'm gonna go through the legal background and landscape that informs where we all are today. And then we'll have some time at the end for questions as well before you all proceed to the activity phase of today's program. So we can go to the next slide. So the first thing we wanna talk about is something you may all be very familiar with, which is the Students for Fair Admissions decision and subsequent legal challenges that have arisen since. So in June, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent and held that race conscious college admissions programs were unlawful. This was a sea change that reversed 50 years in which colleges and universities considered race for the recognized purpose of promoting diversity and ensuring that college environments were home to a wide variety of students from all different backgrounds. In 2023, this changed and the decision applies equally to both public and private institutions. The decision only concerned admissions decisions. However, almost immediately those behind the efforts to strike down race conscious admissions sought to expand the court's holding to a variety of other contexts, both within higher education and outside of higher education, which we'll talk about. But one of the fastest moving areas in which proponents of the decision sought to expand it to is in this realm of admissions adjacent decisions. So those could be with respect to recruitment programs, yield programs in which students might be invited to a paid visit to campus after they are admitted and of course, financial aid and scholarships. Historically to the Department of Education's guidance with respect to the consideration of race in these non-admissions decisions like financial aid and scholarships, like other campus programming, the decision was pretty sparse. It generally tracked the Supreme Court cases on admissions, but for your all awareness, the last time the Department of Education, for example, introduced comprehensive specific guidance on how race could be considered in financial aid and scholarship decisions was all the way back in 1994. So we've really all been operating in a world with little regulatory guidance on these issues. However, within the Department of Education, the Office of Civil Rights over decades has entered into many resolution agreements with colleges and universities. A resolution agreement is when the Department of Education and a college or university together decide to voluntarily resolve a complaint of discrimination. And through those resolution agreements, we've been able to get more insight into the department's approach to race-based programming outside of admissions. And as we'll talk about, the Department of Education has treated, for example, race-exclusive programming, race-exclusive scholarships with extreme skepticism even prior to the Supreme Court's decision in June, 2023 in SFFA. So with that background in mind, let's turn to what the Supreme Court actually said in SFFA. We can go to the previous slide. Great, thank you. Sorry, one more after this one. Perfect, thank you. So the key language of the decision, sorry, one more back. Perfect. Is that colleges and universities cannot consider race for race's sake. That means that whether an admissions reader or anyone at the institution learns of the applicant's race via a checkbox on an application through a response to an essay in which the applicant self-discloses their race, through a recommendation letter in which a teacher or a counselor discusses the applicant's race, regardless of how it's learned, the institution cannot note the applicant's race and then advantage or disadvantage the applicant in the admissions process due to race. And the Supreme Court was really focused on the idea of avoiding racial stereotypes that we cannot assume that just because someone is of a certain race, that they bring a certain perspective or lived experience to the institution. And that's really what the quote from the decision says on this page, that the point of admissions programs challenge in the decision is that there is inherent benefit in race qua race, race for race's sake, and the idea that that was based on a stereotype. So that's what the Supreme Court was trying to get at, that they don't want that happening. And instead, they only want race to at all come into the conversation if in the context of a student's unique ability to contribute to the university as an individual, not as part of a racial group. We can go to the next slide. The other key element we wanna think about here from the Supreme Court's decision is this notion of zero-sum benefits. The Supreme Court did not buy the colleges and universities argument that by giving a benefit or a preference to some applicants on the basis of race in a holistic admissions process, that did not mean that other applicants were disadvantaged in the process. What the Supreme Court said was college admissions are zero-sum, a benefit provided to some applicants, but not to others, and it necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter. And when we take a step back and think about all the aspects of university programming beyond admissions, zero-sum provides us with a helpful framework. If you're talking about a program in which by giving benefits to certain individuals, that means other individuals don't get that benefit and are therefore disadvantaged in the court's view, that means that the consideration of race is going to be highly suspect. So to give a concrete example of where the zero-sum analogy readily applies is with financial aid and scholarships. In a world in which there's a limited pool of funding and only some people are going to get an X amount of dollars and not others, if the school is advantaging students of certain races in deciding who gets money, that means in the court's view that students of other races who don't receive that preference are being disadvantaged in that zero-sum financial aid or scholarship decision. We can go to the next slide. So what's really important to consider is that after the Supreme Court's decision in SFFA, it has led to a ripple effect, and it's really emboldened and given momentum to challenges to DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the board, both within higher education and outside of higher education. That's because the proponents of the decision want to institute this colorblind approach to decision-making in all aspects of American life. To say, okay, we've gotten the Supreme Court to say that we shouldn't be considering race for race's sake in college admissions. Well, they think we shouldn't be considering race for race's sake in any decisions in which some people are getting benefits or being advantaged over others. So, you know, both within and outside of higher education, we've seen, you know, a multitude of trends in the almost two years since the SFFA decision. We've seen a proliferation of anti-DEI advocacy groups. These are groups like Students for Fair Admissions itself that organize around the idea of challenging race-conscious programs. Another good example some of you may be familiar with because of the higher education angle is a group called Do No Harm. That's a group that was specifically founded to try to excise race consciousness from healthcare. And they focused, for example, on race-conscious admissions or programs in medical schools or academic medicine and have brought lawsuits, you know, to try to challenge fellowship programs, you know, that award preferences to underrepresented minorities, for example. So we've really seen the number of these groups grow as they try to replicate the legal strategy that was successful in SFFA. We've also seen a stark, can we go back to the previous slide? Thank you. So we've also seen a stark increase in reverse discrimination claims. A set of traditional discrimination claims are where someone who is a member of the underrepresented group, you know, a member of a racial minority group in a race discrimination claim or a woman in a sex discrimination claim is bringing a challenge to discrimination by the dominant group. What's colloquially referred to as reverse discrimination is when a member of the majority group, typically a white male, is bringing a discrimination claim saying that they're being discriminated against on the basis of race or sex. And more and more, we see these claims being brought under a variety of federal statutes, both against higher education institutions in areas, you know, like college and university, hiring, fellowships, different programs, and also outside of higher education. And the Supreme Court heard a case this term, you know, that's very likely to say that whether you're bringing a reverse discrimination claim or a traditional discrimination claim, that your claim should be treated exactly the same way. And, you know, that's what's really important to think about with all of our anti-discrimination statutes is that even if they were enacted out of a purpose, you know, to protect certain groups, anyone of any race or any sex can bring a claim under these statutes. For example, and, you know, here we highlight the use of civil rights statutes as a key tool in these anti-DEI proponents toolbox and challenging race conscious programs. You know, they use statutes that were enacted, you know, intended to help an underrepresented minority group to now try to say that race consciousness is unlawful. So for example, one statute that we see being used more and more in these types of challenges is section 1981. Section 1981 is a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that was enacted to help the recently freed slaves. And that statute says that you cannot consider race in making and enforcing contracts. So because so much of how programs run, for example, if a donor or a grant organization, you know, is giving money to grantees, often that is done through a contractual relationship. And we see more and more, you know, challengers, you know, arguing that those types of relationships that consider race, let's say a donor wants to provide funding specifically to black female founders, you know, which is a real case that happened that, you know, saying that that type of program violates section 1981. And, you know, we've started to see those types of lawsuits have, you know, a greater degree of success. And then again, we've just seen this huge push to extend SFFA to the corporate context, to the nonprofit context, far beyond the admission decisions that were the actual focus of the SFFA decision. We can go to the next slide. And within the challenges that we've seen, there are basically three main types of litigation. So the first is when you're alleging that a DEI program itself constitutes evidence of discrimination. So often if you're bringing a discrimination claim, you have to demonstrate an intent to discriminate. One way you can do so is by pointing to circumstantial evidence. So let's say you don't have an instance where someone, you know, set a racial slur to you in the workplace and you need to come up with other ways in which you can show that the employer or your manager had an intent to discriminate. Now, what we see white male plaintiffs doing in these types of cases is pointing to a DEI program, let's say one that has numerical targets for hiring for people of certain races or genders. And maybe, you know, managers are evaluated or compensated in part based on whether they make progress towards those targets. You could see a white man who was not hired, who was not promoted, pointing to that program as evidence of the employer's intent to discriminate against them because they can say that the employer was incentivized to take race or sex impermissibly into account when deciding who to promote or who to hire. You know, the next type of challenge that we see are direct challenges to DEI programs themselves. So that would be to say that the targets themselves are an unlawful, you know, race conscious policy. That would be to say that the, you know, nonprofit grant arrangement I described, you know, which was a real case in American Alliance for Equal Rights versus Fearless Fund last year, where you had Fearless Fund, a venture capital contest specifically for black female founders. And the court said that that race exclusive contest likely violated section 1981, because it constituted contracting on the basis of race in violation of the statute. And then the third type of litigation we're seeing, which is more of an increased trend are attacks on race neutral criteria. You know, this idea that even if you've switched from race conscious criteria to race neutral criteria, that you're nonetheless using that criteria in a way that you're still discriminating. So for example, last year we saw a case brought against the Smithsonian Institution over an internship program that was described on the website and, you know, in other descriptions as being for Latino students to try to increase the Latino pipeline into museum jobs. And the eligibility criteria for the internship did not mention race at all. But the challenger still said, based on the website, based on the language you're using, it's very clear that this program is in fact for Latino students, regardless of the formal eligibility criteria. And they pointed to the fact that all of the students who had in fact received internships through the program were Latinos. So that's an example of an attack on race neutral criteria, which we can expect to see more of as we see more and more organizations make changes to their criteria in the current environment. We can go to the next slide. And turning specifically to post SFFA litigation activity within the higher education arena, we've seen a number of cases, you know, filed since SFFA. So the first bucket of cases are challenges to admissions programs themselves. In the SFFA decision, former national security officials submitted a brief explaining that there were unique national security concerns that meant it was extremely important to have a racially diverse officer corps, which justified the consideration of race and admissions for our nation's military academies. The Supreme Court said in a footnote, we're not gonna consider that right now. We're gonna leave that aside, and we're not gonna apply our holding that you cannot consider race to the military academies. So almost immediately you saw students for fair admissions file lawsuits against West Point, against the Naval Academy to try to bring down that exception and get courts to say, no, the same rule applies to the military academies as well. The lower courts upheld the military academies use of race in their admissions process, recognizing those unique national security concerns. But since, you know, the Trump administration came into office, they've reversed their position in those cases and have said that, you know, the military academies will no longer consider race in their admissions process. So in some, those cases are probably going away. We've also seen a new case by yet another one of these groups, Students Against Racial Discrimination, filed against the University of California system. And they argue that even though University of California has long operated under a California state ban on affirmative action, and now since SFFA, that nonetheless the UC system's admissions process is still discriminating on the basis of race. So we'll be watching this lawsuit closely, you know, to see how a post SFFA challenge to an admissions process unfolds. We've also seen a number of challenges to race neutral K through 12 admissions programs that were nonetheless adopted, at least in part to promote or further racial diversity. So all three of the cases listed concern admissions to selective public high schools. And basically these jurisdictions, you know, whether Northern Virginia, Boston, or New York City, decided to institute new race neutral practices, like, you know, making sure that they were selecting students from a wider variety of middle schools, or taking socioeconomic status into account and deciding who to admit to the selective public high school programs. You know, plaintiffs in these cases have argued that those changes were intended to reduce the number of Asian and white students in these selective programs and increase the number of black and Latino students. You know, these cases have, you know, gone through many iterations in the federal courts with lower courts, you know, upholding the use of these race neutral criteria as independently justifiable, separate and apart from race. There are good reasons that these jurisdictions want to make sure that these selective high schools are engines of economic opportunity and that they're reaching, you know, a broad base of students in the area. And the Supreme Court and the coalition for TJ and Boston Parents Coalition cases has twice declined to hear and revisit those cases. The last case on the list, Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York versus Adams is still going on in the lower courts, which is, you know, a challenge to the revised changes instituted by Mayor de Blasio for New York selective public high schools. And that could give the Supreme Court another opportunity to revisit these issues. You know, are there limits and what are they on the extent that you can use race neutral criteria for the purpose of promoting diversity? And then we've also started to see challenges to financial aid programs bought in the courts. For example, in Johnson versus University of Oklahoma, a group of plaintiffs say that they've conducted a statistical analysis of who is getting financial aid from the University of Oklahoma. And they found that white students and underrepresented minority students, even if they have the same credentials, even if they have the same level of financial need, that the underrepresented minority students are still receiving more aid. So those are the allegations and the complaint. The lawsuit is in its early stages. And this is another one that we're monitoring closely. We can go to the next slide. And it's not just lawsuits. So again, I mentioned earlier, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Anyone can bring a complaint of discrimination to that agency. You don't have to go to the school. You don't have to be affiliated from the school. You know, you could be an advocacy organization who's going on the internet searching for race conscious programs. And you can write up a complaint to the Department of Education saying that you found racial discrimination and asking the department to investigate that complaint. So ever since SFFA, we've seen groups like the Equal Protection Project file dozens and dozens of complaints against race conscious programs, whether they're pipeline programs for high school students, whether they're extra support programs for current university students, whether they're scholarship programs, you know, all filing these complaints saying that they, you know, violate the SFFA decision, again, trying to expand the whole thing of that case beyond admissions. And many of these complaints filed before the end of the Trump administration are still pending before the Department of Education, giving them an opportunity, you know, to put their stamp on these types of complaints and conduct investigations. And then in the few months already since the Trump administration entered, we've seen more and more of these types of complaints being filed and we can expect this trend to continue. Next slide, please. So now we'll talk a little bit about specifically what we've seen in the last 100 days, you know, since the start of the Trump administration. And what we really wanted to convey, you know, with what we've just talked about is that these efforts all predate the Trump administration. What's different now is that you have the full force of the federal government behind these efforts to try to stamp out the consideration of race from all aspects of university life. We can go to the next slide. So on the campaign trail, you know, I'm sure you all are very familiar that, you know, President Trump said over and over and over again, he was gonna eliminate DEI, it was a frequent attack. And in the first two days of the administration, he signed executive orders trying to do just that, making good on that campaign promise to go after DEI. The day one executive order mostly focused on eliminating DEI within the federal government itself. The day two executive order focused on attacking DEI in the private sector, including colleges and universities. So this is the executive order that's referred to on the slide. It discourages DEI in the private sector, and it specifically calls out institutions of higher education. The executive order does not define DEI, but it does focus on race and sex-based preferences. So we know that that's what this administration is particularly focused on. The executive order also directs agencies to enforce civil rights laws to combat illegal private sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities. That begs the question, what is illegal DEI? DEI isn't defined in any law, in any regulation. We know it's a huge umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of programs, actions, practices, some of which even this administration has acknowledged in guidance documents are perfectly lawful. For example, events celebrating heritage months, like Black History Month, that are open to everyone on a campus. This administration itself says that that's perfectly fine and permissible. And then DEI, of course, encompasses some practices that this administration would not find to be lawful. You know, for example, scholarships that include race-based preferences. We can go to the next slide. So what this executive order also required is it directed the attorney general to issue a report within 120 days. That's coming up next month in May, starts tomorrow, believe it or not. And in that report, the attorney general is asked to identify the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector, and to identify targets for civil compliance investigations. And specific sectors highlighted as targets for this report are institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion, and also high-asset foundations. The executive order also requires the attorney general and secretary of education to jointly issue guidance within 120 days. Again, that's coming up very soon, regarding the measures and practices required to comply with SFFA. So that guidance, we can expect to severely limit the ability of colleges and universities to consider race across campus life. We can go to the next slide. So, you know, building on these executive orders and the first few months of the administration, we've started to see some guidance that provides further color and insight on these executive orders, and what this administration believes constitutes illegal DEI. So for higher education specifically, on February 14th, we saw the Department of Education issue what's known as a Dear Colleague Letter, a type of guidance document sent to all higher education institutions, and it basically told them that the administration's interpretation of SFFA, that considering race and making decisions based on race in any aspect of campus life violates SFFA. That is this administration's position, and colleges and universities need to comply or else they'll face investigations, potential enforcement actions, et cetera. And what the Dear Colleague Letter really came down to is if an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person's race, the educational institution violates the law. That's this administration's position, that considering race, even if no one is harmed, no one is disadvantaged, that it violates the law. You know, we can discuss, you know, if folks want to and are interested about the ways in which that position departs from the actual text of SFFA and other Supreme Court anti-discrimination case law, but the bottom line is that the federal government's interpretation of SFFA is what's going to guide how it enforces the law against institutions via investigations and enforcement actions. So this broad interpretation and application of SFFA is extremely notable, and institutions have to grapple with it because of, you know, the real risks involved with such investigations, enforcement actions. You know, we all see in the news every day about threats and actual withdrawal of federal funding. You know, universities are having to navigate all of that in this environment. At the end of last week, multiple federal courts actually preliminary enjoined the administration's enforcement of this Dear Colleague Letter, which means it's not currently in effect. But this is a preliminary ruling, which means that we don't know where the litigation will ultimately end up. And the administration is still free to enforce its interpretation of SFFA. It just can't do so in the name of enforcing this letter, this particular document. So that means the interpretation of SFFA in this letter, you know, is really important and can't be ignored, you know, regardless of these court decisions. And we also know, as mentioned, that the executive order directed this Joint Attorney General, Secretary of Education guidance about what institutions have to do to comply with SFFA. That is coming up in May, and we can expect that guidance to broadly take the same position as outlined in this Dear Colleague Letter. We can go to the next slide. So really notably, this Dear Colleague Letter said covered entities cannot use race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student academic and campus life. So we can see here that basically any decision colleges are making, the administration says that you should not be making those decisions taking race into account. What the letter says is put simply, educational institutions may neither separate nor segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race. We can go to the next slide. About two weeks after the Dear Colleague Letter, the Department of Education released an FAQ document providing additional detail about what this Dear Colleague Letter means. And this FAQ leans very heavily on the administration's interpretation of SFFA. And you can see that what the FAQ did is really lean into this idea of zero-sum benefits. That what the SFFA court meant is when there is a limited number or finite amount of educational benefits or resources, a school cannot take into account a student's race in distributing those benefits or resources, even if race is only being considered as a positive or a plus factor. We can go to the next slide. And we've already seen the federal government begin to take action based on this interpretation of SFFA. In March, we saw the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, announce investigations of six new universities for allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships. And we saw 45 new investigations opened into universities regarding their partnerships with the PhD Project, which is a third-party organization that is focused on expanding the pipeline, offering resources to diverse PhD candidates. And it's not just the Department of Education. Other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services have taken action based on these interpretations, opening investigations and actions into medical schools over these types of practices, as previously mentioned. And private litigants also continue to focus on these issues and bring new lawsuits. For example, just last week, we saw the American Bar Association face a new lawsuit by one of these advocacy groups saying that its fellowship program unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race because it is for underrepresented students. And we don't expect any of this activity to let up anytime soon. So the challenges, you know, that colleges and universities are facing with respect to programs that consider race in any way continues to compound. And that's really, you know, the point we wanted to convey here with this, you know, presentation is that the risks here are really significant. These are unprecedented times for all of us, and especially those of us who work in higher education. And we all have to grapple with this new landscape. And as we think about programs moving forward, you know, what we see colleges and universities turning to and leaning into at a very high level are programs that focus on awarding benefits based on a student as an individual versus as part of a group, so how can we assess the student's unique ability to contribute to the university, the unique perspective they'll bring, rather than as the Supreme Court, you know, cautioned against doing, you know, infer what they might contribute or bring to the university based on their race, you know, and then the other place where we see universities really leaning into and providing scholarships, support programs, pipelines, mentorship programs, you name it, is to, you know, focus on increasing social and economic mobility through providing opportunity. How can we focus on socioeconomic status, first generation, and making sure, you know, that students have the resources they need to succeed on campus, regardless of their background? And, you know, with that, we can, you know, turn off the slides and happy to have a discussion and answer any questions. Thank you so much, Erica, so much, a lot of information, I can't say wonderful, because it's a lot, it's heavy, but so much great information. I think we see something in the chat. Much of the conversation and focus has been on colleges and universities within higher education. Do you anticipate the impact of these investigations will extend to independent schools? Yeah, great question. So to clarify, Eric, do you mean independent K through 12 schools? Okay, yeah. So it's really important to think about that the federal government's main hook for enforcing laws against colleges and universities is that they receive federal funding. And because they receive federal funding, they're subject to a law called Title Six, which prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Most independent schools are not recipients of federal financial assistance, and therefore are not subject to Title Six. There are some exceptions. So that's like a very, you know, high level generalization. So independent schools, to a certain extent, could have more leeway. However, you know, we can't expect the impact of these investigations to not affect independent schools in a number of ways. First, Section 1981, the law that I mentioned, you know, prohibits the consideration of race and contracting. That, of course, applies to all private sector actors, regardless of whether they accept federal funding or not. And so, you know, the federal government does not directly enforce Section 1981. But private litigants can bring lawsuits, and we see the federal government trying to come up with creative legal angles, you know, potentially through the False Claims Act or others to try to go after entities for violations of Section 1981. And then the other thing to consider, again, is that, you know, we see in the news these discussions about using tax-exempt status as a lever. You know, we've seen a couple of isolated cases about trying to use whether an independent school received, you know, federal assistance during the pandemic, you know, loans, whether that could then subject them to some of these requirements. So I do think independent schools are not facing the challenges to the same extent as higher education because the key legal lever is Title VI. But, you know, I don't think anyone will be fully exempt here. Thank you so much. Another question is, how does this translate to off-campus affinity group events and programs for alumni? Great question. So the key point of affinity groups is that they need to be open to all. And, you know, in the federal government guidance that we've seen from this administration, for example, early on, there was an Office of Personnel Management memo about what federal agencies themselves were permitted or not permitted to be able to do with respect to DEI. And that memo said that affinity groups and their activities are OK so long as there's a neutral policy in place with respect to affinity groups, and those affinity groups are open to all. So as long as, for example, a Black Alumni Association can be focused on the Black experience, you know, and issues affecting Black alumni, but if it's, you know, supported by the school or there's any sort of hook that could make it subject to Title VI, it's really important that that affinity group is open to everyone and not race-exclusive. Thank you. Another question is, how do you think this impacts those state schools that largely do not receive federal funding and focus on access and lowering barriers to education by having fairly low admissions barriers and, in fact, are struggling to grow enrollment, especially those with small endowments? Yeah, so I would say, you know, one important clarification here is that receiving federal funding includes if a school is eligible for students to use federal student aid at that institution under the Higher Education Act. So, you know, many, I would say the vast majority of state schools are receiving federal funding for the purpose of Title VI and so are subject to these dictates. And in addition, state schools are government actors and therefore are also subject to the Equal Protection Clause. And so, you know, either way, SFFA and everything that we're talking about applies to these institutions. I would say focusing on access and lowering barriers by having low admissions barriers is a great thing to do. Again, let's lean in focusing on equality of opportunity. What's really important is that these decisions should be independently justifiable. You know, why it's important, let's say, to not require standardized test scores in order to, you know, reach a broad range of students, you know, who may not have access to test prep or other types of resources rather than, you know, only base the decision to not require standardized test scores on racial diversity. We want to make sure that, you know, lowering admissions barriers are independently justifiable in their own merit, which they are, rather than only doing them because of their impact on race. Can you maybe talk about how the chilling effect is impacting how institutions are maybe doing some proactive or over-compliance? There's a lot of folks who talk about, you know, don't over-comply, but, you know, it just seems like the risk is so high. Could you maybe speak to that? Yeah, it's a really great point. And again, you know, part of what I said about, you know, part of what I said about these executive orders not defining what constitutes illegal DEI, you know, really gets at this. Because if no one knows what within the DEI bucket they can or can't do, or what the administration will or will not go after them for, it really does create this huge chilling effect because, you know, the path to avoid or minimize risk is, you know, to get rid of DEI and any programs that could constitute DEI entirely. And that's why it's really important to always emphasize that what these actions do is go after illegal DEI, DEI that otherwise violates the law. And we all can, you know, quibble with the administration's interpretation of what violates the law. But regardless, what they acknowledge is that not all DEI is illegal, only some of it is, which I think is really important to make sure it doesn't get lost in the conversation. That's wonderful. What additional questions do we have? So much knowledge and information to be shared. Let's see, I've got one here. If I'm a donor and want my dollars to support BIPOC students, do I have any options anymore? It's a great question. I would say in terms of, you know, giving to colleges and universities, you know, for that purpose, it's dicey. I think of all the different types of programs that we talk about, as I mentioned, scholarships are readily susceptible to the zero-sum analysis of the SFFA decision. So it will be very difficult, you know, for colleges and universities to argue that the logic and reasoning of that decision does not apply to the financial aid and scholarship bucket. So I think the idea of, you know, donating to a college or university and saying that you want your money specifically to go to BIPOC students is becoming an increasingly high-risk endeavor. That's good. Okay, another question here. In terms of scholarship criteria, is already non-discriminatory. However, there are often preferences the donor can add that can suggest race, gender, or other identity. Nice to haves. Would you suggest eliminating those preference sections in existing scholarships? Yeah, so again, you know, we're not here to provide legal advice, but I will say, you know, at a high level, SFFA concern the use of race as a plus factor, right, in a holistic process. So you could analogize race as a nice to have under that decision. It wasn't as if the colleges were using quotas or anything of that sort. So, you know, preferences based on race or go and really any protected characteristics are going to be, you know, high risk in this environment. I'm curious about scholarships through community foundation funds, donor advice funds, and other revenues. Yeah, so again, specific arrangement is going to really matter here. The details are going to really matter here. So, you know, this is where it's like a good idea to seek specific advice about the particular scholarship arrangement that you're talking about, you know, but the more we can separate from the college or university itself, which is subject to these enhanced legal requirements and, you know, subject to all this scrutiny, you know, potentially there are other legal avenues available. But again, those types of arrangements, you know, need to be dealt with really carefully, especially because one thing that all this administration's guidance so far makes clear, the Dear Colleague letter uses the language that the college or university may not launder, you know, racial preferences through the use of third party groups or arrangements. So, the university can't say, oh, because I can't consider race, I'm going to hand that off to a third party and then I'll just let the third party do it. Like, unfortunately, that's, you know, not an avenue that's available. Another one is, how are people dealing with existing funds that violate Title 6 with no living donors? We are working on a batch to send the attorney, to send the Attorney General. Are there other options? That's a great question. I think the main way people are dealing with them is by, you know, really reviewing the grant language with counsel and making sure and looking very carefully at what that grant language actually says, because sometimes there are pats to additional flexibility. Some agreements will, you know, use language like consistent with applicable law or, you know, other potential language that allows for the scholarship to continue to be used in a way that is, you know, mitigates risk but is consistent with the donor's intent and mission for their money. You know, but sometimes that's not possible. And so it's really important to work with counsel to see if there are, you know, options there. I think we will continue to see this as an issue that comes up. And the Title 9 regulations specifically address certain options when a gift is made by a bequest or a will and options where changes are not as feasible. But the Title 6 regulations for race don't have that type of detail. So we'll see, you know, if the Department of Education is willing to carry some of that over from the regulatory framework surrounding sex-based preferences to race-based preferences. Sounds good. I see that there is a comment in here, and it says, from California here, and we have Prop 209 that prevents this. I think it's one of those criteria. Often we broaden the criteria to somewhat target those students in other ways, such as connection with certain student clubs, for example, Black Student Association, or certain high schools for recruiting scholarships. Those, of course, are under closer scrutiny given the federal focus. Do you have any thoughts around that, about student organizations being targeted? Yeah. So, you know, the administration has made clear in the guidance that they're also going after what they would view as proxies for race, which I think is what this question is really getting at. And again, we will be in the best place as institutions if whatever criteria we are using are independently justifiable, so that you're not, you know, targeting that club or that high school only because of race, but that there's some other really good reason to do so. So, for example, you're targeting high schools that have a high percentage of students on free or reduced-price lunch because you're committed to expanding, you know, economic mobility. You are a donor who, when you were in college, was the president of the Black Students Association, and you have, like, a strong connection to the organization and want to see it continue to thrive. You know, that would be a distinct reason to want to provide monetary support for that organization versus I'm only wanting to provide support to the Black Students Association because I'm trying to reach Black students. This is all going to play out, but again, we are in the best-case scenario when we are focused on criteria for which there are independent justifications, separate and apart from race. Thank you. Are there legal or institutional problems with allowing students, alumni, and staff affinity groups to organize around shared identities at a private college? Yeah, so this is when I was talking about affinity groups, so when they're supported by the school, you know, this is when these legal issues really come to the fold, and, you know, where we are is that the private college needs to have a neutral policy with respect to the types of affinity groups around shared identities that will receive college support. So, for example, if you allow affinity groups around racial identities, and let's say you have a neutral requirement that 50 students, you know, must say that they want to form an affinity group, you know, meet other neutral requirements in order to do so, that would mean if white students wanted to form an affinity group around white shared identity that you couldn't say no, we only allow those around certain races. That's one element. The other is the open to everyone piece of it. You can have an affinity group that's formed around a shared identity, but it needs to be open to everyone and not exclude everyone. So the Black Students Association, you know, cannot have race-based membership criteria that prohibits, you know, white students, Latino students from joining or participating in the affinity groups activities. You know, I have a question about, you know, that because they're, you know, in some spaces, they'll, you know, folks will say, well, I'm not X, can I join? Can you maybe speak to the importance of documentation about how people are, you know, like if the criteria is it is open to everyone, but they're a challenge, how do they help themselves in showcasing that, I guess, or any documentation? Yeah, it's a great question. So in any, you know, advertisement, promotion, marketing for any affinity group event or program, you know, it's a good idea to include that open to all language. When affinity groups are listed on websites and have descriptions, it should be clear that they're open to everyone. And then you want to make sure that the affinity groups understand this in practice. You know, maybe you have student organization training or a club leader manual that also applies to affinity groups, making it very clear that it's university policy that no one can be excluded on the basis of protected characteristics. So those are some of the ways in which universities can put themselves in a better position. That's great. Thank you. What about alumni? What about an alumni to alumni mentorship program and matches mentors and mentees based on identity? The program is open to all. So this will be a very unhelpful lawyer answer is that I think we would need more details about the program to truly weigh in because, you know, we would want to understand the exact arrangement, you know, whether any specific details are driving decision making, you know, to fully address risk. Yeah. And that's really great because that's for our next portion. We do have like some examples of things to think about, but not giving any kind of legal advice. But yeah, being able to, you know, talk about what's that palpable benefit or, you know, is there what's what a person's getting, you know, access, things like that. So definitely. Thank you for that. What other questions do we have? Got some wonderful questions here. here. Are there any, I guess as language has been banned, I feel like we're doing some language gymnastics as things that can't be used or, yeah, are being banned. Is there anything that's out there about violating free speech or, you know, any kind of guidance around that kind of restriction? Yeah. So I will say, right, like the term DEI, like nothing, nothing in the law makes that unlawful. And even in like the actions that we've seen from the administration, you know, there's nothing specifically making certain terminology illegal or that you, you know, per se can't use it. Again, it's all about like the details of how it's used. What are the underlying programs, et cetera. So, you know, in general, I think that we see a lot of organizations moving to lower risk language because of the idea that either it more accurately can describe like the lawful activities that the, you know, institution or entity is actually doing or because, you know, they want to make it less likely that there'll be a target. So I would say that I don't think any of these actions expressly ban specific language for the reasons that you described. It's all about the circumstances in which that language might be used. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Well, do we have any more questions? Because we're almost at time with, okay, I got one more before you, before we let you go. Now, even though we don't provide legal advice, would you recommend to reconsider language that states an affinity group is open to alumni and friends who support identity with Pan-African, Afro-Caribbean, Black, African, African-American, for example, or does that limit? So again, like you said, you know, disclaimer of not offering legal advice, you know, but just like reviewing that language, right, support and identify to me sounds like identifying with those races is a requirement where if you can support without identify, you know, that is less exclusionary. Very good. Well, can we give Erica a round of applause using some of our emojis just for just taking the time to provide us with some wonderful information to for us to know in a way that we can receive it, you know, the legal terms and all the things, it's very complex. So thank you so much for your time and for your expertise. And we are thinking of you as you are doing some wonderful work within this space as we are all navigating these uncertain times. So thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me. And thank you all for all the great work that you do. Hope you all have a great rest of the session. Thank you. Okay. So we are going to transition into our next portion of our time together. Let's see, make sure my screen. And this kind of goes into what Erica was talking about as we are thinking about our programming and how we need to look into all of our programs to be able to understand where we might be able to mitigate some of the challenges that could be possibly risky. But what I wanted to share is that as we think about the programs that we are offering to our students, our alumni and donors, that there is some folks are questioning why is certain things being taken away. And we wanted to make sure that we provided an opportunity for folks to actually have some real discussion around this because there is a lot of nuance around it and wanting to make sure that people don't just blanketly say we can't do that because of X, but actually allowing for folks to have a conversation so that you can have some conversation with your legal team to be able to decide what's best for your institution and your situation. So there is a quote from Kenji Yoshoni, and as we prepare to look at our programs and not just singling out DEI programs, but I think it's important that we are centering some of what those DEI programs is that how they have and continue to be is closing opportunity gaps. So a quote that he uses is talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not, and DEI helps to close that gap. And so the moment that we're in is requiring all of us to skill up and communicate more effectively that our programming we offer to our very communities is necessary in order to serve our mission and to ensure there is opportunity for all. And so what we are seeing, and as Erica had mentioned, is that institutions and organizations are having to make challenging decisions about their programming, especially diversity equity inclusion programming. And then there's uncertainty, as mentioned before, there has not been a definition about what DEI is or if things are particularly legal or illegal. And so there's a lot of uncertainty around it. But the risk on the other end of being investigated or losing federal funds is great. And so that causes a lot of fear. And there can be some potential erosion of constituent trust, because when folks are especially our alumni or donors who may not be in the nuance conversation or following every single executive order or memo, when they see that something that was there before or a program that they have participated in is taken away, they will question institutions commitment to the various missions and values that we have exposed to one another. So we wanted to make sure that as we are thinking about this process, that we also are providing advancement professionals with a tool to be able to say we have the ability, we have been thinking about this in a very thoughtful way and we have a process that we're putting in place. We've had extensive conversations. We are going through our legal decisions. So if you find that you're having to sunset a program or make changes, that it's not just poof, it's gone. And our constituents are believing that we're turning our back on them, but that we actually are being very thoughtful about this in a very difficult time, because when we lose trust, it's very hard to get back. And so we want to make sure that we do everything possible to be able to reinforce that we are wanting to serve all of our constituents. As I mentioned, Kenji Yoshoni is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law and is also the director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging. This is a very interesting combination because it takes the constitutional law and DEI and talks about this through anti-discrimination. So if you have a chance to hear or read work from Kenji, please take advantage. Some of the topics I encourage you to learn about is DEI leveling versus lifting. He mentions how there has been addressing. So DEI lifting has been about addressing historical inequities through offering specific programs, resources, opportunities to historical marginalized groups. So something that Erica was talking about earlier. And so we are seeing that these programs are being attacked and challenged. And then there's DEI leveling, which is about creating a leveling playing field for everyone by de-biasing environments and organizational processes that can benefit all. So rather than targeting a specific group. So as we are thinking about, you know, the programs, are they DEI lifting as in trying to address historical inequities or leveling, which can be de-biasing environments? That's important to think about as you are looking at your programs. And like I mentioned, all of the programs, regardless if they were specific to DEI or not. He also talks about anti-classification versus anti-subordination and the posture of the Supreme Court. And so with this anti-classification principle, it focuses on the idea that laws and policies should not classify individuals based on certain characteristics such as race, gender, or ethnicity. But the principle is often associated with that concept of colorblindness. So as Erica had mentioned, not tying a decision to a group or making that stereotype that because you come from a particular group, you bring this unique benefit. But the goal is to treat everyone equally without regard to these characteristics. And then the anti-subordination principle, on the other hand, focuses on addressing and dismantling systemic inequalities and social hierarchies that disadvantage certain groups. And so this principle argues that true equity cannot be achieved without addressing the underlying social and economic disparities that affect marginalized groups. So although I'm definitely not in the legal space and I can't go into any detail, I think it's very important for us as practitioners to understand, you know, in a way to be able to understand what is being argued within the court system. How do we keep ourselves informed? Because this is going to be very important for us as we have to be agile as we are thinking about our programs. When we think about how to de-bias environments, a foundational study is with orchestras who were trying to address gender discrimination. And so you may or may not have heard of the study. But in their hiring process, they adopted a blind audition. So folks had to audition behind a screen and even some had added carpets so that you couldn't hear the shoes on the ground so that they could conceal the identity and gender of the musicians. And so this was an action to de-bias their hiring process in this phase. And so for them, it ended up becoming successful because they were able to increase the number of female musicians who were hired. We know that as humans, we have bias and so being able to try to remove that bias out of the environment was a way that they were able to de-bias the environment. We do understand that not all opportunities allow us to be kind of not see identities and things like that. But I think that as we are thinking about our programs, we want to make sure that we're thinking about how can we remove barriers, de-bias environments to be able to make sure that our programs continue to provide access and opportunities for all. As we get prepared to do our activity, Kenji, he talks about three Ps and in one of the sessions I was listening with, he talked about being able to look at your programs through the three Ps, which is preference, protected group, and palpable benefit. And so what we have provided you is a toolkit that kind of breaks that information down. But preference is whether an initiative shows a preference for a particular group. For example, if a program explicitly favors one group over another, it might be considered preferential. The protected group involves determining whether the group is receiving a preference is legally protected under the anti-discrimination law. Uh-oh, excuse me. Protected groups typically have included categories like race, gender, age, disability. And then palpable benefit, this assess whether the initiative provides a tangible benefit that could be seen as an adverse action if denied to others. So examples of promotions or salary increases or exclusive trainings. And so what Kenji had talked about is if you find that programs meet all three of those categories, it has a potential of being high risk. And so of course you want to have legal guidance. But being able to kind of have some kind of checkpoints to be able to have conversation around this is very important. And so what we are going to do for the next about 25 minutes is we created an audit template where you will be able to kind of ask questions within your small group with some fictitious programs to be able to kind of think through like, you know, with these programs, does it meet two or three of the criteria? And what are some ways that you could mitigate the situation? Before we go to the breakouts, I'm going to kind of share a different screen. Where are we at? Let's see. Okay. So here is the toolkit. I see that Dr. Simeon has already added that to the chat, but also you should have received that within the LMS. But this toolkit that we're providing you pretty much goes through, get past this, the three Ps in the framework, so just kind of providing some explanation there in the framework. But then it gives you kind of like a traffic light audit template so that as you are thinking about a program that you're able to ask the question, is there a preference factor? Is that a yes or no? Describe that preference. What's also important is that in this toolkit, we're provided some guided questions. So if you were to bring together an audit team and you are wanting to look at a particular program, instead of someone just saying, well, I think that's going to be illegal, whatever, how about having a robust conversation? And so we wanted to be able to provide you with some questions to be able to have discussion around. This is broken into a couple of different categories. There's one for if you focus on your internal staff, so questions around that from like affinity programs or things like that, but the internal aspect with dealing with staff and employees. Then there is a category, a section about student programs and student activities. I believe I have that on page, let me see what page that's on. Page eight is where the student program questions are. And then there's the alumni and donor programs. I know that within our field, we have a lot of different constituents. And so if you're dealing with it from an internal staffing aspect to if you work with student programs, or if you're focusing on that external focus with your alumni and donors, there are questions that can help you as you are thinking about and guiding the conversation about the three Ps. And then another aspect to this toolkit is, if I can get there, some step-by-step for how to kind of prepare and bring a team together. You want to make sure that as you are thinking about it, you're getting various diverse perspectives. So we give you just kind of like a breakdown of like a way to kind of set up the process as well. And then our final page here is pitfalls to avoid. So things that you should consider as you are working towards auditing your programs, some things to keep into consideration. And so what we're going to do, I'm going to stop sharing. No, we're going to go to this other tab here. We've provided you with some fictitious programming just to allow for you to practice within this space. And so that when you go back to your own, you know, schools and institutions, you'll be able to kind of see how this toolkit works for you. So that first page is kind of gives you just some instruction about engaging in conversation and dialogue and the reason behind this. But I'll just do one for an example. So the one program, an annual indigenous powwow celebration. So there's a description. The annual indigenous powwow celebration is an event sponsored by the Alumni Association to honor and celebrate indigenous cultures and traditions. The powwow provides a culturally enriching experience for alumni, students and community featuring traditional dances, music, crafts and storytelling. Eligibility criteria open to all alumni, students and community members. There's special recognition for indigenous alumni and their contributions to the university. Then it breaks down the programming components. It talks about what the goals of the program are. And so then what you and your team will do is you want to say, is there a preference factor when it comes to this program? Yes or no. And you have a chance to discuss, you know, maybe one person thinks there's a preference and maybe another person doesn't. But it's a way for you to have that conversation. And like I mentioned before, in the toolkit, it gives you some guided questions to consider. And then you go through, is this group receiving a preference as a legally protected group? Well, it's open to all, but it also is identifying indigenous individuals. So it can be a both and and looking at that. And so you go through these questions. And so then the risk assessment is, does this program meet all three criteria, a preference, a protected group and a palpable benefit? And so then as you're talking about this, what could be some recommendations for mitigation? This is a tool that I believe that folks can utilize. And especially as you are working hand in hand with your legal teams to be able to have conversations. So when they might say this is a program that you might want to consider sunsetting, you're able to understand where and have a conversation around that. So I'm going to stop sharing my screen. What you're going to do, as I mentioned before, let me make sure I don't have any questions here. What you will do is we'll put you in some random groups. And so, like I mentioned, you'll have about 20, 25 minutes where you will be able to go through the various program examples and be able to have conversation around that and kind of practice utilizing the tool. And then we'll come back together and we will debrief and answer any questions you may have. And then we'll be on our way. How does that sound? Sounds good. I have to leave a little early. So if anything else is shared, I'll reach out and grab it from you all. Thank you so much for this. It was so needed. I really appreciate it. And then I had a great conversation and just wanted to say thank you and we'll touch base soon. Yep. Thank you. And you'll get the recording. So whatever you miss. There's a recording for it. Great. I appreciate that. We'll talk soon. Yes. Well, welcome back, everyone. I hope you had a good experience. Before we go into the debrief piece of it, I just wanted to share first, thank you to Erica Turret, our legal expert. And then also I wanted to shout out Dr. Simeon and Christy Grimm and the case media team has been on the back end, making sure everything was good. If you don't, if you do zooms, you know, it can be very unnerving when you don't have folks on your team. So thank you so much for that. And then because this is a part of a workshop series, I did want to highlight that on May 14th, we'll have our second workshop of the series. And that's disaster fatigue navigating crisis with alumni and donors. And we're going to have Brianna Brent branch from University of North Carolina at Pembroke and the executive vice president and CEO for case Teresa Flannery. And they are going to help us unpack crisis management techniques and enhancing relationships during this time of uncertainty. And there's also going to be some skill development to managing disruptive behaviors and navigating some difficult conversations. And then also offering some practical strategies on addressing alumni and donor concerns. And so if you have found this information valuable and working with one another, encourage, I mean, just to share it with others, encourage them to register. It's not too late to register. As I mentioned, it is recorded. So folks will be able to see the recording, but then also to be able to engage within an activity and share it on social media. And then there's going to be an evaluation. And if you could please fill out that evaluation just to let us know how we can improve. And if there are topics that you would like for us to create conversation around, we can get we can do that as well. So thank you for allowing me to share that information. I wanted to see if we got some folks who wanted to talk about the experience and how it was for you. Thank you, Kirsten. I'll just chime in from my group that we spent a good chunk at the beginning commenting how helpful it was to have a framework. It is nonetheless a very stressful kind of experience to get these very persecutory executive orders and guidance from the federal government and then have super vague definitions, as was called out in the presentation. So that creates very weird environments to work through. So even just the three Ps that came out of the handout was very helpful in just beginning to navigate some of those instances. Sounds good. Yes, definitely. I want to be able to figure out how we can support as every institution has so many different programs, right? And so many different nuances. And it's like, how do we even have conversation? And then how not to be silenced when, you know, folks can just say, well, we can't do that. And it's just like, but is that true? Right? So like being able to have some of those conversations. So I'm glad that we can find value in that. What else? I can share. I was with Kirsten. We, of course, are quite a few. We didn't get through all of them. But a lot of them, we felt if there were just some language changes, they could still be acceptable if it shifted from people with this identity to people who are members of this group that we know is not exclusionary. That that might put things in OK standing. I'm in Ohio. And so we have additional local restrictions that actually wouldn't really allow us to just do that. But it was still a nice exercise to work through how could this work without completely shutting it down? Yes, and definitely with all this different state legislation that's happening and still having to navigate, it's like, yeah, being able to do that. And I think also being able to have some kind of a process, even if you have to, you know, alter or build something so that you do have documentation or when you are having conversations with, you know, concerned alumni and donors, you know, you have something to kind of speak to or at least give you some. Some language or, you know, talking points to talk to various leaders about how do we communicate this to those we have relationships with so that they're not feeling blindsided? Because I think that this is the moment where we're going to have to lean on folks giving us some benefit of the doubt and giving them a little bit more information about how we're trying to navigate because we don't have a lot of answers. So, yeah. What are some other thoughts? I can chime in a little bit. We actually didn't touch the worksheet at all. I'll be totally honest. We were sort of venting about our own situations. All good. A specific programming that may or may not be scheduled. But one of the things that we discussed was reframing it as a celebration instead of because noting that much of what has come out has been kind of done as a scrape where they're looking for keywords. You know, we've had research flagged for words that include diversity when it was diverse microplankton. Right. And so avoiding the hassle by simply avoiding words that may trigger the way that tech bros think of gathering this type of data, which is a little scrape that pulls out words like identify or, you know, they may they may. Our conversation centered on, well, we want to include people and be open, but also let people know that this is a positive event that centers this identity without excluding others in the celebration felt like a good frame for it. Yeah, definitely. Thank you for sharing that. Like I said, as we mean, even when we look at the programming in general, I, you know, I wanted to make sure that we offered a variety of them, you know, even some of those that would not be centered within particular spaces because as we are being asked to make sure that we have programming that's open to all, you know, it requires us to think about, you know, how are we marketing to some of the groups that we don't see. Like, I think there's one example about the president skybox. Right. You know, when I used to do advising for a student alumni group, you know, and they wanted to be able to say, well, how do we get more folks from different groups to participate. You know, this, this tool can allow us to understand, are we even advertising to these places, you know, so not singling out, oh, is this, you know, an exclusionary, you know, program, but like, let's look at all of the things that we're doing, because if the goal is to make sure that there is opportunity for all, then we need to look at every organization to make sure that there's opportunity for all, even if it seems like it's a mainstream type of program that, you know, we're not going to be able to do. It would be assumed that it is, but it's like, but we want to make sure that we have a chance to, to look at that. So hopefully the tool can be utilized in that way too. Any additional thoughts. Colin I don't want to sing you out but it looks like you're thinking so I was like what's what's that thought bubble happening. Oh, you're good. We talked a little bit about how you say running an event, how you promote that event, how you sort of advertise it within your communities within your constituent groups. That inherently gives preference to one group, if you are sort of picking a certain channel, based on, you know, the identity that they might have, because they use that channel or, you know, yeah, we were just thinking about that. Yeah, no, I think that's a great point because I mean even in the questions like do you only target you know this, you know, Instagram group or whatever it is knowing that in marketing they say you know if you're looking at it from a generation, folks use Tick Tock more than they use you know direct mail or whatever but I think like even with that. We're hoping for our programmers to be able to say okay let's make sure we do have a diverse metric so if we do get called out or someone provides an investigation, we can state that we have, you know, shared information and you know various spaces so it just helps, because sometimes you just get into, you know, we got to do this fast. Let's hit this button let's share blah blah and then you keep pushing. But since there, there's more question and there's more fine tooth combing that can be a value so thank you for sharing that. Yeah. All right. Any last things before we get ready to wrap up. All right. Thanks for the program. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I hope like folks found value in what was shared. That's what we at case are continuing trying to do is make sure that we have a chance to offer some assistance as everyone else is out there, doing this great work so I wanted to say thank you. I hope that you're able to join us for our next sessions like I said May 14 is the next one and then June 4 is another one and so it kind of was spurred from questions that I get which is like you know what can we do legally to how are we going to engage with our alum alumni and donors, especially within a lot of things that are changing and trying to ensure that we maintain our relationships and then there's the aspect of self regulation and the stress of also working with staff if you have a staff or things like that and how to help folks in navigating because it is. There's the work that we get to do. And then there's aspects of how people are having to kind of do some assessing of values and things like that and I think that within your place of work it's important that we have it have folks who are able to help you in navigating that process so that those three together can help people thrive during this time of uncertainty because we do some wonderful work and we get to work with some awesome constituents, and we want to make sure that we're able to do that, being healthy and helpful at the same time. So thank you and you got four minutes until two so I hope that you enjoy the rest of your time, wherever you are in the world. Thank you.

legal compliance

identity slides

alumni relations

SFFA Supreme Court decision

race-conscious admissions

legal complexities

inclusive programs

financial aid

alumni events

program auditing

legal challenges

institutional values