We're gonna go ahead and get started. So welcome everyone to cases. Webinar focused on preparation for the United States Supreme Court upcoming, ruling on the use of race, conscious admission practices at colleges and universities. I'm Terry Flannery, case is executive vice president and chief operating officer and today I'm joined by 3 season professionals who represent important areas of expertise for this session related to legal communication and admission perspectives and I'd like to introduce those colleagues. Now, first, we have art. Coleman, managing partner and co-founder at Education Council, welcome art. Thank you. Nice to be here. Next. We have Teresa before parrot, with Principal at Tpp. Communications and longtime case. Volunteer welcome to Resa. Thank you. Terry. And finally, we have Angel Perez, Chief Executive Officer, National Association for College admissions counseling are Naka welcome, angel! Thanks. Terry. Our goal today is to help our participants. Those of you who champion your institutions as communication development and alumni professionals and your colleagues in advancement and around your leadership table to anticipate and prepare for the people following the ruling which is anticipated by the end of this month, and cost as early as this week. I want to make a special note before we start, that while most of our webinar participants are higher, Ed leaders, those whose institutions are likely to be most affected, we know that there are case members from independent schools who are watching the case closely, and are thinking about the implications for their educational communities as well we do have a host of resources for participants under the courses. Tab on this webinar site, including a link for our school colleagues to a related case an is, excuse me, and i' a Sna ais webinar that you'll find relevant to. So we'll begin with some questions for our panelists, and by the top of the hour we will take some questions from our audience. Which I'm going to encourage you to submit through the function, and I'll also note that we are recording and that if you have any technical issues, I'd encourage you to use the chat for that purpose. But questions for the panelists are gonna come through the function. So let's begin. And art, I'm gonna start with you and ask you to please if you would start by providing us with a bit of background on the cases in front of the Supreme Court. Sure. So let me give a really big picture in terms of what's going on before the court right now. We have actually 2 separate cases that we're filed. And there were heard on a po back in October, involving the challenge to each institution's consideration of race in its admissions process to advance its educational goals, those of achieving diversity for the benefit of all students. So this theory about the educational benefits of diversity that can justify unlimited cases, some consideration of race and admissions has been a prevalent theory and a foundation for court action and approval for 45 years going all the way back to the bakaki case in 1970 8. We had Justice Powell then, and then in subsequent important cases by the court, reaffirm the importance of the educational benefits of diversity for all students in that foundation for justifying some limited consideration of an applicants race in that mission what's notable about these 2 cases not only are they heard together indicating the court is poised to take some consequential action, not just tread water. I think it's safe to. This is only a few short years following a recent court opinion that upheld a university of Texas race. Conscious Admissions, prop policy under this longstanding precedent. In sole in these cases. Now, all of a sudden, we're getting the court. Accepting the question that was put forward by the plaintiff. In both cases students for fair admission, challenging that 45 year history Sfa has come forward and basically asked the court to declare that the precedent on which the court has relyed and on which institutions of higher education ever lied for decades in designing their policies and practices is no longer a good law. So it's a radical request coming from this organization. And you've got a cord that is potentially boys to take direct action. You that direction? And are. I know that you mentioned a decision of some consequence, and potentially overturning precedent. If we could put you on the spot, because we're thinking about scenario planning I know we don't have a decision yet, but what do you think the court will do? Yeah. What are you expecting in terms of possible options? So I'm a recovering litigator, and I learned lesson the hard way along long, long time ago. You don't predict outcomes even based on rollout. But I will tell you. I think it's actually really wise for institutions and organizations right now to be engaged in scenario planning. And what do you do? And that we've been involved in that work with many of the field what do you do in that context? You take what you can deduce from the best evidence you've got, which includes in this case 5 h of rural argument back in October, where the court really pressed on a number of issues, let me say this also big picture. I think we can predict the outcome. This court has surprised us before in good ways and in bad ways, and so I think it's don't take anything that I'm gonna say is a prediction. But I think it is in line with the conventional wisdom. This court is poised to take some, consequently adverse action. I think we're looking at probably one of a couple of outcomes, one that I've characterized as Armageddon, where the court literally wipes out the 45 years of precedent and says there's nothing in a student's life experience or perspective. Or what they will bring to an institution expressly associated with their race. That they can live up. We cannot consider race in any form or fashion period in defense that is the most dramatic extreme outcome that one might imagine. But it's on the table. Given the fact that the court is accepted, the question of whether it should consider reversing 45 years of precedent, there is a in their ways. The court could get there in a lot of scenarios that won't go into now. But I would say I think there's a at least a viable shot. This court is. Going to take some, consequently adverse action, but do so in a slightly more muted way. Is I navigating a tsunami? As opposed to having to deal with an arm. Armageddon, and that is, recognizing that. A student's life experience a. So that may be expressly associated with the race is intrinsic to their dignity and their self-worth, and then that is, in fact, the very thing that the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution is designed to protect to value the integrity of the individual, and so preserving that ability to tell a story through an essay. In, for instance, or through teacher recommendations, but wiping out any of of an institution to simply make judgments and confir benefits or opportunities. We are an institution, is saying, you are a student of color and based on racial status alone. We will give you some benefit or some extra consideration. I think the court may be poised to draw that very fine but important line in those 2 scenarios. Importantly, because students for Ferret Mission actually conceded the point of the court repeatedly in oral argument that it was really just going after this with a term check. The box use of rice, and did not want to offset the ability of an individual applicant to tell their authentic. Thank you. Well, you've just created a great segue to Angel Angel with options such as Armageddon in a tsunami on the table is possibilities, of course, decision could have a really significant impact on admissions. Officers. And how they administer it. Admissions decisions. So what's been Nac X. Position on the cases? They may be after that. Yeah, and I'm wondering I was gonna ask Guard if Armageddon and Tsunami are League terms that we're using Umageddon and Tsunami are legal terms that we first of all, Terry thanks for having Okay. me and just for those of you who may not be aware, the National Association for College admission counseling is the case for admission counseling professionals, but also for high school counselors. We have over 27,000 members around the country and around the world and so as you can imagine, it, has been a very busy season for us as admission officers who are on the frontlines, are preparing for this, but also as high school counselors are thinking about how they are going to advise students, and particularly students color in the pipeline. So I hope to talk a little bit about that later. But we filed an amicus brief along with the college board and act and Acro, the registrars and other admissions organization basically arguing that we think it's very important for admission officers to be able to continue to use race in the context of holistic college admission and I think that's where oftentimes people get a little bit confused because holistic college admission, at least the way it's been portrayed by certain segments of society is about using race but that's really related to what art was just talking about which is a students lived experience, right? Can we give credit for the lived experience that students have a part of? That is certainly race. And we can't unattached that from other parts of the students apple, but that also includes, you know, the kinds of activities that students are a part of all of the different ways that they have grown up. Their income, so on and so forth and over time, I think higher education in America has done a really good job of explaining why diversity is so critical and important, not just to their institutions. But there's a reason also why organizations like Google and Apple and the military and others also sititted amateurs, briefs because they believe that diversity in the workforce actually starts in higher education and so our position has obviously been to support our members who would very much like to continue to use race and college admission feel that it's very important in shaping their classes, in meeting the mission of their institutions. But one of the reasons I'm sharing the larger picture is knowing, you know, that many of you are in alumni offices, communication offices. So on and so forth, that it's this could also be an important call to action, and reminding your communities that this case is about much more than checking a box, but rather about the future of a nation. Thank you. Excuse me, thank you. And Teresa, that's a great lead in to you. And first question for you. So, as usual, the community's leaders at colleges and universities are likely going to bear the early responsibility for helping to lead their institutions. Yes. Response to the questions right from their community and others. Once this court decision is released. So how would you advise these professionals and their leaders to approach preparation for the upcoming decisions? I think there are some short-term considerations, and then some longer term. Considerations, and as we heard from art, this is going to take a little bit of finessing, because we need to understand if we are proving for worst case, scenario, or it is that still impactful but not as bad as the disaster as he was describing. It and so I think that the immediate approach obviously is to focus on whatever statement you are, or maybe even aren't going to release but I think that there's a bigger conversation and consideration for us to be talking about, that's day one and that's something that you all should be thinking about now but I'd like for all of us to focus more holistically as we were hearing from on hell as well about how we talk about our institutions to all of our audiences and the value that we bring. If I were you and I were thinking about the words and the phrases and the ways in which we present ourselves to a number of different audiences, including legislators, who some may be in support of whatever decision comes out through alumni who may feel very strongly that this undermines the ability for an institution to achieve its mission. We need to start looking at how we present ourselves across a number of different areas. That statement is a start, and the Supreme Court decision may give us specific language and references that suggest that we need to adjust our processes, perhaps, but also how we talk about ourselves and the ways in which we position ourselves, so if I were all of you I'd be looking at a more holistic language. Audit of how we talk about diversity and opportunity on our campuses, and start to flag what we might need to come back to, as we heard from on hell. We might need to think about how we're talking about our mission and maybe reframing that for value. We may need to actually be looking at some language tweaks. There is for a number of institutions, strategic plan priorities that might need some adjustment or some review. We need to look at enrollment materials, tour guidescripts, a number of different ways, including websites. That's not just for the institution as a whole, but also gets into programs and units, and how they talk about the ways in which they prioritize and perhaps achieve diversity. So I think that there is this community based approach the campuses really should be thinking about in advancement is a great place to serve as a as a place to check, to make sure that that thoroughness to make sure that whatever this shift might be for your institution is reflected across all of the ways in which you talked to others, and you talk about yourself. Thank you. Trustee. So, not only thinking about initial response, but potentially an audit, not just a practices, but of language that's used to describe the outcomes that we're seeking when we use practices like this or others. Very, very important. I think it's probably good for me to stipulate. That case has also filed an amicus brief on the same side, in support of the value of these practices. And the outcomes they're designed to achieve. Also, on to note that there is a resource for you among the tools that we've provided in the course tab that is a resource developed by our commissions. Our thought leader groups and think tanks of professionals at case that think about how to work through a framework of whether or not you should take a position, public or otherwise, and how to think that through in relation to your mission, your values your strategic plan, some of the things that Teresa has mentioned. So those resources are there for you. If you need that support. Angel let's ask you, how is Nakk preparing its members? Both admissions, offers officers and high school counselors for the decision. And what's the general feeling? Do you think among your members? And maybe I'll start with the general feeling. That's the easier question, which is, you know, just a sense of nervousness. Right, and a sense of uncertainty and a sense of, you know, really not knowing how to serve students and serve institutions and depending on how the court rules, and depending on how the court rules and when this would become effective, it could be as effective as immediately right, and so how institutions, are going to respond I think there is an incredible amount of nervousness, but you know that that's where we feel like we can play a significant role. And we have been working with institutions. We've been trying to prepare toolkits, for example, for our various constituencies. One of the things that's exciting, but also challenging about. Nacak is we don't serve just one sector. Higher education. We also serve the secondary school sector as well. And so we are trying to prepare both of those sectors for what is to come. You know I love that. That is, I was just talking about aut. We have talked with our members, and certainly recommended that they should be working on audits internally in the admissions office, but then, also in collaboration with the Advancement Office. What are the scholarship programs that you might be working with that are race-based? What kind of recruitment, but also what kind of relationships with donors do we have that? Are based on particular race ethnicity, so on and so forth. So those are some of the things that we certainly have been doing big part of what we've also been doing. And so forth. So those are some of the things that we certainly have been doing. Big part of what we've also been doing is preparing our members for communications. And what should they be talking about from an admissions perspective. And I know the institution as a whole will be creating a communication strategy, or at least I hope you're all thinking about a communication strategy. You can talk to Teresa. She's happy to help you with that but also that the Admissions Office has a different audience. They need to be thinking about high school counselors are immediately going to ask, so what is ex institution doing right? I spoke to a high school counselor last week, and she said to me, You know, Angel, I'm really nervous because I know the institutions that have scholarships for black students and Latinx students and you know indigenous populations so on. And so forth, and so I counsel particular segments of my student population to apply to these institutions. I'm not exactly sure how to do that. So one of the pieces of advice I would share with this audience as well is to make sure that you have a strategy and a communication for your high school counselors, because that's really your pipeline of your future students so something that we've been working on as well, and then the last thing I'll say because we have a lot of resources on our website. If your institution is a knack act member, you can certainly go on and and you know, take those off the website as well but we've also been doing a lot of information sharing around. What have we learned from the University of California? System in Michigan and Colorado, and already in Michigan, Colorado, Washington University of California, states that basically are already doing this work right that are not allowed to use race in college admission? What are some of the ways that they change their Pipeline their application. Pipeline have they evolved their recruitment, practices and methods? I think one of the benefits is that we will learn from them as well, and we may not have to start from scratch. So that's one of the other areas that we're supporting our members in. Great. So in follow up there, you know just the partnership between the communications leader and their admissions and enrollment costs to really think about that group, that audience. It's going to be so important as a partner to the institution. Those college and guidance counselors, and then maybe working with colleagues in the Admissions office and across the leadership table on what can be learned from those States that are already facing a similar reality. In terms of restrictions would be important. So thank you. Okay, trust a couple questions for you. One is one of our audience. Members asked us to clarify kind of an example of more holistic language. Maybe a before, and after so if you have a chance to think about that, that would be useful for us, and then, in addition, I'd like to ask you if you could think about a decision to strike down the current, process will lead to really significant concerns. Among students, faculty, staff, and alumni. At some institutions, especially those from diverse backgrounds. And so what are some tools? Not just the statement. But what are some other tools? Institutions can use to support these groups. So 2 questions for you, there. Perfect, I'll start with the first one. Just so. I don't forget it, and that is, I think, as Art was talking about some of the previous cases, some of those included specific language the institutions needed to shift, how they talked about things ways that institutions could still be needing some of their goals, but perhaps using different approaches in different language. So once this decision comes out, it will be clear if there are some specific words that we might be looking at, or phrases or other ways, that we need to be thinking and talking about, what we do, that still fits within the parameters that the supreme court is providing to us. So, looking for some of those words, I also suggest we all have a number of ways in which we talk about the institution. Some of those that we never reviewed like boilerplate in your press, releases and some of the ways in which we post different descriptions about our institutions, or whatever the bottom line might be in an ad that we put out looking at all of those ways because we in higher education have done a fantastic job of infusing diversity, and infusing some of what might be potentially problematic language in the future. I don't know yet in how we talk about ourselves, and if that's the case, then we need to be thinking about, what does this look like? How do we make those changes? But I think a number of offices have a list of how do we talk about ourselves so they can update those, even if it's just the next year? Your admissions, materials, truly anything that was is outward facing, and anything, even from an employer. Relations standpoint that you are sending to your internal communities to that we skip past because we're so used to seeing that language. So that'd be one suggestion. I have anything that's going out going internal, but going to the tools. This is going to sound simplistic, and I apologize, but advancement people relate to others. And so I think, the most significant tool that we can use are really our ears and our feedback loops. I think that in higher education we like to talk, and our gut reaction is to fill space, and often what we need to do is to listen and start to react to what the emotional need of our community and our environment are so start with what you want that initial stance to be and that stance should really answer 3 simple questions, what does this mean for me? For your different audiences, perspectives? What does this mean for others? Like me. And how does this change the institution that I know? And the reality is for some institutions there may not be great change, especially for those institutions that are open access, or for those that don't have some of the practices that were brought before the Supreme Court, so make sure is advancement, leaders, that as you're providing then ways to talk about this you're thinking about those people that might need a call. They might need a group setting. You might need to use ambassadors to gather people together to allow them to process and I wanna give one quick caveat to this Terry, and that is when these decisions come out quite often all of those of those in advancement. We get the backlash from our audiences because they are reacting to announcements and decisions. And I just want for everybody to make sure that they're taking care of themselves and their teams as people express their emotions, because often the pushback on what we are tasked with sharing really is a proxy for much bigger decisions and in this case, decisions, that are made outside of the institution. Yeah, that's great. Reminder Teresa. Thank you. So taking care of self in a period where there might be some really extended back and forth. And you'll see people from all different perspective reacting ways that aren't always kind of feel good or constructive is important. I think you've also given us some examples of other ways to support our community that aren't a statement. But really reflect more in person, support through other means. So that's great. Alright. I wanna go back to you for a minute. You referenced at least one option for something that institutions could do. If there's a decision that requires a significant change in practice, and that relates, perhaps, to an essay that might open the door to lived experience or individual experience. Are there other ways you can think of that you're talking about? Midigating, that potential outcome. Yeah, I think in a for comprehensive global way, I would lift up 3 things to think about to really sort of mitigate what we anticipate are gonna be consequentially adverse rulings by the court. They go to mindset communications and sort of policy and practice. I think the big point for me is, and I've been with this space around the clock is my colleagues have on this universe of apprehension. How do we lead as institutional leaders, regardless of our role? How do we actually step forward and seize the moment for a leadership around a commitment? Diversity and equity, that is, mission tide missions are not going to change. As a consequence of this court ruling this court ruling can do really horrific things in a narrow swath of activity. It is not poised to take on the integrity and the values that are in integral and the diversity and equity goals in institutions of our educations. In particular, set forth as part of what they do, and why they do what they do. And so I think this question of a mindset of leading through challenge, as opposed to we're coiling or being reticent, or just sort of looking. Myopically at a court ruling on a set of admissions practices is important, and that plays into the communications piece that angel and dress have already sort of teed up so nicely. I, as a lawyer who is telling all of my clients, give me 2 weeks I'm gonna go bury myself, and I'll come dig myself out, and I'll tell you what I think the implications of the court opinions are that immediate period. Following the course, decision will be as much a moment of psychology as it is a moment of policy and compliance. 15 and if we aren't paying attention and taking care of our communities, particularly communities of color for students, faculty staff and a lot, we are missing the proverbial ball. And so we should be very intent on what our strategy is, and for most institutions for most students. At the end of June, it's going to be an online strategy until you've got fall programming for students who are returning in the fall. So we should really be thinking through a multi-layered over the course of time, communications and stakeholder engagement strategy. But really to assure that our communities of color feel like they belong in. And they are here because they should be here under our very principles, around our mission goal. I would say, as a matter of policy and planning the solution to a court decision, that in in a relatively narrow box is about a particular facet of admissions, policy, and practice is not just to say what do I change or fix on admissions to comport with the law let's be clear we need to figure out what you do to comfort with the law. But this is an opportunity to step back and say, I've termed it bridges, barriers, and byways to think broadly around the the issues of pathways, recruitment, outreach and pipeline programs, that can be actually expressly race targeted, but not subject to these liquid rules, because they aren't conferring those individual benefits. It's more about program design and investment. We should be thinking differently about barriers, issues of legacy stuff are test-use or pipeline programs in which you are setting up transfer for students from one institution to another. Do we need to recalibrate and rethink the parameters around those decisions in a post Sfa world? And then in that context, there's a broad array of race, neutral strategies that the court has continued to point the litigants to, regardless of outcome. To say you've got to be exhausting yourself on making sure you really thought through all of the viable race neutral strategies. I think I suspect we've not done as much as we might on that front. And I think, thinking through with some attentionality around other strategies and options, to again maintain that focus on what we're trying to do from our mission orientation. Thank you. I like your optimism. Well, thank you about leading through challenges and leaning into the values and mission connections to the outcomes that we care about, and also bridges, barriers. And by way, 3 good paths to be thinking about, we're getting lots of questions in the chat that we knew would come up and, Art, I'm going to direct this to you, for certainly others can chime in if you'd like lots of concerns about the implications for policies outside of but aacent to admissions. One of those areas is obviously financial aid, and Scarletts, and particularly those that in some way benefits students of color. So can you talk about how the decision might impact these policies? And what we should be thinking about. There. Sure. So let me start with align. I hear myself saying a lot these days let's not get ahead of our skis. Let's wait for the decision and read and digest the decision before we're reaching to or jump into conclusions. Here. But in terms of readiness and sort of setting the table to make sure that we are prepared to pivot where we might need to pivot, I actually think it is very prudent and important to be considering the an angel tee this up the implications on race consciousness and ethnicity conscious financial aid, and scholarships in particular. While these cases, these 2 cases, the 4 corners of the cases are only admission. There's nothing from either side that suggests any kind of opening for this court to step in and opine on anything other than admission you don't have to be have gone around the block as many times as I have with the Supreme Court to know that they're gonna begin their opinions with sort of broad rhetoric, and the Garner wax eloquent, and they're going to talk general principles before they get to the very particular issues at play. In a particular case, and I think those broad principles that we could anticipate being how the court thinks about non-discrimination under title 6, and under the equal protection clause. Are certainly going to have ripple effects, and so I think we would be really shortsighted if we somehow were pretending that somehow this is only going to be about admissions, and there are no implications beyond that I think we need to be thinking through number. One right now, just doing the fundamental inventory of policy and practice. Where are the race and ethnicity, conscious scholarships, either institutionally funded or privately? Don'tor-funded to the extent that the institution is playing any kind of role in the management or administration of private donor aid. Those scholarships are going to be subject to Title 6 as well. There was guidance. I helped lead the team back in the nineties when I was at the department to put out guidance on race conscious scholarships. We didn't have good court opinions on scholarships in. We don't now actually we turned to Baki. Then, because that's what we had I think there's a kind of intersectionality that one would anticipate again trying to avoid the overreaction. I don't want to overread an opinion. Yeah. I haven't even digested yet. Let's wait for the opinion, but I think in terms of readiness, we need to be attuned to the possibility that there may be implications in and ripple effects with respect to race conscious scholarships in aid including including privately in town. So in terms of things we can be doing now to be constructive, back to to rest. This point, auditing or inventorying practices that might relate. That's totally. Yep! And then starting conversations with your colleagues from the General counsel's office or your outside counsel around what their learning from the decision about what non-discrimination under title title 6 in the equal protection clause mean in as a result of this decision and then how that might begin to affect practices. The institution holds. Good to know. And I think it's a really important as we go into that sort of conversations and sort of recognize that institutions are going to have plus or minus probably 3 good months to effect whatever change they're gonna check for this sort of first wave because they've got to be ready with application materials and financial aid descriptions, and the whole piece, and these aren't cabins right? These all intersect, you change something in admissions. It's going to affect how you're thinking about financial aid, or does it comprehensive enrollment, strategy? I think, thinking through that series of conversations, and just arming yourself so that you're not scurrying in the wake of a decision, saying, Oh, gosh! Where's that thing like? Let's get the information together that your poise for thoughtful, less panicked conversations. Not just the what do I have to change to comport with court precedent? But where are the opportunities in this landscape of enrollment, policy, and practice to do something different that might mitigate or be creative while still adhering to a court ruling might mitigate the adverse effect of what the court is said on a certain specific practice so it is a real opportunity but you want your so the policy, legal and other institutional leaders together for those series of conversations over the. I like that. This could conceivably spur creativity and new innovation around the practice. I think that's another kind of optimistic piece to look at. But it sounds like we know what we'll be doing in instead of summer vacation. Absolutely. Sorry. Everyone. Sure. Sure. Can I add one quick calendar? Note to that. I agree with everything that are his just said about making sure that you don't rush out. But instead, this is something strategic, and I think people will understand if we say we need a bit of time to understand what this means for our institution, and we will be back. And I also would say, I think higher education works well when we have some timelines that we're trying to reach, and one of those that I would point out is that a number of college applications open on August first, and the reason that I note that is that back to on hell's point we're going to need to start to reach out to counselors. We're going to need to be starting to reach out to our prospective students, etc. And they are going to be making decisions and choices over the course of the summer as well. So their process doesn't stop because we are making sure that we are doing what we need to do. But we need to make sure that we give ourselves the time to be stretchedic and thoughtful in our practice. Thank you, Angel. I think one of the other areas we've been thinking about. And we're getting some questions about, especially in the current environment, is concerns that diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging practices could also be affected by the court's decision. Are you hearing about any of that from your members? Yeah. I'm certainly hearing concern. And I actually, I'd love to hear arts opinion on this. Since education, Council is our legal counsel at Macac, and we've been working very closely with them. You know that the 2 may not necessarily be related. The practices that are happening on campus. Could it be a slippery slope, absolutely and I think that's what our members are concerned about. But I will tell you. I mean, that is just something we are concerned about giving the landscape in the United States and the dangerous legislation that is coming out of States. Someone in the chat posted about Florida. If you look at the chronicle of higher education every day, there is a Dei legislation or anti di legislation tracker that you can look at. Pen. America is also doing a really good job of tracking these so I think also, it's really important. As the court decision comes out to also be paying very close attention and educating your community you know I've been sort of on a speaker circuit the last couple of weeks talking about these issues with everyone from colleges and universities. To corporations, and I am stunned at how many people have no idea what kind of legislation is being proposed in their own States. And so, I think, making sure that we are paying close attention. Yes, to what? The Supreme Court decision is, and how to operationalize some of those things on your campus. Yeah. But also let's intersect that with what's happening at your local level and at your state level. Because in many ways that's what's actually going to inhibit some of the work that is happening on college campuses around Dei, or is that error. Hey, Terry, can I just build on that? I agree with everything, Angel said. Yeah, absolutely. And, by the way, we've got now at least 35 States that have some legislation like this being introduced. So it's much bigger than Florida, although Florida still continues to sort of hold the king's scepter in terms of sort of the force here, I would say a couple of things while they are technically distinct. I think they are fundamentally related in every way that matters number one. If you don't think this is part of one big anti Dei agenda, you're not paying attention to sort of what's behind the movement of of Sfa and the others. And so there is a this is a concerted attack. It simply has some legal aspects to it in a court of law in many legislative aspects, and my concern frankly moving forward, is it as much about the potential legislative reaction to an adverse court decision as it is about the technical aspects of a court decision because right or wrong valid or not you can give many on the other side of these anti Dei movements. 3 words, 3 sentences, or 3 paragraphs out of a court opinion, and they will push them to the breaking point of sort of logic. In fact, based analysis which don't really matter in a lot of these cases this is a rhetorical or around emotion. And so I think we've got to be poised for the impact of what the decisions are beyond. Just the technical legal aspects. I would also just say one final point. I think we will see a wave of administrative filings with the office. So civil rights, where I worked for 6 and a half years, are in litigation, and a lot of the challenges going to be, you know, you say now you're complying with Supreme Court precedent. Prove it, and so I think there is going to be. And I'm saying this more sort of institutional attendees here. A material shift at the whatever a doubt, and I didn't ascribe to this many years ago. But for a long time the conventional wisdom was, if you don't write it down, that's your best defense. In a case like this. Right? Let's just have it in our heads and be able to talk about it in cogent, logical way. I think, with a doubt. We are now in an era where, if you don't write it down, that is your first big mistake. I think we're going to need great attention to the policy and practice details, particularly where it may come to. Some of these fine lines that are potentially going to be drawn about how you think about an applicant's racial background as opposed to their racial status. The precision here is going to be imported in having it clearly explained for admission readers for alumni, who may be conducting interviews and the like. It's gonna be really critical. Thank you. That's really helpful, and really is another good reminder to be engaging around the leadership table with not only what actions are being taken, what policies are being considered, but how to articulate them in ways they're going to help us, respond when we're asked to prove what we're doing. Also, kinda puts the cases in the context of a really important cultural time for country for the United States. So I think, putting it in that larger context is important and helpful. Alright, I'm gonna give all of you a chance to talk about something that's come up in our conversation. There's already question the chat. Certainly, in the arguments about legacy admissions, policies, policies that consider an applicant that has family members who attended the institution, and those could also be impacted by the decision. I know that Justice Kadunji Brown Jackson seemed to raise this issue during oral arguments during the case, and so could each of you talk a bit about what a decision to strike down race conscious admissions would mean or legacy admissions policies. We would like to begin. Hot potato Teresa. I'm happy to start. Yeah, just with taking a second for just a reality check as well. And that is there that there are only a few institutions in the country with selectivity that suggests that applicants would benefit from legacy admissions. So for those institutions that don't have legacy admissions or are open access, etc. Be clear that this doesn't apply to your installation. And if it does apply to your institution, how it applies to your institution currently to make sure that you have kind of a framework for how you're describing that. And, as you mentioned, Justice Jackson really had some feelastic considerations. If you all haven't listened to oral arguments, I thought hers were some of the most compelling, and she really drew this connection about identity, that you might be born into, so that you're talking about race. But then perhaps you're also talking about legacy admissions as well and're also talking about legacy admissions as well, and I think that for a number of the institutions that I work with public and private, because there are some public that still have perhaps some considerations around legacy those institutions have been having some real honest conversations with themselves over the past 6 to 9 months, and if you aren't aware of those conversations have been held, I would ask, because I think the question is, today does it have the utility that it once had? And where are we, and how where do we stand, and what do we think? So that when we get not just the decision. But I think this is important. Whenever you get from the other side of the argument, as well may bring legacy into this, and perhaps the decision brings legacy in as well. But we will be able to see from the language that is presented to us. Perhaps some leadership decisions, the institutions may have to have purely based on this decision, or what may come next. And this might be a a time for institutions to look as we're looking at a number of policies about. How how are we here, and why are we here? But I also want to go back to something really quickly. Art, said something, and I want to clarify just in case I gave this impression. I think you inventory your mission, so you didn't say this art. But I just want to clarify just in case I wasn't clear. I think you inventory your mission institutions, missions rarely change, and they really shouldn't, because that's so. Foundational. So we're not going to look at. What about changing our mission? But inventory that language, because we may need to shift in how we talk about the how we live. That mission rather than the language within it, because it's a pretty general statements and are foundational. But again, think about how we talk about our institution, and it may get come down to that level of detail as well. Angel back to legacy admissions for a moment. Hey! You know the recruitment of a legacy has been an enrollment lifeline for a lot of institutions that aren't on the really selective end of the spectrum. How are you advising colleagues on the speaker? Yeah, I mean, I will say, we certainly have separated both of these conversations at the association, and not time them to the case. And again, always listening to art in my ear, not getting ahead of the court, and what the implications might be for other areas of college admissions but I have to sort of like double down on something that is said around what frustrates me personally having been in this in this profession for a long time I was a chief admissions officer for a long time as well. Really that the big impact on legacy admissions is for a tiny number of schools in this country. And I think that is, I've tried to get that message out to the media. They don't seem to think it's a sexy story to publish, but we're talking about a small number of schools who, by the way, are practicing holistic college admissions, and where certainly those institutions should be having conversations about in today's day and age given all of the work that we have done around equity and access, and opening the doors wider. Do these policies still make sense for our institution? Do they live? Our values. And also do they uphold our mission but, Terry, you do bring up a good point, you know. I'm not sure that I would say it's a lifeline for a lot of institutions, but it certainly is a very strategic way for some institutions to meet in Roman goals but let's be clear, and we're here at case also to meet fundraising goals right? And I think that's where the rubber meets the road, and it gets pretty complicated you know, every reporter that I talk to. I say, it's complicated as with most most things in higher education, you know. Could this potentially be at risk I would say, yes, maybe art has the answer to whether it's related or not. But we have seen legislators actually talking about it and proposing bringing forth legislation around legacy, admission. And my frustration is that we're really talking about a significant subset of American higher education. Alright! And I think we could be focusing on bigger issues. But that's my. Thank you, Angel, alright. Anything you wanna add on this point. Yeah, I'd say a couple of things. I agree with angels orientation here, and I will tell you someone who's not been a leader in admissions. Dean, but has lived the space and worked with more admissions, Dean, than lawyers over the past 3 years, for which I'm eternally great. That I think the I'm I get very nervous when I see any kind of action that is, Angel suggests we've got potential legislative action here, at least, being discussed where, if they tried to paint one size fits all sort of rubric on an institution, I just had a conversation with a college president, and we were working our brainstorming exercise of let's think about what we recalibrate around equity in the wake of a bad decision to address the impact of a bad decision and legacy admissions was on the list long story. Short, I got schooled very quickly. It's an it's a selective institution that last year, admitted more students of color than any other sort of cluster of students. Number one and number 2. Their legacy admissions. Policy includes siblings, and so already you can see a different sort of way of thinking about legacy in the diversity in equity impact for an institution that's got that design versus other so I would argue the devils in the details. It is certainly fair and right to be looking at the question for those sets of institutions that are looking at it, whether you know it makes sense for sort of a legislative proposal, you know the minute I hear a state legislature or the Federal government wants to step into controlling or Processes that are so nuanced and so tether to the details that you can't begin to imagine if you're on the outside looking in, I get nervous. And so that's my reticence. There. Thank you. Well, now, we're gonna turn to maybe another group. We need to pay attention to at our institutions, which is our boards. Right so for Angel and Teresa, how can communications and other advancement leaders be preparing their presidents in their boards for this decision? And what role should institutional leaders play? Maybe I'll start at 30,000 feet. But I know that as does this every day. You know this is where I see opportunity right? That I think particularly. I talked to my members, who are chief enrollment officers who are engaging with boards and presidents every single day, that this is really an opportunity to educate the community about the nuances of the issues, about the complexities, about the different audiences, that need to be communicated against or communityated against or communicated for rather, and also, you know, helping the media community, but also the external community, but also the external community, but also the external community, including those alums who may have some emotions about those alums who may have some emotions about this particular decision and maybe threatening you know fundraising versus not fundraising, based on the decision. It's a great opportunity to again help educate. What does this really mean? What does holistic college admission mean? What are some of the things we're going to be doing so I do think the educational piece is really one of the opportunities here I'm actually optimistic, like all of my colleagues here about this is a great opportunity for us to reinvent but it starts with the Board and the President, because, as I always say, Deans of admission are given a lot of credit for power that they don't necessarily have. I agree with you. I think that this is a leadership moment for our Presidents and for our boards, and we'll be needing for them to live. Those both internally and externally, but we need them to do it strategically. So I think the key is that we need to focus on it being coordinated. And I think if I were all of you, I'd be thinking about how to harness potentially the political capital that your board members have. There's a reason why they were put on your boards. There are communities in which they have influence. And is this a time for you to have them help with that? So I would be very, very clear with your boards about what you need from them, and maybe, more importantly, what you don't need from them at this time. And I said that because I'm a former University Board officer, and it was always my best intended Board members that we're trying to anticipate what we needed or to fill the void that actually would derail our strategic efforts so share here's what I need from you here's what I Yeah. don't need from you and here's the strategy that we have for you. And here's the strategy that we have for telling our story about where we are and where we're going in the last bit that I would have, and let's see what Art thinks about this. I think that this is also a perfect time for a number of people to be reminded if you're at a public institution about your State's Freedom of Information Act parameters, and I say that because I can imagine that there are going to be some texts and some emails that are going to be flying where people express their own emotions. Whether that's a campus leader or a board member to a leader, whatever it might be, and in some States those can be foiled and can be made public, so make sure everybody is aware it's more than just text it's more than just emails make sure that you know within your state. What does that look like? Really good counsel. So I addition to thinking about the things that you really should be putting in writing, thinking about the things that you really should not part. You want to add anything? There! No, I agree with all of that, and I would just say, I think sort of strategically. And if you think that the frame of leadership I'm this goes to the board membership. That terrific just mentioned. If those of us who have affiliations with corporations or businesses I'm just constantly running on, even if this late day the power that corporations played in the grudering grass cases involving the University of Michigan in 2,003 where I think they were actually dispositive in their voice of advocacy. It's already been mentioned here that they've got a number of amicus briefs filed by corporations advancing the economic. Their word imperative of facial diversity for business and economic outcomes. As we think about this is not just a question of a court of law, but a court of public opinion. We need the right voices really echoing the chorus. Of that foundational point. That is demonstrated by decades of both research and institutional and organizational experience. But this isn't some sort of social justice. Nice idea! This isn't actually grounded in the impact. And the benefits for students. And ultimately employees who are in a business of innovation and creativity and teamwork in a global society. This all ties into that much bigger picture, and I think if we're going to leverage the moment for any positive that can come out of a potentially negative outcome, we need to be thinking very strategically about lifting those voices with power and force because they can be persuasive at times where a you know Phd can't! And for our colleagues who are working with boards, particularly at public institutions. This has been a time where there's some real divisiveness on some boards. There are members of boards who will think this is not an adverse decision. If race conscious admissions are removed as practices, and I think, recognizing the environments, the mixed environments in which our members work and how to think about that is important just on a tactical level, getting the constructive opportunity for your board to be talking about the implications of this case, and then thinking about who speaks on behalf of the board being really clear about that, and having some guidance about that to your board members before there's any opportunity to speak publicly, that would be a really useful thing to do as well, we're getting close to the top of the hour. So we're gonna take some questions from the audience, and then I'll wrap back for a little optimism at the end. From our panel, and so let's see, we're gonna start with. Let's see. Give you a couple of questions here. Sorry? A question that came in from our case online community prior to the webinar was what are the implications? If any, for foundation funded projects at our institutions, ones that are not one that are already in process, and those not yet awarded. So I think maybe the question relates specifically to foundation funded projects that may be directed at recruitment or success and completion of students from underrepresented backgrounds are, do you want to take that one? Yeah, so that could cover an awful lot of policy and practice, including back to the financial aid and scholarship where you've got privately endowed or privately supported aid in certain ways, I would say to the extent you've got any intersectionality with sort of the operations of the institution of education management program, design, and sort of connectivity on the way the work is ongoing. Whatever the scope of the work is, you should certainly be attuned on this, and so, as I'm inventorying policies and practices with clients right now, we're looking at anything that may be sort of externally driven, but have some management affiliation or association with the institution as part of that inquiry, and then it's just gonna be a let's see what the court says and decides, I would say, for those potential programs that may be embedded in the question that are actually quite distinct and separate from the institution of higher education so and i'm assuming they are the foundation, would not be subject to title 6, because it's not a recipient of Federal funds, and it's certainly not public enough in a State action. Kind of way. So it's not subject to the Constitution. There are still less well-known nondiscriminate Federal nondiscrimination laws that may affect certain pride, purely private conduct, that I turn a kind of first or second cousin to the sort of zone of of standards and principles that come out from the title. 6 and equal protection cases, and so you should be aware of those I could talk to anyone offline if they've got questions. But there is a universe that's less well known. But that really drives in the same direction so I don't know. There's an immediate direct effect coming from the court opinion. But we're obviously looking at sort of the ripples and the implications coming. Exactly. The second and third concentric circles out from this, and again another opportunity to talk with your counsel about how they're interpreting the decision. Once once it arrives, thank you. We've got another question. If the Supreme Court sides with the schools and supports the use of race and admissions, will policies change in the States where there is legislation limiting the use of race and admissions, and in that case should we wait for direction from our institutions to lead our communications? I know it trusts it's gonna say, I'll give you that one first, but we'll we'll let art comment on the first part of the question. So just on the what the implications would be for the State policies and practices. If? If the court somehow miraculously discovers that the 45 years of precedent come, that is been handed down consistently, is actually valid. Precedent. I he, you know, couldn't resist that editorial comment. I think the prospect there is. You're certainly gonna have states in public institutions within those States that are looking hard to see what the court says in this context. But it's a technical matter. There's nothing here where the court is giving permission. First States to do certain things or institutions within States do certain things that is going to require a shift in the fact. There's a case going back 4, 5, 6 years shooting versus if it involve the University of Michigan, where the court basically said the Michigan voters, through their proposition to had the independent authority to say we don't want to consider racing anymore. Even though good, or had just approved the University of Michigan's consideration of race under Federal non discrimination rule. Thank you. Interesting, what's the answer to the question whenever it finishes with? Should we wait for direction, for our institutions to lead our communications? I would say, start planning now. But what I also would say is that we have limited amounts of time in our weeks and our months, and so I would make sure that you are buttoning up your strategies, and what you're proposing to your senior leaders, for the most most likely scenarios, and this would be one that if you have time and you've really gone through and created the different options for the most likely scenarios, and you have some time this would be an interesting tabletop perhaps later to take to your you to your teams. But what I would say is, I would bet on some of these more soonami or catastrophic types of decisions to come forth, so I never wait for the team that doesn't mean I implement it. I start planning and building the strategy and thinking about what happens, so that I have it at the ready. Should it be needed. But I think that's different in prioritization. Sure! I would definitely be looking at some of these other scenarios that we've been talking about. A question from the audience. Are there models for the general counsel's office, working as leaders and alignning with the college or universities? Communications team. Angel. Yes, art. Yeah. Go ahead. Absolutely. I think it's as simple and as complicated as putting the right team of multidisciplinary people together. Internally around a clear sh shared vision and set of direction and that's going to vary institution by institution. But there's there's we're very good at going off in silos. This is the proverbial breaking down silos and putting people together, and often your general counselor, someone with a general counselor's office is in a unique position to help lead that effort. Yes. As a matter of both policy, leadership as well as legal compliance, because they have the responsibility. Universally across the university, and so it often makes sense to do that. But there are other policies as well that could play that role. And I would also say, I feel quite often people assume that legal counsel, and and I will come into a room and we'll have a death match right? And I would say 98% of the time we're on the same page. It's that 2%. That is the difference. And what I always ask is, why, usually start by saying, here's how I'm thinking about this in Q helped me understand how you're thinking about it. And here's a really important clarifying question that I always ask is your counsel? Are your edits, because it's usually the edits where we all start to remove each other a little bit sideways and this is what I ask. Are these edits editorial, or are they legally based? And can you help us get to a middle point? Because there's usually a refinement in some give and take that we each have to give. That's usually kind of how I think about the 2 of those, because we're usually attuned to what our community wants to hear and how. And they want to make sure that we're not using language or phrases that can get us into trouble. So how can we meet in the middle with that kind of being the differentiator? Sure in my experience, if you've got a relationship with the general counsel's office in the Communications office. To begin with, that's a great place to start. But if you're not approach this moment as an opportunity to make that better and approach the conversation with kind of a learner mindset and some curiosity about, what are you thinking? Here's what I'm thinking you know, we're often managing 2 types of risk, legal and reputational, and there's an opportunity to discuss both, and not necessarily have them be in opposition. Angel. A you like you wanted to add something. There! Yeah, no. The only thing I wanted to add is that I think we've made this point before. But I wanted to say it again that this is really important, that as those conversations are happening, that you bring as many voices to the table in the cabinet together because, you know, I think general counsel and communications will have a perspective, but the Dean of admission needs to be sitting at the Yeah. That's right. table, obviously, that needs to be sitting at the table, because that meeting in the middle is going to be so critically important and inviting voices that may understand the day to day and that meeting in the middle is going to be so critically important and inviting voices that may understand the day to day and say this is going to impact high school counselors this way or this is going to impact our alums. This way is so critical, so it sounds simple, but I have seen this happen over and over again at institutions where 3 Cabinet members get together and make the decision. And they didn't actually talk to the constituency that it's going to impact. So important. Thank you. Question, that looks like someone needs some encouragement. Even at this late date I'm dealing with a great deal of denial on the part of trustees and senior leaders as to the possible possibility of either the Armageddon or the tsunami. A tsunami alternatives. Is it a combination of wishful thinking and the ease with which heads can feel comfortable in the sand in the few remaining days before the decision is released? Is there anything that can be done to raise awareness as to how bad this could be? I don't wanna get ahead of our skis, but the stakes are really high here, and hedging at this point doesn't feel prudent. Hmm! If you've got people that are who have their heads buried in the sand, there may be multiple reasons for that the only thing I would lift up is this, we've got a Supreme Court now where 4 of the 9 justices. Are newly appointed since the last court opinion that upheld the consideration of race, and as importantly, of the 5 other justices who were on the court in 2016, when the the fisher versus ut case was decided there's only one justice who was in that court majority justice Sotomayor, justice Kagan was recused because she had been involved in the Solicitor General's office, and the other 3 justices are the those who are the most conservative on the court. On this set of issues. So all you need to look at for sort of reality. Check this pains me to say, as a kind of legal purist is the composition of the court really matters here, and people who are forecasting sort of dooming bloom, even though I'm not quite there on my spectrum. Do it for a reason, because you look at the composition of the court, and it begins to tell the tale and then you've got a court that is taking the question. Let's overrule 45 years of precedent, they said. Yes, to taking that question when there was nothing that compelled it. The facts. Basically, in the 2 cases hadn't changed from prior facts. The legal landscape hadn't changed. There was no evidence of absence, of reliance or good faith. Implementation in the field. Absolutely none. So this is a moment. It's a political moment, and you know one picture of the Supreme Court should be part of the answer to that. Wake up, call. Very good one last question from the audience, and then, oh, Teresa, sure, yes, of course. Can I tackle that one really quickly as well? Yeah, if I could go back and do it again, I think I would have had psychology as one of my majors because a lot of what I do is try to understand and unpack where some of this fear comes from and how do we overcome how do we overcome that. And there also is a reality that sometimes we aren't going to be able to get to their fear. But instead, can we start to provide resource so that they don't start from being in a whole, but start a ground so it may make sense. Go to what organizations you know your trustees and your senior leaders respect and start to send some of the resources that those organizations are developing around this. It could be the association of governing boards. They have resources. It could be the American Mount Council and Education. It could be case it could be Nacac. It could be a number of different areas in maybe you kind of put them all into a resource packet for them. So they understand that for multiple vantage points that there are resources. And there are people saying you need to be prepared. And so what? Terry and I joked about before. Sometimes you go ahead and start developing those materials, so that when this decision comes down and they say, I think we need to do something. You're not starting then, and the last thing that I would say about this is that, remember, as we're going through this as well, that sometimes we're gonna have to manage up with some of this because they themselves are feeling emotions tied to this too, so all of our community including ourselves, and our leaders, may be processing as we go through this, too, and you're not alone. I? There aren't as many, but there are still some, and I would say a number of institutions that the leaders are in this spot, so you're not alone. But that means do your work behind the scenes so that you're ready for when you need to present what what you recommend. Yeah, I hope folks are hearing loud and clear now was the time to prepare, and encouraging your leaders to do so. Okay, I think we're we're getting close to the end of our time. And before I do some reminders, I'm going to ask the 3 of you to lean into some hope to give us some optimism. What are the opportunities here in the face of this change we've mentioned a little bit about opportunities for innovation and creativity. What are the opportunities? You see, Angel? I actually think this is a huge opportunity moment. I mean my natural inclination is to lean into a quote unquote crisis and think about what the opportunities are you know, both of my fellow panelists mentioned a couple here in terms of innovation, creativity what are some of the ways that we might do this work differently, we will have to do that in some of our colleagues, in places like the University of California, and Michigan, certainly have some experience here, and we can learn from them, but I also think this is an extraordinary fundraising opportunity for institutions, because you can rally your institution your alums, who care deeply about this issue. And, by the way, who have benefited from admission officers using race and college admission, you can actually rally them to support the institution. Think the other piece, that I am hoping that we will see and it's something that I am speaking a lot about around the country is more public private partnerships. The argument I have been making around the country is higher. Education can no longer do this alone. There are too many headwinds. There's too much coming at higher education. We need you workforce corporations, technology companies. So on, and so forth, to partner with us at the beginning and not just wait for higher education to request, retain, educate, and prepare a diverse workforce. It's now time for corporations to get involved on the front end. So think about what are the kind of corporations partners you might have locally that you can sort of raise the flag and say we need your help. But again also good rallying cry for the alums. Music to advancement, professional ears, opportunities for partnerships. And yeah, opportunities for philanthropy, art. Angela and I've been working together too long. I like. I couldn't have said it better. I will simply say I do think it is a moment to think through strategic design opportunities and angles, that we were either blind to or not sufficiently invested in before as Ted Mitchell the President of A/C actually said recently we should be doing the work we should have always been doing, and now's like the moment that's driving us. To rethink some of these questions around core equity, because at the end of the day, when you actually understand the role of equity here, this isn't just a sort of social aim. It is actually intrinsic to the dairy education, excellence of institutions lead with. And I think we're recognizing that and the power of a breadth of stakeholders and the voice of student and faculty in the lungs. I think in this context will be important. I will say this, let's not kid ourselves. This is actually hard work and it's gonna take time and resources. And we've got to give ourselves the time and space to actually do it in thoughtful strategic ways. That's right. This disruption is gonna cause some change in outcomes in the way of doing things. If we take the long view there's a real opportunity to redesign in some ways that could be incredible. Teresa. I am known for being a realistic optimist. So let's go for this, and I would have to say that I think we've been having so many conversations about the value of higher education in one of the ways that we haven't been able to move this forward is because do we do this on an institution by insert-based. Do we do this as an industry? And what this moment is expecting from us is that we have to do both well. So, if we've been trying to figure it out, maybe the environment is going to tell us what those next steps need to be. And I think what that really means is that there's has to be this intentionality behind what it is that we do, and why and how we talk about it for a number of institutions. Let's take advantage of the buy-in at this time to think through how we talk about ourselves, how it is that we position ourselves and how we describe our impact because we're going to be half we're going to have to be that much clearer about it. Many times we want to have those conversations and the time isn't made for this to be a leadership based conversation. And what this is telling us that we have to do is to lean into those conversations, really determine who we are, who we impact and what our futures are. And again focus on that intentionality. So I think this is an opportunity for my advancement. Colleagues for all of us to say what are the ways in which we've wanted to talk about our image, our reputation, and our impact. And how do we start to use this to refine some of how we describe what we do and. Great. Thank you. Very helpful. So I wanna do a couple of reminds the first is that if everyone looks in the chat there's a message from our colleague at case Christie Grimm, that notes that after the webinar there's a link you can go to both not only for an evaluation of this session, but to look at all the resources under the course tab that we mentioned today and there are resources there from Nakac, from a case number of other options that are available for you. So you can click on that link and find those resources as well as participate in an evaluation. Also want to just first, thank our participants. Art angel Teresa, thank you very much for offering your expertise at a time that we know people are wanting to prepare well for very much appreciate it. I also want to encourage folks to really hear one of the key messages that's been underscored during this session about the importance and value of collaborating with your colleagues on campus who represent the legal enrollment reputation and advancement considerations you're gonna need to balance in the wake of this decision. Very likely. Right in addition, I want to say that if you are interested in attending our case summit for leaders in advancement in July, in New York City, we are going to have a session on this Supreme Court decision following the decision, and will be a couple of weeks out and we'll be getting the best advice we can from experts at this point. After the decision's been received, and then finally, for those of us who joined who aren't case members, we really hope that programs like this reflect the value of belonging to the leading global community of professional who champion their institutions and advance education to transform lives and society. So for those of you that aren't members. If you'd like to learn more about the value of membership there's only been the resources and in the materials as well so with that, I wanna say, thank you to everyone we appreciate your time and good luck. If you prepare for this very interesting time that we're living, it thanks so much.

Supreme Court ruling

race-conscious admission practices

colleges and universities

admissions policies

communication

diversity

collaboration

financial aid policies

forthcoming Supreme Court decision

diversity and inclusion

higher education