UW looks to keep 'critical' support services without undermining intent of Legislature

The university found itself in the crosshairs of some lawmakers during the 2024 budget session, who said DEI programs give preferential treatment to certain groups of students based on demographics like race or gender. Gov. Mark Gordon omitted language in the budget footnote that would have defunded all DEI-related programs, services and activities, saying this language could cost the university millions of dollars in federal research grants.

However, Gordon upheld the decision to drop ODEI funding, siding with the intent of the Legislature.

“Clearly, Wyoming need not pursue any ‘woke’ agenda, and I have encouraged the University to drop such nonsense,” Gordon wrote in his veto letter.

Before the budget was signed, the university’s Board of Trustees and President Ed Seidel decided to assemble a policy framework to protect “essential” services related to DEI.

“We received the clear message from the Legislature and the Governor’s veto message — UW needs to make changes,” Seidel stated in the report. “However, we will always strive to be a place where all will be welcomed. That is part of our culture at UW and Wyoming’s principles.”

The working group consisted of faculty and staff Senate, members of the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming, deans and administrators.

Seidel noted during the first meeting of the group — which met six times — that they faced an enormous task. To identify the necessary functions of every program and service related to DEI standards is no simple feat, he said.

In light of this recognition, the group agreed on the following framework:

• Structure discussions based on the definitions of a land grant and flagship university and the Wyoming Constitution;
• Reaffirm the university’s principles of creating a safe and welcoming environment to all students, faculty and staff, remaining politically neutral, ensuring academic freedom and considering the needs of every student;
• Focus on the intent of the legislative and executive branches from the 2024 budget session;
• Avoid a “binary” view of supporting DEI versus opposing it; stay focused on the task to identify needed activities, functions and programs related to DEI and which ones should be continued.

Since lawmakers failed to define “DEI” in the budget footnote, the working group drafted its own definition based on legislative language and laws from other states, while keeping in mind the intent of state policymakers.

The report provided a list of activities that were excluded from this definition, which “reaffirm and highlight the University’s continued commitment to federal compliance, competitive research and athletic endeavors, student success, academic freedom, freedom of expression, and access to all.”

Using this definition of preferential treatment or bias in its review, the working group organized programs, activities and functions into three categories:

• Might be continued (i.e. those critical to the university’s core mission, but not based on preferential treatment or exclusion of particular identities)
• Might be modified (i.e. those critical to the university’s core mission, but modification needed to ensure no preferential treatment or exclusion of particular identities)
• Might be discontinued (i.e. those not necessarily critical to the university’s core mission)

A limited timeframe and “voluminous” list of such programs, activities and functions prevented the group from being able “to thoughtfully analyze” every listed item. However, the group did provide a general range of suggestions in its final report.

Options for ODEI

The report proposed a total of five options for the ODEI, acknowledging “the potential for reputational harm to the university” with each option, and the consequences each would have on its faculty, staff and students. This included potential negative impacts on the university’s ability to recruit and retain staff, its impact on student enrollment, and a risk of losing funding from the state and other sources of revenue.

The first option proposed keeping the office as it is and finding a way to fund it privately without the help of the state. Lawmakers cut out $1.73 million from the university’s block grant that would have gone toward ODEI. However, the report noted while this option followed “the letter of the law,” it could also be perceived as the university fighting against the intent of the Legislature.

A running theme throughout the report was to bear in mind lawmakers’ concerns about the “preferential” treatment in DEI-related programs and activities, while also keeping services that are a vital support to its students.

The report determined the establishment of at least one or more foundation account could fully support the office without state funding. With its current staff, the report estimated the office requires a “modest” annual budget of $500,000.

The report also estimated an endowment corpus would need $12.5 million “to have an annual payout sufficient to cover the office’s operating budget.” This would pose a burden on university staff to fundraise and apply for grants.

Another option proposed changing the name of the ODEI to a title that better reflected the intent of its functions and services. This option, similar to the first, also raised concerns about creating the perception of rebelling against state leaders.

The third option offered reorganizing or consolidating the office’s functions and employees with another university entity. This path would reduce any redundancies in responsibilities, the report said, while also keeping services critical to the university’s mission.

It would also potentially require some reorganization and prioritization of expenditures, but is was not expected to increase the university’s overall budget.

The final two options proposed closing the ODEI altogether, which would entail terminating its employees. One option proposed absorbing all its functions into other entities through the university; the other eliminated any function that isn’t a federal requirement and absorbing it through another university function.

Keeping DEI-related programs

The working group determined that a vast majority of programs, activities and functions related to DEI are either critical to the university’s mission or considered a vital support service for its students. Several of these functions, some of which are not directly managed by the diversity office, “do not align with the issues making national headlines,” the report stated.

All the same, in the university’s effort to stay in alignment with both the Legislature’s and Gordon’s intent to avoid preferential treatment, it provided some areas that could use some modification.

One such area included upholding a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in UW’s admissions process. The high court struck down affirmative action last summer in a 6-3 ruling, a practice previously used by colleges and universities to consider the racial class of an applicant in their acceptance process.

UW’s undergraduate admissions process is already in compliance with the high court’s ruling, the report said. However, the graduate program’s admissions practice is “blind to demographics, but (also) decentralized.” The group offered to review the university’s graduate-level admissions processes to ensure their adherence with the law.

Another area proposed for review is the process of hosting and inviting speakers to the university. Many of these speakers include scholars, non-scholars, industry representatives and governmental agencies, to name a few. Since state dollars are used to host speakers, the group suggested developing a “content-neutral rule” for the selection and host of speakers.

Members of the university community have until 11:59 p.m. Sunday to share their perspectives on the report via an online survey. Seidel said he will make his own official recommendations at the Board of Trustees meeting May 8-10.