About six weeks after the UNC System Board of Governors voted to repeal the system’s diversity, equity and inclusion policy, the implications of the ban are now more clear: DEI offices and administrative roles, as they currently exist, are likely in violation of the new mandate.
That’s according to guidance issued by the UNC System legal affairs division Friday and released to The News & Observer on Monday. The rules will apply to all 16 universities in North Carolina.
The four-page document of guidance does not explicitly instruct university chancellors to eliminate DEI offices. But it clearly indicates that those offices and jobs within them are at-risk as the leaders work to make necessary changes to comply with the new system policy on “equality within the University of North Carolina,” which replaced the former DEI requirements after the board’s vote in May.
“One of the most visible changes to expect on campuses is the elimination of content-specific missions, duties, and titles of employing divisions and employee positions. The Policy prevents university administrators from endorsing any one viewpoint when doing so violates the laws and UNC Policies it cites, including the Policy itself,” the guidance states. “This prohibition reaches positions across the political, policy, and social spectrum, including, without limitation, diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and officers.”
The guidance makes clear that merely changing diversity-related job titles, so as to remove their ties to DEI, is “insufficient” and will not be enough to comply with the new policy. Instead, the responsibilities of employees and their job descriptions should also be altered, with a focus on “student success,” to comply.
“The actual work of the University must return to advancing the academic success of students with different backgrounds not different political causes — job titles and responsibilities should follow suit,” the guidance states.
Student success is defined in the guidance according to the UNC System’s strategic plan, which outlines goals including increasing the four-year graduation rate, increasing the graduation rate for students of color and improving student mental health, among others.
Offices and jobs dedicated to ensuring universities’ compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws will be permitted to remain under the new policy, per the guidance. But those offices or jobs may also receive new titles or descriptions to comply with the policy.
New policy starts this year
The new policy is already in effect after the Board of Governors voted to approve it in May.
The board’s decision to roll back the university system’s previous DEI requirements came as part of a growing national trend targeting the efforts. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, 85 anti-DEI bills have been introduced nationwide since 2023.
While DEI has been targeted through legislation in other states, in North Carolina, Republican lawmakers who control the General Assembly indicated they would defer to the university system to take action on the issue first.
The impacts of anti-DEI legislation and policies has varied between states, but in many cases has led to the elimination of DEI offices and jobs, or bans on using state funds for DEI programs.
The guidance issued Friday is the most emphatic explanation yet of the UNC System’s new policy and its effects, since the board’s vote — though it will still take time to see its full impact. Campuses will be required to comply with the new policy by the fall semester, with chancellors issuing reports to UNC System President Peter Hans about any changes they make at their universities by Sept. 1.
Any “savings achieved” from cutting diversity offices and jobs are to be “redirected to initiatives related to student success and well-being,” per the policy.
Notably, the UNC System policy does not prohibit cultural centers, the guidance states, but “some centers will need to restructure their content.” The policy also “does not bar student success initiatives tailored to the experience of students based in part on their race, sex, nationality, or any other identifying characteristics,” but the guidance notes that any such programs should “not stray into political or social advocacy or commentary.”
Hans, in his message to university chancellors when he sent them the guidance, addressed centers and identity-based programs.
“Targeted initiatives to support specific student populations are well within the scope of the revised policy, provided they abide by nondiscrimination statutes and do not require students, staff, or faculty to adopt a political viewpoint as a condition of participation,” Hans wrote.
How many offices, jobs could be affected
Though the guidance indicates DEI offices and related administrative positions are at-risk under the new policy, it remains unclear exactly how many additional offices and jobs could be impacted, or eliminated, by the policy.
Under the system’s previous DEI policy and regulation, campuses were required to submit annual reports detailing the number of diversity-related employee positions and spending on DEI programming.
Reports obtained by The N&O prior to the Board of Governors’ May vote showed wide variation in the amount of money spent on DEI programs at the system’s schools, the number of employees dedicated to the efforts and the types of programs used to promote diversity. While the reports generally listed their DEI offices and positions within them in the reports, additional diversity-related positions sometimes existed outside of those offices.
At UNC-Chapel Hill, for instance, the university’s LGBTQ Center is part of the Student Affairs division. That center’s director was listed as one of 25 DEI-related employment positions at the university in the 2021-22 fiscal year, with the employee spending half of their time on DEI responsibilities.
The document also states that any centers “founded or operated at administrative direction, e.g., as part of a campus’s division of student affairs, will need to review and assess their postings, writings, program content, and other messaging” to ensure they comply with the new policy. Earlier, the guidance states that “nondiscriminatory effort to support students based in part on their identity is permissible so long as its efforts do not include statements or endorsements of ideology, politics, or social commentary.”
The guidelines uses an example pertaining to student-veterans to illustrate how universities could implement identity-based program while not taking a political stance: “For example, while a student veterans initiative on campus is permissible, the initiative would stray if its programming included endorsement by university employees of a view for or against American foreign policy,” the guidance states.
As universities implement the new policy and change or eliminate offices and jobs, the guidance states, they will be tasked with “assessing each position and the responsibilities it entails” to make their decisions.
As was already the case under existing policies and laws, universities under the new policy will be required to abide by “institutional neutrality” — the idea, enshrined in state law, that universities cannot weigh in on political matters or social issues.
“Campuses should manage the requirement of neutrality and the pressure to speak as follows: first, campuses should reject the premise that making a public statement is the only way to support a particular group of students. Second, if a campus chooses to speak in support of its students, the statements should focus on just that — the affected students — without delving into political, policy, or social advocacy,” the guidance states. “Third, the more frequently campuses refrain from speaking in the name of the University or one of its sub entities, the easier the practice will become.”
UNC-Chapel Hill spokesperson Kevin Best said in a statement the university is “focused on building a welcoming environment that maintains our commitment to institutional neutrality and the equality of opportunity for every member of our community.”
“In keeping with the UNC System’s direction, we will carefully determine our next steps to adhere to this policy and meet the Sept. 1 deadline,” Best said.
‘Academic freedom’ for faculty
Several other areas of university operations were also addressed — most of which appear to be largely unaffected by the new policy.
For instance, faculty members and provosts will maintain the development of curriculum, and courses may include subject matter “that might otherwise be viewed as prohibited content,” as long as it is pertinent to the class.
Hans, in his message to chancellors, called the policy a “powerful affirmation of academic freedom.”
“The goal of principled neutrality is to prevent administrative staff from establishing official stances on contentious issues, precisely so that faculty remain free to teach and research,” Hans said.
The guidance also addresses research, and how faculty members or the university at-large might address questions on funding applications that ask them to attest to their “campus’s commitment to nondiscrimination or some other aspirational standard of behavior.” In such a scenario, applicants can point to the policy “to demonstrate that a university entity is committed to any of the principles reaffirmed by its terms,” or an individual could affirm “his or her own beliefs in support of an application.”
“In a hypothetical instance where a grant application requires grant applicants to commit the institution to take action that the Policy prohibits, University grant applicants should ensure research funders understand the neutrality limits established by the Policy,” the guidance states.
Also under the new policy, universities may not hire contractors to perform duties prohibited by the policy, nor agree to contract terms that would require the university to engage in prohibited practices under the policy.
Professors remain free to speak on topics and subjects impacted by the policy, but should not speak on behalf of their universities, the guidance and existing system policy state.
Regarding faculty service — which is often part of professors’ job responsibilities — the guidance states that any service requirements “must not include content endorsement or advocacy.”
“For example, no longer may campuses appoint employees to represent policy or social viewpoints on hiring committees. Nor should members of such committees receive prohibited content-based training as part of their service,” the guidance states. “Generally, the more administratively directed a given act of service by university employees is, the higher the expectation of neutrality must be.”
The policy does not impact a professor’s ability to serve as a faculty adviser for student groups, “so long as university employees have the choice to sponsor any student group they like and any such sponsoring employee’s facilitation does not stray into control of content presented to the student group.”
Student groups and their activities will not be impacted by the policy. Universities will be able to continue to host and fund speaking events “for the enrichment of the student body.”
As he has previously stated, Hans told chancellors that the UNC System “remains committed to welcoming and serving students of all backgrounds.”
“North Carolina is a vibrant and diverse place,” Hans said, “and our public universities should welcome the full breadth of talent in this state.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0