Analyzing 2 universities’ responses to evolving DEI challenges

As federal and state measures targeting DEI efforts gain momentum, Ohio’s public universities are grappling with how to navigate the situation.

Things intensified for many colleges, including Ohio State and the University of Cincinnati, last week when the U.S. Department of Education opened an investigation into them and 43 other schools across the country for allegedly violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by partnering with The Ph.D. Project, an organization that provides doctoral students with insights and networking opportunities, but limits eligibility based on the race of participants.

These two Ohio universities provide comms professionals with a case study for communicating with all concerned constituents amid quickly changing federal demands.

“The goal for all of these institutions is to make it clear that there’s a lot of moving parts and they’re doing their best to monitor everything,” said Philip Hauserman, SVP, crisis communications at The Castle Group.

Ohio State’s matter-of-fact approach

In his most recent letter on DEI , President Ted Carter outlined that OSU was closing its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and some services, while also dropping Student Life’s Center for Belonging and Social Change. The university also announced plans to rename its Office of Institutional Equity to the Office of Civil Rights Compliance.

“We are announcing initial changes in order to maintain programs that support all students and remove barriers to their success,” Carter said. “Our goal is to ensure that Ohio State continues to be a place where all are welcomed and treated with respect, while also following the letter and spirit of the laws and regulations that govern us.”

Hauserman described the tone of Ohio State’s communication on DEI as matter-of-fact and straightforward. It stressed news most likely to be of direct impact to students and faculty, notably that it wouldn’t cut existing scholarships, and that the university would look to find new roles for the 16 affected staffers.

OSU first announced the organizational changes at a University Senate meeting, an all-campus email and an Ohio State News story. That sequencing of communications is important, Hauserman said.

In these situations, universities should inform faculty and staff first, then students, alumni and prospective students. It’s best practice for faculty and staff to receive information before students, even if only a few minutes in advance.

“Students often come to faculty and staff with questions, and it is important for them to be aware of whatever the issue is and be prepared to respond,” Hauserman said. He also recommended alerting certain stakeholders, like major donors or even elected officials, prior to the news becoming public. Elected officials are important because they control funding.

“While they may not agree, they’ll appreciate hearing it firsthand,” Hauserman said, adding that those communications need to be tailored toward those audiences but have the same general messaging.

“Inconsistent messaging can turn a problem into a crisis,” he added.

Cincinnati emphasizes transparency amid uncertainty  

Like Ohio State, UC used its public message to stress that it faces a threat of losing considerable federal funding, and as a result, it needed to act.

The style of those communications was the real difference, Hauserman said. He described Cincinnati President Neville Pinto as taking a “more collegial and compassionate tone.”

In its Feb. 21 communication, Pinto wrote to “share some challenging truths about the future of DEI” at the university. He described federal actions as “sweeping in their scope, categorical in their conclusions and pressing in their timing.”

Pinto and Provost Kristi Nelson informed UC’s deans, vice presidents and Faculty Senate Cabinet of the university’s initial steps.

Those initial actions included evaluating DEI-related jobs and programming, along with removing references to DEI principles from university websites, social media and materials.

In times of uncertainty, sometimes the best way to address is to acknowledge it.

Like Carter and OSU, Pinto stressed that there are a lot of questions surrounding the situation in a follow-up memo dated Feb. 24:

“I recognize that when the stakes are this high, there is a desperate need for clarity. I share in your longing for information, and I commit to you that we will continue to work diligently to fully understand and communicate the implications of these new policies, directives and orders.”

Acknowledging you don’t have all the answers is a reasonable and important part of any communications around this topic given the dynamic nature of the situation.

“It’s OK to not have all the answers and it’s also OK to say as much,” Hauserman said. “Leaders must reinforce – and demonstrate, in both words and in action – that they will continue to do what is in the best interest of the campus community and the institution as a whole.”

Hauserman expects many lawsuits related to the executive orders and institutional responses in the future.

“These situations will not be solved anytime soon, and both the institution and the community will likely need to be comfortable being uncomfortable for the foreseeable future,” he said.

Hauserman recommended that universities continue to watch reactions to DEI changes, including enrollment trends, student engagement and social media sentiment. They shouldn’t respond constantly, but only when absolutely necessary for transparency and for major situational changes.

“Being rigid in an evolving situation won’t serve anyone well in the long run,” he said.

Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.