Kansas Universities Restricting Pronoun Inclusion in Workplace Communications

BREAKING: Kansas Universities Mandate Removal of Pronouns from Email signatures Following Board of Regents Directive, Sparking Protests and Debate

LAWRENCE, KS – In a sweeping directive from the Kansas Board of Regents, both Kansas state University (K-State) and the University of kansas (KU) have mandated the removal of gender-identifying pronouns and personal pronoun series from all university communications. The order, which takes effect July 31st, impacts email signature blocks, webpages, and virtual meeting screen IDs for all faculty, staff, and student employees.

K-State’s administration informed its campuses that “all faculty, staff and university employees-including student employees-are asked to review and update their signature blocks accordingly.”

Similarly, KU’s chancellor, provost, and chief health sciences officer issued a campus-wide notification stating that “all employees shall comply with this directive by removing gender-identifying pronouns and personal pronoun series from their KU email signature blocks, webpages and Zoom/Teams screen IDs, and any other form of university communications.”

University leaders sternly warned against attempts to bypass the new policy, emphasizing that official university business must be conducted through university-issued email accounts.Supervisors have been instructed to remind non-compliant employees of the deadline and to contact human resources for those who continue to refuse, while simultaneously encouraging the submission of Support and Care referrals for individuals needing assistance due to the new requirement.

A new KU policy, shared by a university spokesperson, broadly applies to “all employees and all affiliates that use ku.edu and kumc.edu email addresses.” However, it includes a caveat that the policy “shall not apply to or limit or restrict the academic freedom of faculty.”

The directive has already ignited controversy and resistance among students. Joseph Havens, an undergraduate student researcher at KU who includes his pronouns in his email signature, reported widespread dissatisfaction among his peers. He noted that students are now intentionally adding their pronouns as a form of protest, anticipating potential “drama” after the July 31st deadline.

Havens highlighted the practical importance of pronoun inclusion in preventing misgendering, citing his own experience avoiding misidentifying a professor. He suggested that while KU’s hands may be tied by the Regents’ mandate, the university’s actions indicate a degree of passive agreement with the policy.”In a lot of ways it feels like they agree with it,” Havens stated, describing KU as “in some way complicit.”

Evergreen Insights:

This mandate raises basic questions about institutional autonomy, freedom of expression, and the role of public universities in navigating evolving social norms. The directive underscores a broader tension between state-level governance and the desire of academic institutions to foster inclusive environments.

The response from students, particularly the act of protest by adding pronouns, exemplifies how individuals can push back against restrictive policies, often using the very systems they are being asked to conform to. This situation highlights the ongoing debate surrounding gender identity and representation in public discourse and the challenges faced by educational institutions in balancing compliance with their commitment to diverse communities. Furthermore, the varying interpretations and perceived complicity of university administrations in implementing such directives can significantly impact campus climate and trust.

What legal justifications are Kansas universities citing for limiting or discouraging pronoun inclusion in workplace communications?

The Current Landscape of Pronoun Policies in Kansas Higher Education

Recent developments across Kansas universities have sparked debate regarding the inclusion of preferred pronouns in workplace communications. While a widespread, state-mandated policy doesn’t exist, several institutions are enacting or considering guidelines that limit or discourage the practice. This shift is largely driven by evolving legal interpretations surrounding free speech, potential discrimination claims, and concerns over administrative burdens. The core of the issue revolves around balancing inclusivity with perceived legal risks and institutional autonomy. Keywords: Kansas universities,pronoun policies,higher education,workplace communications,inclusive language.

Key Universities and Their Approaches

Several Kansas universities are navigating this complex issue with varying degrees of restriction. Here’s a breakdown of what’s happening at some key institutions:

Kansas State University (K-State): As of late 2024, K-state, founded in 1863, has been reviewing its policies. While not outright banning pronoun sharing, internal guidance has cautioned against requiring employees to disclose pronouns or including them in official email signatures. https://www.zhihu.com/topic/20068012

University of Kansas (KU): KU has adopted a more cautious approach, emphasizing a “respectful workplace” environment but stopping short of mandating pronoun usage or providing specific guidance on email signatures.

Wichita State University: Similar to KU, Wichita State focuses on fostering a respectful environment without explicitly addressing pronoun inclusion in communications.

Emporia State University: Reports indicate a more conservative stance, with some departments discouraging pronoun sharing to avoid potential legal challenges.

These differing approaches highlight the lack of a unified strategy across the Kansas Board of Regents system. University policies, pronoun usage, inclusive workplaces, Kansas higher education.

Legal Considerations Driving the Restrictions

The primary legal concerns fueling these restrictions stem from two main areas:

1. Free Speech: Some argue that mandating pronoun usage could infringe upon the free speech rights of individuals who disagree with the practice on religious or philosophical grounds.
2. Discrimination Claims: Conversely, others contend that not accommodating pronoun preferences could be considered discriminatory towards transgender and non-binary individuals, potentially violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The legal landscape is constantly evolving, and universities are attempting to mitigate risk by adopting conservative policies. Legal challenges,free speech rights,discrimination law,Title VII,pronoun discrimination.

Impact on Faculty, Staff, and Students

These policy shifts are having a tangible impact on the campus climate:

Reduced Sense of Inclusion: Many LGBTQ+ faculty, staff, and students report feeling less welcome and supported.

Increased Anxiety: Concerns about potential backlash or discrimination are rising.

Administrative Burden: The debate is creating additional work for HR departments and legal counsel.

Chilling Effect on Communication: Some individuals are hesitant to express their identities or engage in open dialog.

Campus climate, LGBTQ+ support, employee morale, student experience, workplace inclusivity.

Alternatives and Best Practices for Inclusive Communication

Despite the restrictions, there are still ways to foster an inclusive environment:

Voluntary Pronoun Sharing: Encourage, but don’t require, individuals to share their pronouns in email signatures, introductions, or online profiles.

Respectful Language: Promote the use of respectful and inclusive language in all communications.

training and Education: Provide training on diversity, equity, and inclusion, including topics related to gender identity and expression.

Clear Reporting Mechanisms: Establish clear and accessible reporting mechanisms for incidents of discrimination or harassment.

Focus on Names: Always use an individual’s preferred name, even if it differs from their legal name.

Inclusive communication, diversity training, DEI initiatives, respectful language, pronoun etiquette.

Case Study: The university of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

While not in Kansas, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill provides a relevant case study. In 2023, the UNC Board of Governors passed a resolution requiring universities to adopt policies that protect free speech, which was interpreted by some as limiting the accommodation of pronoun preferences. This led to protests and concerns about the impact on the LGBTQ+ community.This example demonstrates the potential for controversy and the importance of careful policy development.UNC Chapel Hill, free speech policies