The recent decision by public universities in Kansas to ban the use of gender-identifying pronouns in email signatures has sparked significant debate. This directive, issued by university leaders, is said to align with new state regulations aimed at limiting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives within educational institutions.
In March, the Kansas Legislature, under Republican control, passed a comprehensive budget bill known as Senate Bill 125. This legislation, which spans nearly 300 pages, was signed into law by the state’s Democratic governor, Laura Kelly, in April. However, the governor’s office has not provided any comments regarding the implications of this law on university policies.
One of the key provisions of SB 125 mandates that the Kansas secretary of administration must ensure that all state agencies, including universities, eliminate any positions, policies, or activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This includes a specific requirement to remove gender-identifying pronouns from email signatures and other forms of communication used by state employees.
Kansas is not alone in this trend; other states with Republican-led legislatures have also incorporated similar provisions into their budget legislation. For instance, Indiana has mandated faculty productivity reviews, while Ohio has emphasized the authority of boards of trustees over academic program approvals.
Legal experts, such as Ross Marchand from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, have criticized the Kansas law as potentially unconstitutional. Marchand argues that the vague language of the law could lead to confusion and may infringe upon First Amendment rights.
In response to the new law, the Kansas Board of Regents issued guidance in June, instructing universities to comply with the directive by the end of July. Kansas State University’s provost communicated to faculty and staff the necessity of updating their email signatures to align with the new regulations.
Similarly, the leadership at the University of Kansas has reiterated the importance of adhering to this directive, stating that all employees must remove gender-identifying pronouns from their email signatures, webpages, and other university communications. They have also cautioned against any attempts to bypass the ban.
University officials emphasized that official university communications should only occur through university email accounts, discouraging the use of personal email services for university-related matters. Supervisors have been instructed to remind employees of the compliance deadline and to report any ongoing noncompliance to human resources.
While the university’s new policy broadly applies to all employees, it also claims not to restrict the academic freedom of faculty members. This has led to mixed reactions among students and staff.
Joseph Havens, an undergraduate student at the University of Kansas, expressed concern over the new policy, noting that many students are unhappy and are adding their pronouns in protest. He believes that using pronouns helps prevent misgendering and fosters a more inclusive environment. Havens feels that the university is somewhat complicit in this situation, as it navigates the complexities of state regulations while trying to maintain a supportive atmosphere for its community.