Countering the ‘Chilling Effect’

Political correctness. Critical race theory. The “woke mob.”

As the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) framework has become increasingly politicized in recent years, laws explicitly banning its practice in public institutions have been enacted in more than a dozen states—with more likely on the way.

While international education has not found itself in the crosshairs of campus scrutiny to the same degree as DEI offices, in many places, legislation has changed how international offices manage everything from advising and scholarships to programming and outreach. Senior international leaders call the impact “chilling,” saying it not only targets programs that seek to improve access for historically underserved populations but also limits their ability to fully support LGBTQ+ and other marginalized students.

“I suppose I find myself somewhere on the fine line between doing what I believe is right and doing what will maintain my employment and employability.”

The legislation is particularly challenging for senior international officers (SIOs), many of whom have played key roles in broader DEI efforts or have come to see supporting inclusion at their institutions as part of the mission of their offices.

“I suppose I find myself somewhere on the fine line between doing what I believe is right and doing what will maintain my employment and employability,” says the SIO of one institution. (Due to the sensitivity of the subject matter, International Educator is not identifying by name any of the half-dozen institutional leaders in impacted states whom we contacted for this article.) But leaders also stressed the importance of seeking creative solutions to serve all students. 

“We have to continue to be part of this conversation regardless of the complexity and perceived danger, because the alternative is even worse—eradicating these sorts of programs everywhere is not good for anybody,” another leader says.

A Fast-Changing Landscape

Laws involving DEI continue to proliferate beyond high-profile states such as Florida and Texas. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, as of April 26, 13 states have signed anti-DEI legislation into law, and proposed bills have received final legislative approval in another 14. A total of 85 bills have been introduced nationwide, and around half (41) have been tabled, failed to pass, or vetoed.

“It’s a moving target,” one SIO says.

While legislation varies, in some states, including Florida and Texas, publicly funded universities have eliminated DEI offices, multicultural centers, and scholarships and programs targeted at minority groups. Language about diversity has been stricken from websites, mission statements, and strategic plans. Some public institutions have also laid off staff supporting these departments and programs. 

“We have to continue to be part of this conversation regardless of the complexity and perceived danger, because the alternative is even worse—eradicating these sorts of programs everywhere is not good for anybody.”

In other states, however, the vague wording of legislation or conflicting laws has led to confusion about what institutions are allowed to do to support underrepresented populations. And, in some cases, anti-DEI efforts have created catch-22 scenarios: One state requires every public institution to have a chief diversity officer position, some of which have been filled by political appointees who, paradoxically, are charged with obstructing or eliminating DEI programs. In another state—whose flagship public institutions are athletic powerhouses—newly enacted DEI legislation directly conflicts with NCAA regulations for Division I athletics.

“Our colleagues in Florida and Texas are actually better off because they know what the boundaries are—they’re awful, but they actually know what they are,” observes one SIO in a state with contradictory laws.

Private institutions, while largely insulated from the direct impact of legislation, still must navigate these issues with caution. For example, the SIO of one private nonprofit university points to the potential of losing state matching funds for private gifts as a “powerful motivator for compliance with laws not directly aimed at our institution.”

A nationwide survey of nearly 100 international education leaders conducted by NAFSA in February 2024 found that restrictions on diversity and inclusion were the top policy issue “keeping you up at night.” Nearly half (48 percent) of respondents said that these issues were negatively impacting staff morale, while more than four in 10 said they impacted international student recruitment (43 percent) and their offices’ ability to support students (41 percent). Nearly as many (39 percent) said they also impacted international students’ mental health.

Strategies to Serve Students

Despite the uncertainty, SIOs interviewed for this article identified a variety of ways their offices are continuing to serve their institutional mission, including new approaches. Among them:

Assess boundaries.

Given that anti-DEI laws were enacted amid considerable political theater in many places, it’s important to fully understand the scope and implications of new or existing legislation.

“Be aware that just because the media describes these laws as one thing, [we must] be more inquisitive and ensure that you understand what they truly mean,” one SIO says. “Do not allow the rumors of what the law says or does to shackle you.”

At the same time, leaders must also understand how their institution is interpreting the legislation. “It is essential to discuss the boundaries your supervisor or your institution's leadership will tolerate,” one SIO advises.

“[We must] be more inquisitive and ensure that you understand what [the laws] truly mean. Do not allow the rumors of what the law says or does to shackle you.”

While some SIOs argue that state laws have emboldened more conservative campus leaders, others say that their leadership remains supportive of the higher education mission. “Even conservative administrators who are political appointees get that their jobs are to support students,” one SIO says. “Some of the politics of it are the PR of the politics of it.”

Review public-facing language.

Websites, on-campus advertising, and other public-facing materials such as orientation guides—even emails and social media accounts—should all be checked to ensure their language doesn’t conflict with legislation. “Make sure you’re taking yourself out of harm’s way,” one leader says.

For example, blanket statements about navigating difference, diversity, or gender-affirming policies may have to be removed. One SIO suggests instead using language like “all students” or “each and every student” and leaning into phrasing such as “cultural engagement” and the goal of “preparing students to meet the needs of the world.”

Messaging to campus should discuss how programming is open to everyone—“not just the Latinx students, not just for Black students—everyone is invited,” as one leader puts it. In similar fashion, announcements that used to be targeted to specific affinity groups may now need to be sent campuswide. 

Build partnerships.

Collaborate with other departments, external organizations, and community groups that support underserved populations or are committed to DEI. “You have to partner with other groups on campus that you may not have in the past—Greek life, campus life, the groups that reach everyone,” one leader says.

Reconsider eligibility requirements.

The criteria or data collected for study abroad scholarships that are designed for racial and ethnic minority students who have historically been underrepresented in these experiences could be recalibrated to focus more broadly on socioeconomic status. Doing so changes the labeling of so-called “diversity scholarships,” one SIO says, leaving decision-making about their recipients for internal deliberations. 

Engage in more in-person outreach. 

If international offices are unable to send out institution-wide calls for scholarships and programs for underrepresented students, staff can attend the meetings of student clubs or organizations that serve these populations and discuss opportunities face-to-face. “I know the moment I send an e-mail, it’s a matter of public record, and I can’t control who gets that,” one SIO says.

Remember that students have autonomy.

While institutional employees must be careful about how they approach DEI-related topics, students by and large have more latitude—which is crucial to remember if student groups indicate they feel slighted by the broader outreach that legislation may require. 

“You have to be honest,” one leader says. “I give them the starting point of a conversation—and then I leave the room.”

Another SIO points out that students can advocate with campus leaders for specific needs in ways that employees cannot—but only if they are made aware they can do so. “Underrepresented students may not know that’s an option,” the leader says.

Consider advising options. 

Ensuring that outbound students are aware of safety issues in the countries they are visiting has long been a challenge, particularly for LBGTQ+ students, who may not disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity during advising conversations. Now, DEI regulations in many places bar advisers or other campus staff outright from asking any questions about these identities. “This puts the initiative on the student to disclose things—and disclose them early—that they may not be ready to disclose and shouldn’t have to disclose,” one SIO notes. (Editor’s note: Find more information on advising LGBTQ+ students in NAFSA’s forthcoming publication, Advising LGBTQ+ Students in International Education, available soon in the NAFSA Bookstore.) 

While third-party providers may not be bound by the same rules and responsibilities as institutions, conversations between students and these organizations’ advisers may come later in the study abroad process. Educators should also keep in mind that “not all third-party providers are created equally,” one SIO cautions. “Some are more equipped to have those conversations than others.”

Use multiple lenses for case making.

Within institutions, justifications for programs or activities should be made in multiple ways. For example, establishing welcoming environments or targeted services for students impacts both enrollment and the bottom line. Similarly, preparing students with the skills they need to navigate different cultures can be framed as an economic imperative.

“If you’re advocating for inclusion and justice, we often do it with humanistic statements based in care for other human beings,” one SIO says. “It may feel crass… but I’ve found that I have to be mindful of who my audience is. It’s harder to refute [these statements] and puts people in a different headspace [than], ‘Here comes the woke army.’”

Use internationalization to house broader efforts.

Comprehensive internationalization plans may provide opportunities to support inclusion efforts in partnership with other departments, although international offices must still consider budget and staff constraints. “The institutions with comprehensive internationalization plans can embed these things,” one SIO says.

Support your own staff.

Already struggling with growing responsibilities and constraints, international office staff need support to navigate these new, DEI-related challenges. “We need to make sure we have our own networks and support in place because there’s so much uncertainty,” one SIO says.

“We need to make sure we have our own networks and support in place because there’s so much uncertainty.”

One way of doing so, another SIO adds, is to encourage staff to attend training and continuing education from third-party organizations like NAFSA. Leaders also need to reinforce the imperative to continue meeting student needs despite new limitations. “The way we operationalize it in the office, whether we are sending or receiving students, is that it’s our obligation to meet their needs,” one leader says. (Editor’s note: “The Listening Session on State and Institutional Policies” at the NAFSA 2024 Annual Conference & Expo is a space to connect with peers and share perspectives with NAFSA’s public policy team.)

Advocate for change.

Several leaders stressed that ahead of a national election and potential statehouse pivots, none of these changes may be set in stone. One SIO offers peers a simple, one-word sentence of advice: “Vote.”  •