Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the University Policy Bylaws topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University of Nebraska regents approve bylaw and policy language changes after public protests
Summary
The Board of Regents voted to amend multiple bylaws and policies, including changes that remove explicit references to affirmative action and certain diversity terminology after public comment and debate. Several student and faculty speakers urged the board to pause; the measures passed on roll call.
The University of Nebraska Board of Regents voted April 11 to amend multiple bylaws and system policies, including changes to equal-opportunity language that remove explicit references to affirmative action and certain diversity and inclusion terminology.
The revisions, presented as items 12.c.2 and 12.c.4 on the agenda, were framed by board staff as aligning system policy with current federal guidance and the university’s administrative structure. President Jeff Gold and board counsel noted the board was responding to recent federal executive guidance and a “Dear Colleague” letter that administrators said required clarification of longstanding language.
Faculty and students urged the board not to adopt the changes. “When we don’t have programs and policies that explicitly reflect who our students are and say that we will protect them, student success goes down,” said Stephanie Bondi, a higher-education researcher, during the public-comment period. Crystal Garcia, an associate professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, said the proposed changes were driven by “harmful political rhetoric” and urged the regents to defend research-based practices that support student success. Student speakers, including Zachary Bursch and Ellie Calderon Palacios, read postcards and appeals from hundreds of faculty, staff and students opposing the revisions.
Regents debated the policy language for more than an hour. Several regents said they feared the board could put federal funding at risk by refusing to adapt policy; others said the change was symbolic and would have downstream consequences for campus communities. “I cannot in good conscience vote yes on these changes,” said Regent Elizabeth Herban, who cited concerns about how the language changes would affect underrepresented students. Regent Jim Schaefer said he feared financial consequences if the board did not act.
On a roll-call vote for item 12.c.2 (proposed amendments to section 3 of the bylaws), the board recorded a mix of yes, no and abstain votes; the motion passed. Later, a companion vote on policy revisions in chapter 5 and other sections (item 12.c.4) also passed after debate and multiple failed amendment attempts.
Board members said they intend to follow the policy changes with education and implementation steps for campus personnel. Several regents asked staff to develop training and communications materials after the vote.
The board noted the bylaw and policy project will continue: chapters 1 through 3 changes will return for a formal vote at the June meeting, and chapters 4 through 6 are expected to be presented for information only at that time. The board’s action does not include immediate programmatic rollbacks; regents said operational and campus-level decisions remain subject to campus leadership and applicable law.
The board meeting packet and public-submitted postcards on the subject were placed on file as part of the public record.
