Abstract
Equitable access in higher education encompasses adopting non-discriminatory policies and practices toward creating an inclusive environment for all students, regardless of their race, gender, or other social identities. Hence, universities across the country are implementing comprehensive campus information systems that allow the recognition of students’ gender identities, namely their chosen names and pronouns. Nevertheless, many institutions face technological and financial challenges preventing such a shift. The present case illustrates the obstacles an institution of higher education faces in upgrading to an effective student information system that can capture names and pronouns while integrating multiple student-facing systems.
Keywords: Gender Identity, Belongingness, Inclusivity, Equity in Education, Student Informational Systems
Context
A growing body of literature on equitable access in higher education addresses the importance of adopting non-discriminatory statements and policies to foster a safe environment for gender-nonconforming students (Austin et al., 2016; Beemyn & Brauer, 2015; Budge & Goldberg, 2020; Ryan, 2020; Seelman, 2014). Transgender and non-binary students experience discrimination in a number of ways and are often exposed to uncomfortable circumstances (e.g. bathroom and locker access) while enrolled, as well as access to supporting health care and counseling (Beemyn & Brauer, 2015). One of the many complications this group faces “is the difficulty in having their sense of identity recognized in an official capacity” (Ryan, 2020, p. 350). Providing students the option to request a change in their chosen first names within university informational systems and overall records is an essential step toward creating a more equitable and trans-affirmative educational environment (Austin, 2016; Beemyn & Brauer, 2015).
To create an inclusive environment for all students, some universities are implementing comprehensive campus information systems that allow student recognition by their particular gender identities, namely their chosen names and pronouns. However, not all institutions are made equal. This case illustrates some of the financial, logistic, and technological obstacles institutions of higher education encounter while upgrading their student information system (SIS) to capture names and pronouns within a modern and integrated student-facing system.
Policies and Obstacles
Some U.S. states have recently adopted policies requiring institutions of higher education (IHEs) to establish applicable policies and institutional systems to enable individual students’ requests for a preferred name and legal name change concerning their student records. Although an important initiative, the overall language of such policies denies transgender students the recognition of their self-identity as authentic unless accompanied by a legal document, requiring universities to note students’ identities without recognizing them. However, this recent trend opens a precedent as it urges IHEs to design systems to adequately provide students with the opportunity to list their preferred names in class rosters and general public records.
According to Smalley (2022), upgrading to an effective SIS that can capture names and pronouns while integrating multiple student-facing systems is costly and demanding for many institutions. Likewise, although many vendors now offer options for preferred or chosen first names, not all can provide the option for students’ pronouns. In the interim, students must submit requests to several different offices within their institutions to have their gender identities reflected in their student records and student-facing systems (Smalley, 2022). That can be particularly distressing to transgender students.
Case Study
Upon recognizing the need to update their SIS to add students’ preferred names and pronouns, Alpha Teaching, a small private institution of higher education in the U.S., launched its official SIS project in 2017. The size and scope of the project were significant, aiming to replace the software hosting student records while connecting multiple student-facing systems. As a result, the executive team, composed of the Vice Provost, Chief Operation Officer, and Chief Technology Officer, established a small committee of technology and administrative staff to work on the project. The committee was tasked with: (a) identifying specifications for the update, (b) finding and connecting with vendors before beginning negotiations, and (c) overseeing the different phases of the project.
The committee initially wanted to connect with three vendors to request live demonstrations, i.e., interactive presentations from each vendor that allowed campus partners to experience the SIS. The intention was to learn about the nuances, capabilities, and complexities of each system according to the institution’s technological, academic, and financial needs. The team also sought to create equitable student records. The projected timeline to achieve these milestones was 6-10 months. Nevertheless, the task proved much more challenging than expected. The first obstacle was finding vendors to attend to all the institutional needs. Likewise, the financial costs of the upgrade exceeded the committee’s initial projections.
Before identifying the final three vendors and scheduling the respective demonstrations, the committee wrote a document with several line-item requirements as part of the Request for Proposal (RFP) to be shared with all vendors. Preferred Names and Pronouns were listed as part of the required items. Only five vendors responded to the RFP. After a thorough evaluation, the committee decided to move three of them to the live demo phase.
Approximately one year after the official project launch, the Alpha Teaching SIS committee finally identified these potential vendors and participated in 10 different demonstrations, with each committee member filling out scorecards or observer notes forms. The live demonstrations and scoring process took place over six months. Upon reviewing the scorecards and notes and discussing the results with the committee, the head of the committee, the Director of Technology Products and Services, authored a decision document with a recommendation to pursue contract negotiations with one of the vendors, System Management LLC, at the end of the year. System Management, LLC offered: (1) a student portal focused on student self-service that allowed for preferred names and pronouns, (2) a platform that included integration capabilities that would allow the institution to extract, edit, and update its data via other apps and platforms (i.e., programmatically), and (3) compliance with all relevant legal structures and privacy laws, such as the Family Educational Rights and Family Act (FERPA). These integrations could be pre-built or buildable by the vendor on demand or third parties.
The committee was hoping to receive a favorable decision from the executive team to move forward with the next milestone: contracting with System Management, LLC. Instead, the executive team in charge of approving the recommendation found financial challenges in the proposal, including a remarkably high yearly subscription price and its subsequent annual increase. To address these challenges, the committee scheduled several follow-up meetings with the vendor, but attempts to renegotiate costs related to the platform were unsuccessful. Almost two years after the launch of the SIS project, the update was still a far from being implemented by the institution.
Discussion Questions
- To what extent might the executive and committee team members’ individual identities affect the decision-making process?
- How can the institution move forward with the project? What might be an appropriate organizational model that could apply in this case?
- How might the SIS project be impacted if students are included in the committee?
- What systemic issues contribute to the main problem identified in the case, and how can the institution address external obstacles?
References
Austin, A., Craig, S. L., Alessi, E. J., Wagaman, M. A., Paceley, M. S., Dziengel, L., &
Balestrery, J. E. (2016). Guidelines for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) affirmative education.
Beemyn, G., & Brauer, D. (2015). Trans-inclusive college records: Meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse US student population. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2(3), 478-487.
Budge, S. L., Domínguez Jr, S., & Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Minority stress in nonbinary students in higher education: The role of campus climate and belongingness. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(2), 222.
Ryan, J. M. (2020). Expressing identity: toward an understanding of how trans individuals navigate the barriers and opportunities of official identity. Journal of Gender Studies, 29(3), 349–360.
Seelman, K. L. (2014). Recommendations of transgender students, staff, and faculty in the USA for improving college campuses. Gender and education, 26(6), 618-635.
Smalley, S. (2022, January 25). Gender identity norms shift, and institutions move to reflect them. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/01/25/colleges-update-systems-include-preferred-pronouns-names
Author Bio
Carla Silva-Muhammad (she, her, hers) received a Master of Arts in International Studies from the University of Connecticut in 2014 and is currently a doctoral student in the Educational Leadership Program at the University of Hartford. Silva-Muhammad has worked in Higher Education in instructional and administrative roles for over sixteen years. Her current research interests are Anti-Racist pedagogies and counter-narratives in the k-12 and undergraduate classrooms.