Pittsburg State University students received an email on July 30, regarding changes to the now former Inclusion & Belonging team and the required removal of “gender-identifying pronouns” from email signatures to maintain compliance with Kansas Senate Bill 125. The Inclusion & Belonging team is pivoting to a broader community-based team which can potentially allow for better resources for more people. However, this may risk leaving some students from marginalized backgrounds to feel less welcome. The required removal of “gender-identifying pronouns” is at best petty; at worst, it is censorship. To explore a more balanced look at the political and social views surrounding these changes, interviews were conducted with the President of Pittsburg State University College Republicans, Jonathan Adam, a sophomore majoring in political science; and the President of the Crawford County Young Democrats, Sophia Stapleton, a 2020 Pitt State graduate with an illustration degree.
According to the email with the subject line, “Message from Pitt State interim President Doug Ball,” from Executive Director & Associate Vice President of Marketing in the Creative and Strategic Communications department, Abigail Fern, “Section 4 of Kansas Senate Bill 125 (at page 254) includes a budget proviso that prohibits all state agencies (including Pitt State) from using public funds for activities, programs, and roles related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). On our campus, this does not bring about significant change, as we were already largely in compliance with this requirement. In fact, we made changes that will increase service and access to all students. Namely, the former Inclusion & Belonging team now heads up the Campus and Community Resource Center, which serves all students on campus and has an expanded role in community service outreach. This will bring new opportunities to our students and our region.”
This change in focus from a team specific to inclusion and belonging to a resource for all students can be great in the “a rising tide lifts all boats” sense, and in moving from resources based on identity, to instead resources based on economic class, a sentiment shared by Adam.
“What matters is income, where you grew up, or how you grew up,” Adam said. “For lower income students, they’re going to have a harder time getting resources and paying for college than higher income students. And that’s really where those programs should be shining. That’s where equality should stand.”
While it is easy to agree with allocation of resources based on economic class over social identity, the lack of a resource aimed at helping marginalized groups to feel welcome and included in an area that can be seen as homogeneous will be a problem. This is a view that Stapleton agreed with while Adam disagreed.
“Diverse students won’t feel protected, they’ll feel unwelcome,” Stapleton said. “It’s already a predominantly white institution, so that can already be challenging for people. This just sends a further message that they aren’t included.”
Adam viewed social identity as unimportant all together in terms of funding.
“I don’t think it’s important that we fund programs that are specifically for LGBTQ or trying to cater toward minority groups,” Adam said. “It doesn’t matter, we’re all Americans, we’re all falling under the same umbrella.”