When Overseeing a University System Means Defusing Lawmaker Outrage

U. of Tennessee System

Joseph A. DiPietro, president of the University of Tennessee system, has been facing some serious tests of his political skills as controversy has swirled around efforts to make the system’s campuses more diverse and inclusive.

On Wednesday, Mr. DiPietro faced intense questioning about the university’s spending on diversity at a hearing of the State Senate’s subcommittee on higher education. Lawmakers there questioned whether the system actually has any measurable goals for its diversity efforts, or whether it will always want to spend more to do more.

Last month Mr. DiPietro’s office was besieged by angry phone calls prompted by news reports of a web page, published by the diversity office on the system’s Knoxville campus, that encouraged employees and students to abandon traditional pronouns such as “he” or “she” in favor of gender-neutral terms such as “xe” and “zir.”

It wasn’t the first time Knoxville had come under fire from social conservatives over such matters. Last year the State Senate passed a resolution condemning the campus, and lawmakers threatened to place new restrictions on the system’s spending, over a student-organized week of lectures and other activities dealing with human sexuality that was known as Sex Week.

As lawmakers last month threatened an investigation over the web page on pronoun use, the system issued assurances that the page had been intended strictly as advisory.

On Thursday, The Chronicle asked Mr. DiPietro how he had been trying to strike a balance between the demands of people on his campuses and those of lawmakers in the State Capitol. Following is an edited and condensed version of the interview.

Q. How big an issue has that web page been for you?

A. The pronoun issue has been a big one for us. There is misunderstanding about a website posting out of the office of multicultural diversity at the Knoxville campus, which was misinterpreted by some people as being policy. It was never intended to be policy. It was never intended to offend anybody.

But a lot of people, including legislators across the state, expressed concern about it. … The volume of concern that was aired by phone calls, emails, and messages was the largest I have seen in my time frame in this job, almost five years now.

Q. You ultimately decided to have that page pulled. Why? How do you feel about that decision? Are you worried about what signal it might send to students?

A. To begin with, if you take a look around the website — we studied it very carefully for a few days before we made the decision. One could take a look at it and see how people might interpret it as policy. Again, it was never intended that way. The signal to students is: We care a great deal about diversity. During the hearing yesterday we continued to talk about that, and the value of having a diverse campus environment from the standpoint of one that is welcoming to everybody and hostile to none.

Q. You said in an email last month that you would tweak policies to ensure future university websites and communications had more of an educational tone than a prescriptive one. How are you doing that?

A. What we have said to all of our chancellors is it’s important as people develop policies within any of the campuses we have — and we have four of them — that they work through the cabinet in a normal fashion so that numerous people can provide perspective about the policy development. That is probably key.

Q. Many of the questions asked by lawmakers at this week’s hearing focused on the system’s spending on diversity efforts. Do you think you are spending too little, too much, or just the right amount?

A. Given the constraints of our funding models and my concerns about the sustainability of our business model, we are spending about the right amount.

Q. Some of the lawmakers asked how you are measuring diversity, and whether any amount will be deemed enough. What is your answer to such questions?

A. If we could have a day where we could be guaranteed we would never have a hostile issue about somebody’s preference or views — whether it be sexual orientation, political views, First Amendment rights, religious rights — if we knew that we had gotten there, then our programs are probably adequate.

But I don’t think that is anything but utopic in nature. We are spending what we can afford right now. I think it’s prudent to spend the amount we do. I remind everybody that the total, $5.5 million, is about 25 hundredths of a percent of our annual expenditures.

Q. Last year, in response to the controversy over Sex Week, you sent out a letter saying the university would seek to develop a more transparent student-fee system that let students opt out of paying for programs they found objectionable. Have you done that, and how?

A. We certainly have. As students make their payment, they have to opt in for the student-programming fee for speakers and events on campuses.

Q. Has that had any real impact on the types of programs offered?

A. Relatively minimal. I mean, we were surprised. A large percentage of students have opted in so that they can have those speakers on campus and have those activities that add to the educational environment and to their training.

Q. Are you worried that these controversies are going to hurt the university system in terms of things such as its support from tax dollars?

A. We hope not. The truth is, the state budget, as provided from the standpoint of appropriations, is about 25 percent of our annual expenditures, but it’s still sizable, about $500 million. If you take a look at how we’re moving this institution forward, we have 20 metrics we measure. Fifteen of them are 95 percent or above over the last three years, from the standpoint of achieving goals. Five of them are in the 80-percent range, and we have good explanations for those as to why they are in the 80s, and how we are going to get better at achieving those goals.

Q. You aren’t the first higher-education leader around the country to face pressure from state lawmakers over something a university or university system has done. Do you think state legislatures understand public education and the university environment, or is there a serious clash in culture or understanding?

A. It is our job to make sure they understand it, as best we can achieve through meetings and conversations. Some of them understand it very, very well. Others continue to need our help.

Peter Schmidt writes about affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. Contact him at peter.schmidt@chronicle.com.