Here’s an exercise in memory: Do you remember the horror and angst you felt as hundreds of White nationalists marched on the University of Virginia academic quad, yelling up into the darkened night, “Jews will not replace us”? How about then-President Trump proclaiming, “There were good people on both sides,” when interviewed by national press about that same event?

How about an exercise in institutional risk? What if tomorrow, a slew of White supremacists jaunted onto your college campus? Would you be surprised? Would your campus struggle with how to respond? Would considerations of institutional neutrality and freedom of speech stand in the way of forceful condemnation and democratic and educational values being asserted? Would you have counter-programming poised to illustrate the power of education to stem the tide of hatred?

What if another government shutdown more deeply impacts hunger, health care, and basic needs of students? What if the threats to financial aid teased in the budget cycle of 2025 come to fruition in fall 2026? What sort of risk planning has your institution done for any of these phenomena?

Disruption is no longer momentary in higher education. Nor are the disruptions institutional only. They are threats to our students’ sense of safety, their ability to live, and their potential to attend college. Our students’ needs, lives, and identities are at risk at every turn through anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) law and rhetoric; funding cuts aimed at the same; and uncertainty about operational dollars as a result of state legislation.

At Delta College, we have weathered these disruptions not only through careful planning but clear communication of where our values and decision points are prior to these events happening. (Of course, it must be underscored that Delta College, located in Michigan, has not yet experienced state-level anti-DEI legislation that 23 other states in the country have).

We have used the Alliance for Higher Education’s planning tools, reading of legislation, and executive orders to perform risk assessments, consider communication models, and plan for future disruptions regarding students’ needs and attacks on DEI. These tools have helped us not only understand the current moment but plan financially from a value-based lens years out, given that the attacks on DEI—so central to community colleges—are most likely going to continue in policy and rhetoric for a long while.

Beginning in January 2025, when the first executive orders targeting higher education emanated from the White House, we began very clear and open communication regarding their meaning for our institution. After examining our relationship to risk with regards to federal funding, and also the mission-centric risks associated with decisions about, for instance, LGBTQIA+-friendly bathrooms, we made very clear to all faculty, staff, and students that Delta College would be making no changes in our direction, operations, or values unless and until our student federal financial aid would be impacted. That line regarding financial aid was arrived at through careful analysis of risk using the Alliance’s tools, and we learned quickly how valued our open communication about that line was for minimizing disruption.

As president, I held town halls and visited all academic divisions to deliver this message for one major reason: Our culture. In my four years at Delta, the college experienced radical, positive shifts in culture, not because of my work, but because of the clarity that all members of the campus community had regarding our commitment to a singular goal: increasing equitable completion rates and numbers in order to better serve our region and country. Executive orders, legal cases, and funding cuts that threatened our core work were not viewed as momentary issues to navigate, but rather as existential for the communities we served. When federal communication regarding DEI permeated news outlets, our cabinet, board, faculty, and staff leaders needed clarity about our stance. That clarity was necessary so that employees, whether in the classroom, on search committees, or serving students, would avoid unnecessary self-policing and censorship. As a result, we led through what has been a tumultuous time by staying the course, and by taking communication with our employees, students, and community very seriously.

We also have been able to anticipate decisions when unexpected events happen that would impact our students. For instance, as SNAP benefits were sapped during the last shutdown, there was no time wasted amongst cabinet members about whether we would make up for the shortfall. Rather, our team came together quickly, understanding that we would fill the gap and had ideas for how to do so immediately. What would have been disruptive was merely a moment to navigate. As a result, while we saw nearly 1,000 more students needing funds than expected, we were ready. These are students who would have dropped out of classes had we not acted quickly. Our clarity and purpose, in short, allowed us to act without having to discuss whether we would act.

We are far from perfect. And we are learning from our colleagues at colleges in other states that have passed anti-DEI legislation. This past legislative session, Michigan introduced, but did not pass, a provision in its budget that would (1) eliminate all DEI on college campuses, and (2) require 90 percent of general fund dollars to be spent on facilities and faculty.

While both provisions were extreme, they did signal where the focus for the next legislative sessions will be. As a result, Delta College will be lobbying to ensure that student service positions remain at the forefront of advocacy in the forthcoming legislative agenda, and explaining how Delta’s approach to DEI has elevated all students.

To be sure, disruption is coming. But Delta has thought through a variety of scenarios, recognizing that we cannot allow the general malaise about DEI to normalize, for our students’ and communities’ sake. And most importantly, our navigation through disruption has a foundation in understanding the long track of anti-DEI and anti-educational policy permeating the country and communicating clearly to a wide audience where the decision-making lines are to avoid confusion about direction.

Michael Gavin, Ph.D.

President and CEO, Alliance for Higher Education

Editor’s Note: Dr. Gavin was invited to contribute this article while he was President of Delta College. During the period between his submitting the article and publication of the magazine, he left Delta College to become the President of the new Alliance for Higher Education.