COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION City Hall, Room 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, May 9, 2025 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS COUNCILMAN ISAIAH THOMAS DOM MILLER, CLERK P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIR THOMAS: Good morning, everybody. Today is Friday, May 9th, 2025. This is the Committee on Education that is now called to order. I will note that the hour has come, and this hearing is called to order. This is the public hearing of the Council Committee on Education. The purpose of the public hearing is to hear testimony on Resolution No. 250-185 and 240-842. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?
Councilmember Squilla. Councilmember Squilla. Councilmember Gauthier.
Present. CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I note that for the record, a quorum of this committee is present, and this committee is called to order. I now turn the charge of the proceedings over to Councilmember Gauthier, who is one of the lead sponsors of the resolution for this particular bill.
Thank you, Chair Thomas. Joining us today is Councilmember Jones, the sponsor of both of these resolutions, and our state colleagues from Harrisburg, Senators Art Haywood, Anthony Williams, Nikil Saval, or maybe Nikil Saval will be joining us at some point, and State Representatives Napoleon Nelson and Rick Krajewski. Good morning, everyone. Philadelphia is known as the city of Eds and Meds. The brightest minds from around the world come here to study and innovate. But if you have ever walked across one of our college campuses, you will see that it might look a lot different than our neighborhoods. A few years ago, we celebrated the first student from Ropes & High getting into an Ivy League. The school is only two blocks from Penn's campus. So when we talk about DEI at universities, this is what we mean: Giving Philadelphians the same economic, professional and academic opportunities that our higher education institutions offer to young people around the world. I went to Temple University and the University of Pennsylvania. I know firsthand how hard it is to be a Black woman on a college campus. So I am disappointed and, frankly, insulted by institutions like the University of Pennsylvania for abandoning their promise to make their campuses more inclusive at the first sign of danger. The University of Pennsylvania refused to show up to this hearing and explain their decision to abandon DEI. We know that when Penn cares about something, they fight. Just look at how the institution fought against pilots. To see Penn refuse to give their Black and Brown students, alumni, faculty, and communities that they profess to care about the same consideration, and ignore our summons to come before their state and local representatives, confirms that they only care about us when it pays to. Capitulating to Trump will only invite more attacks. We've seen this over and over again, and frankly, I find it mind-boggling that Penn would think otherwise. Penn bent over backwards to scrub any mention of DEI from their website after Trump's executive order, which did not have the force of law, yet Trump still froze $175 million in funding. If Penn continues to wave the white flag, we can only expect more of the same. Let's compare how Penn is meeting this moment to institutions like Harvard and Princeton. While Penn cowers in the corner, Princeton is doubling down on DEI. Princeton recognizes that diverse perspectives, experiences, and problem-solving approaches create innovative ideas and solutions. And they know that if they do not hold the line, Trump will continue to impose on their academic freedom. In September, President Jameson sent an email to the Penn community, reminding them that the university's motto, laws without morals are useless, "Urges us to do what is good and practical and also what is right." It seems that these were nothing more than empty words. To the legal experts, professors, and impacted individuals here with us today, thank you for recognizing how important this work is, and for helping us to humanize this story. I want to give a special shout-out to the union workers, who I know will talk about how they're working to achieve true equity on our campuses. I am acutely aware that the programs we are defending today are not a silver bullet, but rather just the start. It is the work our unions are doing on campus that will get us to where we need to be. Lastly, thank you to Senator Williams for your leadership on this issue, and Senator Haywood, Senator Saval, Representative Krajewski, Representative Nelson, Representative Carroll, Chairman Harris, and Councilmember Jones for your partnership. I'd also like to thank Councilmember Isaiah Thomas, the Chair of the Education Committee. The fact that there are so many of us collaborating on this proves how important it is for our communities. And with that, I'd like to ask if other members of the committee have opening remarks. Councilmember Jones?
Thanks -- thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair. To my colleagues from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thank you for sharpening your laser opinions on this issue, long before we introduced these resolutions. But let me tell you the origin and intentions of some of the discussion for today. Long before Donald Trump made his ultimatum to the University of Penn, we, as a body struggling to make our budgets, looked at the prospect of educational institutions throughout the city and the contributions that they make to our great city. We know about wage taxes, we know about some of the educational performances that they give residents of Philadelphia, but we wanted to dig deeper to see if the math was adding up. That if, when we exempt an institution from taxes or taxable real estate, does it equal the give-back that they contribute to our city? Many of our institutions cast shadows on impoverished neighborhoods right next door. Temple, North Philadelphia. " And these census tracts, it's almost like a tale of two cities. I can sit in a public housing unit and watch students go to Temple in the 5th District. Watch them go on to brighter futures, some of them from suburbs around the country, and know that their trajectory in life is a good one. While I sit in a public housing unit, not able to take advantage of a scholarship, a job, a training program right in the shadow of that particular university. So we were looking at that math, that balance, that taxable real estate versus their contributions, and some of these institutions, as my colleagues will share, have good stories to tell. They're adopting schools, they're doing scholarship programs, but does the math equal that contribution? And that's one end of it. And then along came number 47, who then threatened to erase, to cancel culture DEI. Personally, I ran the Minority Business Enterprise Council for the City of Philadelphia for a number of years. I know what it meant to communities to be included in procurement, to be included in contracting, to be included in programming to create a balanced playing field. Now, whether you agree with history of whether or not there was validation through acts that governments sponsored, that these same institutions benefited from slavery, then we can argue that point. But what we cannot argue is that, at this point in time in history, you have an opportunity to say where you stand. That you can have a Harvard moment, and say that the principles of DEI, or the principles of freedom of speech, or the principles of being able to educate people freely, and whether you are a progressive, or whether you are conservative, that the institution gets to make that call as to the philosophy of that college or university. Or you can be bullied, or you can be intimidated. And I understand all of us have had those tests in life, public, private, challenges of consciousness, when we have to decide what kind of individual or institution we are going to be. We get that crossroads, and right now, we have to decide how our institutions are leveling up. Some of them, as you'll hear today, have decided to stand ten toes down to their commitment to this city. I went through a time when I ran the Minority Business Enterprise Council, and Senator Williams was around during those times when the Croson decision happened. " And our better lawyers, our city solicitors, got together and said, well, we may not be able to word it that way, but what we can do is be deliberate about anti- discrimination measures, that when disparate impacts happen, when we have a number of contractors, when we have a number of students, in this case, that could benefit from programs that live in that area, and then that statistical average is defined, then why? We can look at, instead of race-based or DEI, we can look at impacted census tracts that are distressed, that are in the shadow of these institutions.
So that if you really want to be helpful, if you really want to be inclusive, if that is in the character of your institution, there are legal ways that we will always be able to do that. But we have to make a choice here and now as to what type of city we're going to be, as to what kind of country we're going to have, and what kinds of educational institutions are going to educate our future leaders. And this begins that conversation in these chambers today. At the end of the day, we here at the state and city level can choose to be strategic alliance partners with these institutions. We got your back. We'll help you out to the degree that we can, in our chambers, in our courts, in our communications. We will stand with you. But if you choose to abandon what made this city -- what makes this country great, and it's because you fear No. 47, well, let me assure you, you should fear us, too. Tax exemption for real estate in the City of Philadelphia is something that we can decide on. And we can stand with you or we can stand against you. And we will base that on your ability not to discriminate against our citizens, not to erase our culture. We celebrate the 250th anniversary of this country, you can't just erase what happened. We acknowledge what happened, and we move boldly to a better future. And that's what this hearing is the beginning discussion about. I want to thank everyone for participating, and I look forward to the vigorous and exciting discussions. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Councilmember Jones. Councilmember Ahmad?
Good morning, everyone. It's great to see our colleagues from the state Pennsylvania legislature here. And welcome to everyone here. As someone who spent almost six years at the University of Pennsylvania getting my PhD, I recall standing in a massive group protesting investment in South Africa. And that movement would not happen today is what you're telling us. I am appalled that the University of Pennsylvania is lacking a spine at the time when we need them most. At the time when we need a message that we are not going to buckle down. And the fact is, this is the time to release 47's transcripts. Let's do it. Let's put out his transcripts. Let's talk about how we have accountability and transparency. So don't tell us, especially most of our people on this panel, that we got here without fighting. None of us did. We wouldn't be allowed in spaces if we did not fight. So I echo my colleagues, what -- and, you know, we have some tools, too. We will use them. Because, as my colleague Councilmember Jones just articulated, in the shadow of Penn is great disparity. And education is one way to level that playing field. We know that. We all know that. And so it behooves us to have some courage, to get a spine, to stand up and say -- and you have colleagues in the other Ivy Leagues who are doing it. It's not like you're alone. There's a talk about people, you know, connecting and having a united front. Let's do that. Let all the Ivy's stand up and do that. So I highly recommend that the University of Pennsylvania rethink. Because remember, there has been affirmative action for mediocre white men for hundreds of years. They didn't have to prove nothing. And here we are having to prove ourselves and making sure we have access. Let's go back then, hundreds of years and say, those are all illegitimate, how people got into these hallowed halls. So let's show some courage, let's have some fight, and I am excited that you're having the conversation, and it's a challenge, but I think we're ready for the challenge. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Councilmember Ahmad. Senator Williams.
Good morning. And thank you to my colleagues on City Council for allowing us to partner with you all today on an issue of this time period that will define the history of this nation. Thank you to the members of the House and the Senate who chose to be participants today in what is a beginning process of a conversation about the impact of what University of Penn's actions in February took. To be reminded, February 25th, we had a press conference of those of us who were elected officials, state and local, asking the very basic question of meeting with the President of the University of Pennsylvania regarding why they decided to remove DEI as a term, as well as information from the University of Penn's websites and programs. They did this without an advance notice, they did this without supporting information, they did this without documentation. And so we decided that we would go, have a conversation, and actually ask the University to join with us to better explain why they took that action. I prepared remarks today, which I want to deviate from, because people have continuously asked me, why do you continue to fight about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion? After all, it's just three words. Why don't we use something else? And as I thought about it, I realized I'm a man of a different generation. I'm an African-American male who was born in '57. I lived through the Civil Rights Movement. I will acknowledge to you today that I have met people who survived the Holocaust, and people who were members or descendants of slaves. That imprints upon me every single day. And never in my mind, or never in my wildest dreams, did I think I would live in a time period in America where they literally, literally, would decide to turn back the clock and wipe away the existence of so many Americans. I'm going to tell you what happened in our meeting, which I think is more troubling than even the actions which were taken, but were revealing as to why the actions were taken. We went in and we asked the question, why did you do it? And we began to receive what many of us receive who hold government positions lawyerly responses, vague terms, rounded-off sentences and paragraphs, and asking us to accept it because we're friends. "Understand we're in the fight with you. " Terms like that. They explained to us that they're going to lose X number of millions of dollars if they don't decide to remove DEI. So quickly, many of us understood, this is not a moral position, this is not a legally law-driven position, this is a money position. That's all that is, that's all it is, that's all it is now. So those of us who were born in a particular period of time got annoyed. There was a lot of information that was shared about the letter, there was a letter that was sent from the federal government, which, in the letter, it actually said it does not have the weight of law. There was a lot that was said that actually explained that the university had prepared for when this letter was going to arrive, so they were already prepared to respond in the way that they did in anticipation of the letter. There was no forethought or thought about how to roll it out. We asked the question, like, well, what are you going to do now that you've rolled it out? And we have a student who actually sat in the room and said, "Look, I was a member. I was part of a program that participated. " None of that was explained. What was said, after I, me, clearly was vexed in that conversation and talking in a frustrated tone, sitting next to the President of the University, and I will never forget this moment. I've met him twice. The first time I met him, he explained to me he was a man of the South, who was enlightened, informed, different than the other folks during that period of time, and had a particularly kind heart and understanding of what African Americans have gone through, and he stood separate from that and avowed his commitment to making sure we were included.
I thought that was impressive the first time I met him. This time, as I'm asking him questions and his lawyers are not answering, and I'm very -getting very frustrated, I'm not cussing, I'm not yelling, I'm not hitting, I'm not touching anyone, but I'm being very firm and it's very clear I'm not particularly pleased in the responses I'm receiving, and I'm responding as such. And he turns to me and says, "I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable about how you're talking to me. " I don't think he understands to this day how that interpreted. So my grandfather explained to me how it worked in the South: "You raise your voice. When you walk down the street, son, you turn your head to the ground. You don't raise your voice to a white man. " That's all that could flash through my head when he was saying this to me. He couldn't interpret that as a human being I had every right to be insulted by the way that Penn had proceeded in wiping out DEI. And, in fact, they had admitted in the meeting they had done it improperly. He couldn't comprehend that a person like myself, who held the responsibility of not just me but others, facing one of the largest employers. This is not just about University of Penn, one of the largest employers in Philadelphia County's response to the government's intrusion of private considerations. He could not understand that turning to me saying, "I don't feel comfortable with how you're talking to me," I interpreted it as, boy, you shouldn't be raising your voice to me like that. He does not understand how chilly that commentary was. " I'm sitting there in a room 11 with some of the most influential people in Pennsylvania and America. This man gets paid millions of dollars to represent an institution of higher learning and higher thinking, and he felt comfortable with his attorney turning around and saying, "Diversity is now a lightning rod," and not scolding her or removing her from the room. We are here because the history of this country is at a crossroads like it was in the '60s. The difference is, in the '60s, people died for these rights. They didn't just march, they didn't just protest, they didn't just sit in, they actually died. And by the way, they were White and they were Black, but they fought. They didn't fight because their salary would be increased, they didn't fight for research dollars, they didn't fight for money, or monetary gain, or position in society. They fought because it was America and it was the right thing to do. And because of that, we did become the greatest nation in the world. Because we acknowledged that the Constitution should rep everyone. We acknowledged that our economy would get stronger because we had more people paying taxes and a part of it. We became a richer nation because the next generation would not have the limitations of interacting with other cultures the way that our generation did. " So I want you to understand: there is a context in which this fight occurs. If it was simply about the word DEI, I could give up. But that's not what this is about. This is about people who say they are friends. Understand something, in the '60s, you stood on one side or the other. You're either with us or against us. And everybody paid a consequence, White or Black, what side you picked. As a matter of fact, the party in which I sit, the Democratic Party, got divided. And that's how Reagan became president, because the Southern Democrats who were white, who believed that slavery was okay and the South should rise again, decided to become Republicans. Changed the party. And now it's changing and scarring the nation as we speak. But because the President of the University of Pennsylvania decided that this wasn't that big a deal because in the recesses of his kind, thoughtful, benevolent mind, he thought it was okay to sit in a room next to me and make those comments, and not acknowledge that maybe I don't really understand the consequence of my actions and what I did.
And, boy, I'm going to work with you. I'm going to stand up and say, we made a mistake. Even if we don't use DEI, but I'm going to make sure that the public understands that we are not deserting our responsibility to children of color, to students of color, to faculty. And more importantly, to the fabric of Philadelphia. Yes, that Black and Brown people mean something. Oh, and by the way, under DEI, so do Jewish people. So do white women. So do veterans. A whole category of people and human beings who are under the DEI cloth mean something. We are equally as compelled that that university, and that president did not tell its board that we were having this hearing today. That's how dismissive he was, and is. He chose not to deliver anybody, that's fine. But what is not okay is that they had an executive board meeting, that means all the players at Penn, who sit on the board, who make all these decisions, that's right, had a meeting yesterday and did not discuss this issue. It did not come up. " So that meant this gentleman decided by himself that Penn should not stand up and sit and confront what they did, or what they're doing. I represent the University of Pennsylvania. Since that meeting, I have not heard from them, their government relations people, their vice president, anyone to say, We had a meeting, we thought about it, and here's what our next steps are. Rather, they've left the wreckage of what they've done across the public because they believe that we are not going to affect their funding. They believe that they can get to Harrisburg around us. They believe they can call a governor without us. They believe they can talk to the chairman of both appropriations committees without us. They believe they can talk to Republicans and Democrats without us. They believe that City Council will not stop the development with permits and a variety of other things going forward. Well, I'm going to say, for the record, Mr. President, who pays a lot of money to consultants and lobbyists, you got bad advice. You got really bad advice. One, the meeting was horrific. But more importantly, the after effects of it are even worse. The fact that you chose not to show up, or send any representative. But more importantly, inform your board is insulting, disgusting, but most importantly, it was a bad idea. A really bad idea. This bone is not by any means finished being gnawed on. And there will be consequences. This is not a threat. This is a promise to the commitment, integrity, and humanity of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. That's what's central in this conversation. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few brief words. I hope everyone understands the gravity of my feelings are not personal, but pour out of a generation of people who have sacrificed for this country, for this state, for this station -- I mean, for this city, and for that university. People who have stood up for that university when they decided to expand beyond the walls and come into communities, and fought to say they were allowed to do such, that sacrifice should have been acknowledged and considered when you decided not to show up. But since you didn't, I want to add one more thing. I was told Penn is a victim. They're caught between Donald Trump, his policies, and what to do. When you have $22 billion, excuse me, mom -- my mom was a teacher, you ain't no victim. $22 billion makes you a bully on the block. Having a board of some of the richest Americans makes you a bully on the block. Now, since that meeting and his comments, I understand why he chose not to do it. He chose not to do it. He didn't have to do it. He chose not to do it because the power of Penn was compromised by the thought, We're going to lose some money. And, you know, they'll understand, they'll get over it, and we'll just proceed as usual -- business as usual. Well, that just don't cut it. And I'm grateful that we're starting the process of publicly talking about these shortcomings.
And I'm very excited that we have a partnership between the state and local government to develop a plan of exactly the message we're going to send to the university. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Senator Williams. Next, I'd like to call Representative Nelson. REP. NELSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am State Representative Napoleon Nelson. I am in my third term representing Montgomery County Cheltenham, Jenkintown, and Springfield residents in the State House. And I'm honored to chair the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus. I was raised here in Northwest Philly, graduate of the Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is not only the birthplace of this nation, but it is the birthplace of higher education. The ivy-wrapped and walls along Walnut Street can recount the eras of this nation. To say that this moment in history is without precedent is both false and an understatement. Our universities have been held to account for their admissions practices that have historically passed over the bright and brilliant minds of this city before. Indeed, our universities have seen anti-war demonstrations before. Our universities have seen the sort of rhetoric and vitriol of McCarthyism, the suffrage of our mothers, the internment of Japanese Americans in California, a king's struggle for civil rights, and sadly, the bombing of a movement. I do not believe that this hearing is simply about a few universities and how they are appropriating tax dollars, or how they are reviewing student applications. Today's hearing is to seek clarification on where our heralded universities and learning institutions stand when history is being erased, thought is being censored, and identity is being criminalized. Many of us owe no small measure of credit to this city's institutions for preparing us for where we are at this moment. It is an honor to join this group of leaders today, fighting for what we hold so dear. The celebration of our diversity, the enduring pursuit of equity, and the unrelenting intention of inclusion. Which of our schools has the fortitude to stand up to bullies? Which of our institutions of higher learning has the clarity to place moral values over financial assets? Which of our vaunted partners is willing to lead and not just follow? In essence, who do we trust to shape and mold the next generation of leaders? Leaders of industry, of this city and state, world leaders, and yes, religious leaders. Because those folks are in our classrooms right now. They're in this room, proclaiming their voice. They're in your swimming pools, pushing themselves to their limits. They may even be in detention cells or on one-way flights to the unfamiliar lands of their forefathers. Was it you that taught them to stand up for themselves, or would you have them, at this point, make business decisions? I look forward to this hearing and what we will hear from our testifiers, read from your statements, and glean from your silence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Representative Krajewski. REP. KRAJEWSKI: Good morning. I want to thank my colleagues in Council for your leadership in hosting this hearing. I'm grateful to be joined with my colleagues in the State Legislature. As the representative for the 188th District of West and Southwest Philadelphia, I also represent the University of Pennsylvania. So I'm here in my legislative capacity, but I'm also here as an alum of the University of Pennsylvania. I graduated from the class of 2013, and I share the disappointment, the frustration, and truly just the deep sadness at the actions of the University of Pennsylvania. And to talk a little bit more about that, I'm going to share a bit of my experience on campus and why I am deeply distraught by the recent actions of my alma mater. So I came to the University of Pennsylvania in 2009 to begin my undergraduate studies. I was a young Black boy from the Bronx and suddenly was sharing classrooms with the children of executives, of doctors, of lawyers. In fact, actually, one of Denzel Washington's son was one of my classmates at the University of Pennsylvania. And so as a young Black boy from the Bronx, from a single- parent, single-income household, I continuously asked myself, What the heck am I doing here? Like I am not supposed to be here. I don't come from privilege, I don't come from the same class that my classmates did. And I continuously struggled with imposter syndrome, continuously felt like I had to prove myself just to exist, just to belong on campus. And those feelings became a nightmare in my freshman year when I was taking an undergraduate class, and my professor at the time asked me to come to her office because she had some questions about a paper I had written about religion, actually. And I came into her office, and she immediately started interrogating me, asking me, had I ever written a term paper before, had I ever done research on this topic, where did I go to school for high school? Continuously pestering me and interrogating me, basically, trying to make the case, which she eventually admitted, of accusing me of plagiarism. She basically felt that I did not write my paper. And I can remember the line that really stuck with me during that conversation when she said, I believe that you write good words. I just don't believe they're yours. Yes. Eighteen-year-old Black boy from the Bronx, sitting in this closet office, basically being told, I don't think you're smart enough to be here. And so that confirmed all the suspicions that I felt, that I was not supposed to be on campus, that I did not -- I did not deserve my place at the University of Pennsylvania. And I carried that throughout my entire four years. I carried that shame, that fear, that imposter syndrome. And to this day, I think about the students on campus, because I know I wasn't the only one. I know from talking to some of my classmates. I know today, there are students right now who question, because of their race, their class, their background; do I deserve to be here? And that's because of the culture of white supremacy and privilege that pervades our society, but in particular, pervades a lot of our institutions. And it's important for institutions like the University of Pennsylvania to stand up against that and to show that it is a safe, welcoming space. Institutions are supposed to be sanctuaries, they're supposed to be places where young people, like myself, like Representative Nelson, like Councilmember Gauthier can feel free as students, as curious learners. And Penn has failed in providing that protection. It has failed continuously. And it has failed in the face of political pressure.
We saw this last year, when the witch hunt interrogations from Congress attacked students' ability to express their First Amendment rights, and we're seeing it right now with a president who is openly terrorizing universities across this state, attacking DEI, which we know is not really about DEI, it's about attacking the independence of our institutions. And so Penn, and all the universities in Philadelphia and across this country have a responsibility to fight back. As the Senator mentioned, the University of Pennsylvania has an endowment of $22 billion. That is four times the size of the entire budget of the School District of Philadelphia, as my Councilmembers know. Four times the size of the entire school district's budget. When you have that level of wealth and privilege, you have a responsibility to do something. But when the University of Pennsylvania does not, and when these universities do not stand up, what they are saying is that their investments are more important than their students. Their investments are more important than the safety of their students. And that is unacceptable. Because we need these institutions to stand up and fight for us. The courts are not going to save us. They're not. This person -- this person -- Mr. 47 is not following the law. And so we need our independent universities and our places that have the privilege, and wealth, and responsibility to do so to stand up. And to say -- and to call it out for what it is. C. And so I join my colleagues in demanding answers and demanding better. I am disappointed that university leadership has not respected this hearing. I'm honestly pretty shocked that they didn't even mention it in their executive board hearing. And we just -- we need more. We need more action, we need more courage, and we want to help. We want to stand with Penn. We want to stand with Penn, Temple, all these universities. We want to stand here and say we are proud to stand together as leaders in this city to fight back against this agenda. We're here. We are here. We're waiting -- we're waiting for people to join us. So that's all I got to say. Thank you.
Thank you. Majority Whip Thomas. CHAIR THOMAS: So before we call the first panel, I just wanted to say thank you, really, honestly. As the Chair of the Education Committee on City Council, is -- it warms my heart to listen to my state colleagues, my big brothers, talk a lot about what this moment means for us. And for anybody who thought this wasn't an important conversation, just listening to all the remarks here today, this intergenerational conversation that's happening right now is heartwarming. It re-energizes me to let me know that we can be the change we want to see. And that's why a lot of us ran for office in the first place. So this is one of those moments. So thank you all, especially to Councilmember Gauthier, Councilmember Jones for leading the way on City Council, and Senator Williams for organizing us for weeks now, at this point, and making sure that we stay laser-sharp focused on this issue even when it's not in the press anymore. I'm looking around this chamber and we had all types of cameras here yesterday when folks knew it was going to be a lot of drama. I don't know where those cameras are today, but it's good that we can create our own media. That's what 2025 allows us to do. So we will make sure that this message resonates with the citizens of Philadelphia, even if we have to take it to them ourselves. I also want to take a moment of personal privilege to thank the folks at Temple. I know they're not here today, but I did meet with them earlier in the week and they did provide a lot of written testimony. And in their written testimony, unlike some of the other written testimony that was submitted, they did use those three letters, and they did use those three words, diversity, equity, and inclusion. So I especially appreciate President Fry, George Kenney, and the entire team at Temple, specifically. I'm not saying that other universities aren't doing it, but when we're talking about the large anchor institutions, we're talking about the City of Philadelphia being the city of eds, meds, and beds, we say it all the time. Those anchor institutions, they mean so much. Listening to Councilman Jones talk about that young man in North Philly who can't even go to the university that he's watching so many other people go to. These institutions know they have a responsibility, and we discuss it all the time. So I just wanted to put on the record, and I'm not going to read the entire testimony, it's about 30 pages long, but I did want to just put on the record that we appreciate their leadership and the role that they play within the City of Philadelphia. So to my colleagues, both on the state and city level, I'm inspired by you, I hope that the listening public is also inspired by you, and I hope people understand that while we know we have more work to do, we're prepared to fight this fight until we win. Thank you all.
Will the clerk now read the title of Resolution 250-185?
Resolution 8 250-185, authorizing the Committee on Education to investigate federal DEI program rollbacks and their effects on Philadelphia's tax-exempt higher education institutions.
The clerk will please call the first panel of witnesses to testify on the resolution.
President Jameson is absent. My name is Mariya Khandros. I'm Chief of Staff for Councilmember Gauthier. I am going to read University of Pennsylvania's written testimony into the record. The testimony was written by Jeffrey Cooper, the Vice President for Government and Community Affairs at the University of Pennsylvania. "Penn's enduring commitments. As we approach our 269th commencement ceremony in a few days, it is worth noting that Penn has served the public well for centuries and through many societal shifts. Our success as a world- class academic institution is built on our core mission, teaching, research, clinical care, and service, and accompanying values inspired by our founder, Benjamin Franklin. Open-minded and curious, inventive and practical, exhibiting brilliance across fields, imperfect but self-improving, and relentlessly focused on enhancing social good. "For more than a century, Penn has anchored in equal opportunity, expanding access and embracing diversity in all its forms. These commitments to our culture have made Penn a pioneer in higher education, and we are stronger for it. The University's commitment to inclusive excellence has advanced research, scholarship, and patient care in profound ways. We will continue to cultivate a community where we become stronger, more innovative, and more effective as a place of learning, because we welcome those with different types of expertise, talents, and skills, and allow every person to flourish. "Defending our vital work, in addition to staying true to our mission and values, we are defending the vital work of our faculty, staff, and students, and standing firm in protecting the legal rights of our institution and the academic community. Penn has always upheld the law, including the Supreme Court's ruling in the Harvard and North Carolina admissions cases that overturned the use of affirmative action in admissions, and we will continue doing so. Our operations may evolve depending on how courts rule, how agencies implement new policies, and how future orders and legislation are enacted. We remain firmly committed to outreach, opportunity and access to a Penn education. "This year, we admitted the largest number of Philadelphia residents in recent years. We welcome your support as we work to meet the challenge of perpetuating a culture of excellence and to ensure that every person on our campus feels that they belong here as the world around us rapidly changes. "In alignment with a powerful coalition of 500 college and university presidents, President Jameson signed a Call for Constructive Engagement, a public statement issued by the American Association of Colleges and Universities that invites responsible reforms in our partnership with government while asserting the essential freedom to pursue our mission without interference. "We appreciate your attention to our shared concerns in this challenging era for institutions of higher education. The strength, resilience, and resolve of Penn's campus community will enable us to adapt to change with our purpose and principles intact. "Your ongoing advocacy regarding the impact that the University has made and continues to make in the lives of the residents of our great city, the Commonwealth, and the nation is greatly appreciated. " Next, I'm going to read a quote from the Daily Pennsylvanian that was added into the record by Councilmember Curtis Jones. Daily Pennsylvanian: Penn strips central DEI website as review of programs begins. Penn has scrubbed the University's main diversity and inclusion website, the latest in a series of moves removing references to equity initiatives policies and practices on university sites. The content of the website, which has been renamed Belonging at Penn, was removed in its entirety on February 14th, including information about academic inclusion programs, demographic data, and student affinity groups.
The updated website contains a brief three- sentence statement about Penn's commitment to equal opportunity. " The website now reads. "We remain committed to providing a respectful and welcoming environment to our faculty, staff, and students. Thank you.
I believe that Senator Haywood does have some questions for our witness. Let's go ahead and get them on the record. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you very much, and thank you to all the councilmembers, my colleagues in the General Assembly, and all those who are gathered here. I have a number of questions for the University of Pennsylvania that I'd like to share now, and hopefully can obtain answers at some time later. We are in a city that is at least 60 percent Black and Brown. It is deeply offensive that you are in an empty chair representation. My first question is, are you only available to talk in hearings about anti-Semitism? That is my first question to -- that I'd like to receive a response. We have dignity. Equal dignity as to all humans. We have seen you in public hearings on the topic of anti- Semitism, but you are not here, and our topic is the treatment of Black, Brown, and other individuals. I hope I don't have to repeat that. It is, are you only available on public hearings related to anti- Semitism? My second question is, we know that DEI language has been removed. We also know that that language is permitted under freedom of speech. It is protected speech. I would like to know why you would take that speech down, since that is speech that lifts up Black and Brown students. It says to them that they count -- diversity counts, equity counts, inclusion counts. Why would you take that language down so that those students, faculty, and staff would feel that they do not count in the institution? My next question is, I was on a tour visiting over pretty much every state university, and we heard from Black and Brown students about several concerns on campus. And I would like to know if your students have the same concerns, and if your institution is responding to these concerns. The first one is, students have expressed to me that they need mental health services from professionals who are connected to them, who they feel an affinity with. Diversity, equity, and inclusion makes it more likely that mental health professionals will be of the same affinity group as the students. Has your diversity, equity, and inclusion practices changed so that our students do not have mental health professionals that are like them? Next, we know that some teaching can be inclusive, or not. Unfortunately, I've heard of teaching in classrooms that include English classrooms, that includes use of the N-word as a means of communication. I know that the state senate -- excuse me, the state faculty senate at the state universities are looking at inclusive pedagogy so that individual students are not offended by what a teacher may say. Are you adopting inclusive pedagogy so that our students are not offended by the words used during instruction? My next question, and I'm getting down to the last three. Students in our visits said that it was very difficult to complain about harassment and mistreatment. Do you have an easy process so that students can complain about harassment and mistreatment, as diversity, equity, and inclusion would require? Penn, what is your process of having a diverse faculty and staff, as diversity, equity, and inclusion would require? So that students have faculty and staff that look like them, and can help them share their aspirations? And my last questions are related to the higher education pipeline. At Penn, do you have a higher education pipeline, or would you please describe that pipeline that brings Black and Brown students from Philadelphia into the university? Do you have a career readiness program, like LaSalle has in the Northwest? Do you have dual enrollment programs so that our students can get college credits while in high school? And if so, describe how that reaches neighborhood, charter, and other schools in the city of Philadelphia? These are my questions for which I seek a response. Thank you. CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, Senator. Those were very appropriate questions.
It's unfortunate that there's no one here right now in this moment to answer those questions, but hopefully we'll get a response. For the record, the Chair would like to note that we have been joined by Councilmember Kendra Brooks as well as State Rep Andre Carroll. Thank you both for joining us. The Chair recognizes Minority Leader Kendra Brooks.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I, too, have questions I just want to put on record since we are only allotted to an empty chair. My first question is, in February, Penn Engineering removed the language Penn Engineering strongly endorses the university's commitment to diversity from its website. The Wharton Business School and other schools at Penn have taken similar actions with language on their websites. Do you disagree with that statement and what the message sends to Black and Brown students who experience discrimination while at Penn? My second question: Have you had any contact with the Trump administration about the University of Pennsylvania's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies? My next question: As the president of the university, how do you interpret what the Trump administration is doing targeting higher ed? And do you plan on making further changes to Penn's policies based on his latest executive order? Next question: Some universities, like Harvard, have stood up to the Trump administration's attacks on higher education. Why has Penn not taken similar public actions in response to Trump freezing $175 million in grant money to Penn? Next question: Last fall, colleges across the country saw a series of uprisings calling for a cease fire and an end to the war in Gaza. You called for police intervention, something that the Parker administration was hesitant to do. In the aftermath of those protests, the UPenn Faculty Senate Chair resigned, citing the university's response. Do you have any regrets over how you handled the situation? Next question: Are you worried that there are students on campus who could be targeted for their -- targeted by ICE for their involvement in protested -- in protecting free speech activities? Next question: Philadelphia is the home of some of the premier, large-scale, long-term research studies in the world. Part of the reason those studies are held in such high esteem is that they include large population samples of groups that are typically significantly more difficult to include in research, such as lower- income Black people. How will DEI change impact Philadelphia's status as a preeminent city that sets the global standard for research? I have two more questions. The next one is, Penn has been -- Penn has been in collective bargaining negotiations with GETUP, a union of graduate student workers, since October of 2024. The university has either rejected or not responded to contract proposals that would ensure protections against workplace discrimination and the rights of workers from other countries. Why is Penn so resistant to agreeing to this protection, and when does Penn hope to finalize an agreement with the union? Next question and final question: Elsewhere at Penn, a majority of post-doctoral researchers support forming a union, but Penn refuses to allow these workers to even hold a union election. Most of these post-docs are international workers who are seeking assurance from Penn at a time when many immigrants in this country are scared of Trump's radical anti-immigrant policies. Why have you refused to recognize their right to hold a union election? Those are my questions for the record and I hope that someone will be able to respond soon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This question goes to the University of Penn, but to all institutions in Philadelphia. Could you provide us a breakdown by zip code of students from Philadelphia, and particularly distressed zip codes that you've admitted to your institution? Can you provide this body, Madam Chair, with a list of employees from the various zip codes within Philadelphia that you've hired? Can you provide this body the various tutorial, adoption programs? And I know that there are some that you've adopted at neighborhood schools to create that career track to education opportunities and higher learning, by zip code. And I mention by zip code because as you build your institutions in these respective neighborhoods, how is your impact felt by the people who are your neighbors? And if you could provide that to the Chair, that gives us some insight. And it doesn't have to be called DEI, even though it is not a bad word. It can be by zip code that are distressed, that are Philadelphian, that could use a hand up. Please provide that to the Chair. Thank you.
I believe that those are all the questions for the witness. The clerk will please call the next panel of witnesses to testify on the resolution.
Stacy Hawkins, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School. Jonathan Feingold, Associate Professor, Boston University School of Law. Paulette Granberry-Russell, President, National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.
Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. STACY HAWKINS: Good morning. Stacy Hawkins. Good morning, Chair Thomas, Councilwoman Gauthier.
Yes, we can. We're going to come to you after Professor Hawkins, but we can hear you.
State Senator Williams and the other distinguished members of the City Council and State Legislature assembled here today, thank you so much for having me and for this opportunity to testify about the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our local universities. Again, my name is Stacy Hawkins. I am a professor of law at Rutgers Law School, and I have more than years of experience advising 21 clients in both the public and 22 private sectors on developing and 23 implementing legally defensible 24 diversity programs and policies. And I've spent the last 15 years at Rutgers Law School teaching and writing about the intersection of law and diversity. In that time, I have authored numerous articles addressing the importance of diversity in our society broadly, and particularly in higher education. With my time, I would like to briefly sketch my understanding, as limited as it might be, of what the University of Pennsylvania, or Penn, has done to alter its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in response to the Trump administration's actions, to explain how Penn's actions in modifying their DEI programs and policies should be viewed in light of their obligations under anti- discrimination law, and finally, to suggest how Penn's actions might affect various constituencies that benefit from these DEI policies and programs. So according to public reports, following the issuance of President Trump's executive order targeting diversity in higher education, Penn Scrubbed DEI references from its websites and changed more than a dozen titles of Penn staff members formerly associated with DEI. As just one example, Vanessa Gonzalez-Perez was formerly listed as the Associate Vice Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the School of Arts and Sciences. Ms. Gonzalez-Perez's bio highlighted her background as a Latinx first- gen scholar and described her as a mentor, coach, and fierce advocate for the accessibility and success of under represented scholars of STEM. Both Ms. Gonzalez-Perez's title and her bio have been changed to remove all references to DEI, including references to her own experience and to her commitment to serving underrepresented students. As has already been mentioned, according to Penn's leadership, these actions were taken to ensure the university was adhering to the new executive order and other guidance from federal agencies such as the Department of Education. However, as Professor Feingold will further detail in his remarks, many common diversity, equity, and inclusion practices remain lawful, notwithstanding the executive order or the Department of Education guidance. In fact, both of those documents acknowledge this by expressly targeting only illegal DEI practices rather than targeting all DEI practices. As a result, categorical removal of all references to DEI from its websites, programs, and position titles was in no way warranted as a compliance measure with any directive of the Trump administration. DEI is not per se unlawful, and the Trump administration has not suggested that all DEI efforts pose compliance risks under federal law. So this act of over compliance by Penn in removing all references to DEI raises its own concerns with regard to Penn's ability to discharge its legal obligations under both federal and state anti-discrimination law, both of which require that institutions prevent and correct any discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender -- including gender identity and expression, particularly under state law that may occur within the university community. DEI efforts have always been viewed as a prophylactic measure against discrimination and harassment and as one means of ensuring that institutions discharge their obligations to provide equal opportunities to all without regard to race, ethnicity, or gender.
DEI programs designed to ensure access, to reduce barriers to success and to create climates that foster a welcoming rather than a hostile climate have long been viewed as critical to ensuring compliance with equal opportunity, non-discrimination and anti- harassment requirements under federal and state law. So Penn's visible withdrawal from DEI seems to signal a retreat from these commitments and raise concerns about its ability to comply with these obligations under federal and state law. The reason is that DEI efforts in higher education often perform two critical functions that are designed to really discharge an institution's obligations under these anti- discrimination laws. First, they prevent discrimination by creating structures and providing resources that ensure equal access and equal opportunity for those who might otherwise be excluded -- especially on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender. Second, they help to prevent and correct harassment by offering early warning systems designed to mediate the student experience. By modifying or withdrawing these DEI programs, Penn runs the risk of eliminating some of these systems, these structures and these resources that are serving the very constituencies anti- discrimination laws are designed to protect. At the very least, Penn's efforts to conceal DEI sends the signal to these communities that their access, that their opportunity and that their wellbeing are no 16 longer a paramount concern. That message is antithetical to rather than in service of anti- discrimination law. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN GAUTHIER: Thank you so much for your testimony. Please stay for questions at the end of the panel. Professor Feingold, please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Jonathan Feingold and I want to start by thanking you-all for inviting my testimony regarding the Trump administration's attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and how universities have responded. I'm an associate professor at Boston University School of Law and an expert on affirmative action, education law and anti- discrimination law, including Title VI. I've written extensively about SFFA v. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court decision that constrained but did not wholly prohibit universities from considering an applicant's racial identity during admissions. And for the remainder of my time, I will offer three points. First, that common diversity equity inclusion practices remain lawful, not withstanding recent executive orders and communications from the Trump administration. Second, that many universities have chosen not to defend their DEI practices, even though those practices remain legally defensible and are critical to the institutional mission. And third, that the Trump administration's attacks on DEI buttress a broader effort to suppress political dissent and to erode all sites of independent power, including organized labor. Much of the following draws on a memo that I co-authored with leading scholars across the country and sent to over 600 university presidents, including many in Philadelphia. DEI is common shorthand for various initiatives designed to counter pervasive biases and stereotypes and to cultivate more diverse, equitable, and inclusive institutions. These goals further the driving purpose behind and are consistent with the values that animate federal civil rights laws like Title VI. Because common DEI practices combat biases and cultivate inclusion, they're not only lawful, but they also equip universities to fulfill ongoing Title VI obligations, which include avoiding unlawful disparate treatment, remedying racially hostile environments, and avoiding unjustifiable disparate outcomes. Moreover, by cultivating academic environments free from bias, stigma, and harassment, DEI initiatives better position universities to promote academic freedom and fulfill their basic mission to pursue truth and knowledge for the common good, which requires the free exchange and critical evaluations of competing ideas. The Trump administration is openly hostile to equity, diversity, and inclusion. It's worth noting that because this hostility to DEI both rests on and amplifies unfounded and pernicious tropes and stereotypes about the alleged incompetence of women and Black people. And because of that, the administration's anti-DEI policies are themselves constitutionally suspect. But even assuming that recent federal actions are lawful, President Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally alter federal civil rights laws. This means that common DEI practices that were lawful before President Trump's inauguration remain lawful. Executive orders and agency communications do not change this. In fact, the Trump administration has conceded that DEI is not inherently unlawful, and that public and private entities enjoy the right to communicate such values free from federal interference and to incorporate such commitments into academic programs and classroom teaching. Contrary to the Trump administration's claims, SFFA v. Harvard does not render DEI initiatives legally suspect quite to the contrary. Chief Justice Roberts characterized the university defendant's diversity related goals as worthy and commendable. Justice Kavanaugh reinforced this point when he explained that, Governments and universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race. The Supreme Court further reinforced the legality of common DEI initiatives when it denied certiorari in coalition for TJ v. Fairfax last year.
In that case, plaintiffs had argued that changes to a public high school's admissions policy, including eliminating a $100 application fee and affording greater representation to feeder middle schools, were unlawful because the changes were designed to increase student body diversity. The Fourth Circuit appropriately rejected the claim, and the Supreme Court cert denial further undercuts the Trump administration's radical theory that any policy adopted with a racial motive, including racial diversity or inclusion, is inherently suspect. To reiterate, common DEI practices were lawful before January 20th, and remain so today. 10 Unfortunately, universities across 11 the country and apparently also in 12 Philadelphia have elected not to 13 defend their own commitments to 14 effectuate more diverse, equitable 15 inclusive institutions. 16 This voluntary capitulation 17 is particularly troubling with 18 respect to our most elite 19 universities, given their vast 20 resources that could be deployed to 21 defend lawful DEI policies and their 22 fraught legacies of racial exclusion 23 and bias on campus. 24 In contrast to the lack of resolve among many institutions of higher education, multiple K through school districts, including New 5 York and Chicago, have proudly 6 defended their right to continue 7 engaging in lawful DEI initiatives. 8 And just to conclude, it is 9 important to place the Trump 10 administration's attacks on DEI into 11 broader context. 12 DEI policies threaten President Trump and his allies because they invite students to question the legitimacy of prevailing societal inequality, both racial and economic. And understood in this context, the Trump administration's assault on DEI is designed in part to splinter cross- racial coalitions that share economic interests and to deny students' knowledge necessary to imagine and realize a more just society for everyone. Thank you again for considering my thoughts and inviting me here. I'd be glad to answer any questions. CHAIRWOMAN GAUTHIER: Thank you so much and please hang on for questions at the end of the panel. Ms. Russell, please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Paulette Granberry-Russell, and good morning. I want to thank all of you for this opportunity to provide you testimony regarding the attempts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in higher education. I'm the current president and CEO of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. In this role, I work with administrators and professionals who are committed to making transformational change on campuses across the country, that enhance the experience for every student. I would also note for the record that NADOHE is the lead plaintiff in one of the first cases brought against the Trump administration with respect to two executive orders that were intended to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in federal government. As a leader and practitioner of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in higher education that are increasingly under attack, I felt compelled to stop using the acronym DEI. I learned over the last two plus years that we need to help the broader community understand the values and benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. And by doing so, we may debunk the myths and find opportunities for common ground along with the recent executive orders that attempt to frame diversity efforts as illegal, wasteful, and radical. Since 2023, there have been 134 state bills that have been introduced and have become law 14 that prohibit various diversity 15 efforts, including prohibiting 16 colleges from having offices and 17 staff that lead and support 18 diversity, equity, and inclusion 19 programs. 20 My goal today is to address the value and impact of these efforts on higher education, describe the impacts on campuses and responding to the national assault on diversity efforts. Diversity, equity and inclusion programs are not about preferential treatment, contrary to popular belief. These programs are about access and helping colleges create welcoming, rigorous learning environments where the opportunity to succeed is the right of all students as well as faculty and staff. Decades ago in response to the civil rights movement in this country, the federal government created civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws and other legislation, as well as federal programs and funding transformed access to educational opportunities for millions of Americans who had previously been excluded based on their race, gender, disability, and other protected categories. Institutions began to hire staff with the requisite skills to achieve the goal of ensuring compliance with these mandates. Today, as the growing body of research has showed the benefits of diversity, those leading such efforts have moved beyond compliance to more proactive support for students. And for many students, diversity initiatives in and outside the classroom provide essential academic and social support. They provide broader mentorship opportunities, financial guidance and leadership development. And investment inclusion efforts demonstrate a commitment to student success at all levels in all fields, especially science, technology, engineering, and math. They provide students with opportunities for engagement and dialogue across differences. Educators should have the necessary skills, I think as referenced by one of our esteemed colleagues just earlier. Educators should have the necessary skills to support a diverse student body. It is essential that we recruit, retain, and promote diverse talent from diverse communities. Ensure that research and teaching address the knowledge required for success in a global society. Today, generations of effort are at stake, including many programs that exist in response to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including TRIO and GEAR UP. In the May 2nd, 2025 letter with President Trump's recommendations on discretionary funding, these programs are referred to as, A relic of the past.
And that colleges and universities should focus on academics and scholarship accomplishments. Again in quotes, Rather than engaging in woke ideology with federal taxpayer subsidies. Across the country, we're seeing the fallout from these attacks on diversity programs. Offices are closing, staff are losing their jobs. Student cultural centers that are open to all are being shut down. Even longstanding celebratory events that are inclusive are being tightly and quietly concealed. Colleges are trying to navigate this increasingly hostile environment. Walking a tight rope between legal caution and their core values of equity and inclusion. Pulling back, especially out of fear rather than necessity, weakens the entire mission of higher education. It means fewer academic and social support programs for historically underrepresented students, fewer mentors, advisors, and counselors who understand their experiences and fewer pathways to graduation and long term success. Retreating from the fight doesn't hurt just the students, it hurts communities. It means fewer graduates ready to lead, to collaborate across differences, and to help solve complex problems in a diverse society. If we don't stand up and defend this work, we risk letting fear drive us into a future that's more unequal, less just, and ultimately harmful to our democracy and our economy. We must tell the real stories. The stories of students, alumni, faculty and administrators whose lives and work have been transformed through these efforts. We need elected leaders, university officials, and advocates working together to protect inclusive policies and practices. We must invest in and share resources, research and strategies that sustain diversity efforts, even amid legal and political challenges. These attacks didn't come out of nowhere. They've been building for years, but we still have time to choose a better path. Above all, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to the belief that higher education can and must be a powerful source for opportunity and equity for all. I want to thank you again for bringing us together today, and I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRWOMAN GAUTHIER: Thank you so much. I have a few questions for the panel, and then I'll pass it off to my colleagues for additional questions. First, this is for anyone who wants to answer, when we met with President Jameson, he alleged that Penn is simply removing a few words to protect their funding without changing the nature of their commitment. At the same time, we know that words matter, and we have spoken to faculty who say that a university stops being a university if it sanitizes its language, because that action betrays the freedom of inquiry, learning and knowledge. So can you tell me, is it possible to do what Penn says they are doing? Can they just change a few words without changing the nature and operation of their institutions? Why or why not?
I guess I'll start since I'm in the room. I think you're absolutely right, Councilwoman Gauthier, that words are powerful signals that we send. They are messages that we put out into the world on behalf of ourselves and our institutions. And those messages matter. They are received by constituencies and they are understood for what is conveyed. And so I think it is impossible for UPenn to withdraw any messages or any evidence of diversity, equity, and inclusion from their websites, from, you know, other public facing documents or other communications, and believe that people still understand that they're committed to those values. I think that it sends the exact opposite message, in fact, that those values no longer matter, that those communities that are served by those values no longer matter. And I think that that's unfortunate because if we take Penn at its word, they want us to believe that they do still matter. But again, actions, you know, matter. And they've removed those words. And so I think we have to -- we have to look at that seriously. CHAIRWOMAN GAUTHIER: Thank you. Is there anyone else on the panel that wants to speak to that question?
I will just very briefly agree with the response from my colleague here. I do believe that this represents what we are referring to these days as over compliance, without fight, and demonstrating that, in fact, the words that are representative of the programs and initiatives on that campus are otherwise unlawful, illegal, discriminatory, et cetera. So I tend to agree that words do have impact. And unfortunately what we're seeing is this attempt to dodge whatever the threats are from both the state -- at the state level, as well as at the federal level. CHAIRWOMAN GAUTHIER: Professor --
Apologies. So just to build on -- I'll add two things. One is, of course, words matter. It's why words are under attack, in part because words and the concepts that they evoke, render legible the world in which we inhabit. And it enables students and scholars and workers within a higher education to critique what is wrong with the status quo in higher education and the world. And so words are incredibly matter -- incredibly important. But also, it's actually quite striking for a university to allow the federal government to tell the university what it may or may not say. It's actually hard to imagine a more fundamental infringement on the university's own right to speak, particularly when what the university is being told it may not say is that it is committed to multiracial democracy and making that real within the institution and beyond. CHAIRWOMAN GAUTHIER: Thank you. My next question is for Professor Hawkins and Professor Feingold. You both have made it really clear, that in removing DEI language, Penn is not complying with the law but rather with President Trump's wishes. Can you talk about the negative consequences of preemptively complying with something that might become law and of treating executive orders as though they are laws? Is there a dangerous precedent that might be -- might be created?
Certainly. First, I don't think that there's any prospect that the way in which Penn interpreted President Trump's directives might become law. Trump doesn't even believe that it might become law that all DEI is per se, unlawful. And what Penn has done is removed all references to DEI as if DEI is per se, impermissible. Trump doesn't even suggest that. And so I think that there's no way that that's going to be the rule of law. I think it's deeply problematic, again, that Penn has taken the position that it's necessary to retreat from the use of the language, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Not only because the law does not require it -- but as Professor Feingold says, it is well within Penn's First Amendment rights, right -- to announce its own values and its own ideals on behalf of its own institution without unnecessary or undue intrusion or infringement from the federal government. And so there's nothing about the law that would require either now or at any point in the future for Penn to abandon its visible and vocal commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion as values, as principles, as ideals that they espouse and which they promote. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Professor Feingold.
So I'll just add that what is so deeply troubling about institutions like the University of Pennsylvania, or Harvard, or Columbia, preemptively complying -- over complying is that as, like, a member of the panel said, these are institutions with endowments of to $50 billion. 17 They do not lack the 18 resources to defend their right to 19 continue to engage in both lawful 20 and critical conduct, but by preemptively complying, they actually make it harder for less well resourced institutions to fight back. And so there's this cascading effect where when the institutions that are most able to defend against essentially unlawful coercion coming out of the White House, when they cave, it makes it harder for less resource institutions to do the same. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much. And then my last question for the panel before I open it up to my colleagues is for Ms. Russell. I understand that the lawsuit in Baltimore is currently active. So first and foremost, please follow the advice of your legal Counsel. That being said, is there anything that you can share with us about how and why your organization undertook the lawsuit? And what can the city of Philadelphia learn and perhaps emulate?
Thank you for understanding and respecting the fact that we are currently in litigation. At most, what I would offer is what I stated earlier, that in this particular instance, especially the preemptive efforts that are being taken in response to terminology that on its face is vague and oftentimes ambiguous, you know, we're choosing at this point to raise those issues as well as the impact on the First Amendment as well as the Fifth Amendment. So I think at this point, I'm going to stand with that answer, if that's okay with you. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much. Just a quick follow up -- and if you can't answer this, it's fine -- but you're in a unique position representing diversity officers from all across the nation. Do you have examples of colleges or universities that have effectively pushed back against the federal government's attacks? And can you describe how they've done that?
Well, without -- I can tell you on the basis of information that's been provided from our members, you know, and unfortunately in many instances, these are individuals who are residing in states that have state laws that either dismantle offices or otherwise require changes in terminology, curriculum, et cetera. And there are institutions that are not unlike what you've been told, engaging in efforts to change nomenclature without the -- hopefully, impact of dismantling the deeper work that must be done. I think what we're hearing from our members is the necessity for institutions to really begin to do harder work, looking at structures and systems that result in differential outcomes. And so from their perspective, their hope is to begin doing work that might otherwise provide the support that students need, design curriculum, which we're hoping can still be done under the -- you know, with respect to academic freedom, that they are developing ways to engage with students that would be certainly as inclusive as they've always been, but to the extent that maybe they are perceived as being -- excluding others from participating, doing a better job of messaging their efforts. So there's -- they are things that they're attempting to do to mitigate the perceptions that the work that they're involved in right now is somehow resulting in discrimination or exclusion.
Thank you so much. And now I'll go to Representative Krajewski. REPRESENTATIVE KRAJEWSKI: Thank you, Chair. And my question's for any of the panelists who wish to answer -- and thank you for your presence and testimony. So in our meeting with President Jameson, university leadership basically admitted that their decision to remove their DEI language was related to the risk of losing federal funding. Federal funding and grants that had no relation to any of the DEI policies that they were removing from the various schools. And so when I heard this, this was obviously obvious, to me, a form of coercion, and financial coercion at that. And my question is: can you think of a previous instance of an elected official of that stature using their power to basically coerce an institution into action? And is it -- in your -- in your legal expertise, is that illegal? Is what the Federal Administration is doing to financially coerce institutions into compliance -- is that something that is illegal?
Well, I will say that under Title VI, which is the federal statute that applies to institutions receiving federal funds, including institutions of higher education, the law provides a provision for the forfeiture of federal funds for non-compliance with the law. So there is an ability, and there's a direct relationship under the law between compliance with the law and financial forfeiture. However, that very law includes a process -- as our constitution requires that there be due process before people can be deprived of things like this. And so the problem with the way in which the Trump administration has administered the requirements is that he has not followed that procedure. He has not followed the law. In fact, that is one of the basis for the challenge by Harvard University against the forfeiture of the -- some $2 billion that the Trump administration revoked from Harvard University, is that they did not follow the procedures that are required in law. And as you suggested, Representative Krajewski, that the law requires that the forfeiture be related to the actual violation. And so the widespread revocation of all federal funds, regardless of whether or not they're associated directly with any presumed or purported violation of the law, is also improper. And so it's not as though it is not a viable mechanism for the federal government to enforce the law, it's simply that the way in which it's being done by the Trump administration violates the law itself. REPRESENTATIVE KRAJEWSKI: Okay. Would you say by not following that due process, it's at minimum unconstitutional?
And if I could just briefly add, I think it is important just to note how unprecedented what we're seeing is. And you don't have to take our word for it. Surrogates of the Trump administration, including individuals like Christopher Rufo, have quite openly, including on a New York Times Daily Podcast, explained that the goal of the Trump administration is to exert existential terror on universities through various funding mechanisms, whether that is through grants, whether that is through student aid, whether that is through something else, as part of a broader strategy to control what universities do. And it is, like, deeply concerning for universities not to simply invoke their rights when they're receiving what are essentially shake down letters with federal letterhead that are in no 5 way tethered to the sorts of legal procedures that are required that Professor Hawkins just gestured to. REPRESENTATIVE KRAJEWSKI: Actually -- Sorry.
if I might, can I add very quickly that -- REPRESENTATIVE KRAJEWSKI: Yes, please.
This question of whether or not this is coercive and where that falls in the context of our lawsuit is that one of our positions is that this is a violation of due process rights, and the ways in which the executive orders are written are coercive because of the threat to funding as well as other aspects of higher education efforts. REPRESENTATIVE KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. And then just one quick follow-up, given that minimum, this is a violation of due process, in your legal opinion, what recourse does university have before, you know, jumping directly towards compliance?
Do what Harvard did, which is sue to enjoin the improper actions of the President and litigate the issue of the unconstitutional action. REPRESENTATIVE KRAJEWSKI: All right. Thank you. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Senator Williams. SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you. Mine is an observation, probably more than a question, so I do want to make sure I have an understanding. One, let me thank Professor Hawkins for sticking with us throughout this period of time, uncompensated, and we ask questions, like, you're hired all the time. So we greatly appreciate that. For the attending professor and President, we also thank you. This is a teaching moment, that I think one of our members need to have this tape. This only makes me more strident with regard to not capitulating for DEI, the term. In fact, for those of us who've said, Well, all we got to do is change the letters a little bit and move around it, based upon what I'm hearing today, actually, we should not do that. We should stand for understanding that DEI actually enhances and prevents discrimination. It is a tool that doesn't advance anyone through the affirmative action process, but in fact, allows for all to be included in that process. But more importantly, the law stands on it. So what is not really reported -- and frankly, disappointingly so, by some newspapers who claim that they're more left leaning than others, that the President is breaking the law in the matter that they're applying this process. And that University Penn is complicit by doing that, by following that directive. That is extraordinary information for us to understand today. And also, I would say -- that it really affirms what I mentioned earlier in my comments, a man of a certain generation who's talked to Holocaust survivors and former descendants of slaves, that this is not a slippery road, but actually a very direct path to returning to the period of time when authoritarian governments controlled and humiliated, and murdered human beings in ways that we wouldn't expect. And the question for many of us is, well, why did people go along with that? Because most people didn't understand what was happening in front of their face. And that's what's actually happening right now. So we greatly appreciate you spending the time, everyone who's here doing that. But I want to make sure that my interpretation of the words that I'm saying -- that I'm not exaggerating or misunderstanding what I believe your testimony provides.
I will just offer this, as you were talking earlier, your story was a reflection of my own story. And I was raised by my grandmother, who was raised by my great, great grandparents who were formerly enslaved. So I grew up in an environment that clearly indicates that I have a responsibility to do the things that are essential to achieve access and opportunity for all, particularly when it was denied to so many, and within my family who gave up their lives in support of the opportunities that I've had. And now it's my time to pay it forward. So I thank all of you for your conviction and support in this work. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much. Senator Haywood. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you everyone. Is there a representative from Penn present, particularly from government relations? Thank you. If so, would you be acknowledged -would you acknowledge yourself? UNKNOWN PERSON: (Indiscernible.) SENATOR HAYWOOD: I understand. Thank you so much. My first question, follow up, is with respect to Title VI. And I would be interested in an answer to the question: Is Title VI still effective for combating discrimination?
Absolutely. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you. My next question is -- I think the criminal President is now losing Title VI under the theory that's only to protect Jewish students. Is that a correct way of understanding Title VI?
So Title VI prohibits discrimination among institutions receiving federal funds, particularly institutions of education, both primary, elementary and secondary education, as well as higher education, on the basis of race, color or national origin. And so it really is broadly enforceable and generally historically enacted, right, as part of the signature of Civil Rights legislation in 1964. And we know that that legislation is an outgrowth of the Civil Rights movement that was prosecuted on behalf of Black Americans in this country as a result of the history of race discrimination against African Americans. And so that is its impetus, that is its, kind of, north star, that is the way in which it has traditionally been understood and enforced, obviously brought in to include other racial and ethnic minority groups, but it certainly is not exclusive to persons on the basis of Jewish or other religious or ethnic ancestry. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you.
And if -- and if I could just add just one bit to that. So I just want to make sure to get into the record that what has been noted by thousands of Jewish academics across the country is the observation that the Trump administration in particular is weaponizing legitimate anxieties about anti-Semitism and misusing the Title VI process to further what is an anti-democratic agenda that harms all communities in the United States. And is also being deployed specifically in order to divide the coalitions who would otherwise be able to sort of naturally see their shared interest, which is one reason why the Trump administration seems to intentionally try to frame DEI as something that is good for black students, but bad for Jewish students. And this is a standard sort of technique that authoritarians in the United States and elsewhere have used in order to both discredit inclusionary policies and to try to divide groups who actually have far more in common than they do that is different. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you for that response. And also thank you for the clarification that the representatives of the Pennsylvania Hospital -- University of Pennsylvania Hospital, not the university. Thank you for that clarification as well. My last question is with respect to decisions that federal courts have made on whether the executive orders of the criminal President or of orders, letters from the department are permitted. And would you please share what the standard is or how many courts have determined that these actions from the criminal president are illegal?
Well, that certainly depends on which executive orders you're talking about. If you're talking about the anti-DEI executive orders, I do believe that there have been several courts that have issued injunctions on those orders. But the broader set of executive orders, there have been dozens of courts that have issued injunctions against those executive orders. And it's not as though executive orders in and of themselves are impermissible. It's the nature of these executive orders and the authority they purport to exercise, which, like I said, in many respects, certainly with respect to the ones that are targeted towards DEI. As Ms. Russell said, they raise concerns about due process. They raise concerns as Professor Feingold said about First Amendment and academic freedom. And so they have been enjoined on those grounds because they are really extra legal in that regard. But executive power is not inherently improper. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Are you okay, Senator? SENATOR HAYWOOD: Yeah, that's good. Does a professor at Boston have a count in terms of number of courts, decisions? I can get an answer at a later time.
I have a tab open on my computer that lists 70 to 100 cases that have been filed. And so I don't have a specific number, but I would just also add that multiple federal courts have enjoined the President -- the Department of Education's February 14th communications that came out of the federal government that universities pointed to in order to justify their preemptive compliance, even though as I think someone, sort of, on the panel mentioned, the letter explicitly said that it was not legally binding, and nonetheless, you had universities who were taking action because of it. SENATOR HAYWOOD: I just had one follow up. I'm sorry. Would it be accurate to conclude that the action by Penn to eliminate DEI from their websites and possibly much more is currently inconsistent with decisions of federal courts? Because federal courts have said that the orders are illegal, it would seem to me then that compliance would not be required to an illegal order.
So to be clear, Senator Haywood, the actions that Penn took were never required by the order. The order themselves, by their terms, were only directed towards illegal DEI. And by implication, acknowledge that DEI is not per se, illegal, that DEI is permissible. So that's why we called Penn's Actions over compliance. It was never required for them to scrub DEI from all of their policies, programs, and position titles. That was simply a decision that they took on their own accord, which is the reason why it sends the wrong signal about their commitments, because it's not a compliance matter. It really is what they have chosen to do in response to some perceived political threats around the Trump administration, but not concrete legal liability. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you. Madam Chair. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you. Representative Carroll. REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: Thank you, chair. And thank you to the panelists today. I wanted to reference back to earlier comments that my colleague made around the participation of transgender that participated on the University of Penn swim team. Earlier this year in March, there was $175 million cut from the federal government on the basis that the Department of Education said that the University of Penn violated Women's Protection Act as it pertains to women's sports. While I do appreciate the University of Penn's support in doubling down that they believe that they did not violate a Women's Protections Act as it pertains to having a swimmer on the team that is transgender, I, as a member of the house, Pennsylvania State House, as L-G-B-T-Q member, I appreciate their support. And also as a black man, it is troubling to me to hear you say today that they over-complied with this order and removing their DEI protections on their website. My question to the whole panel is, what does this say when this organization decides to support one protected class and not the other as it pertains to black and brown students?
So I think that, as you rightly say, it's what we call over-compliance. There is nothing about the law that would have required the University of Pennsylvania to eliminate their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, or to essentially conceal that commitment by removing any overt expression of diversity, equity, and inclusion from their public-facing communications. I don't know what the reasons were for Penn retaining their commitment to allowing that transgender athlete to compete. You know, one of the reasons may be that Pennsylvania state antidiscrimination law is very clear that it protects people on the basis of gender identity and expression. And so there is an obligation under state anti- discrimination law for Penn to preserve that protection. And, you know, they ought to be commended for doing that. However, I don't think that that negates what they did in the other domain -- which is to otherwise signal to the broader communities that are served by diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, that those commitments are no longer a paramount concern, that they're willing to trade on those commitments in order to appease the current political administration. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you. Are you done, Representative Carroll? Sorry. REPRESENTATIVE CAROLL: I am. Thank you, chair. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you. I have one final question for the panel, and this is for whomever wants to weigh in. How would you recommend that we, state and city lawmakers, hold institutions accountable and protect staff, faculty, and students during this perilous time?
So I guess I'll just offer two thoughts: One is, I do think public hearings such as this are useful because we do need elected officials taking the lead to hold universities accountable, given in part that universities are meant to be bulwarks for democracy and against authoritarianism. And so when that is not happening, elected officials need to step in. I do also think it is a moment, and it is worth asking whether or not our most well- resourced and elite universities are actually serving the common good. And to the extent they're not, or to the extent they're engaged in action that is sort of affirmatively detrimental to local community, it is important to reassess what are the privileges that those institutions enjoy, including tax status. And so that's not to suggest a particular path, but just to commend efforts to examine what are the privileges that universities have and whether they're living up to it. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you. Councilmember Jones.
First of all, before we end this panel, I want to thank you profusely for this exchange. It has been helpful to me as a local legislator on as to things to consider, and the fact that I still can keep an open mind and change my mind. At the beginning of this hearing, I said that we might want to just ignore the letters, D-E-I, call it something else. And then I heard words like capitulate. Then I heard words and phrases like overcompensate. And then I heard what it could do to lesser institutions that do not have the capacity to fight back like some of our bigger institutions. And we will stand firm on the principle, because a bully doesn't stop bullying when you capitulate. They get stronger and they get more determined to do so. So I want to thank you for that. But it also gives us -- and we were -- we were -- we were just amazed as to the exchange of information and how next steps should be formulated, because what you said that was profound -- or many things you said were profound, but one of them was that they shot a blanket over all DEI, whether it was legal or non-legal, or whether it was implied in their letters, they just said, let's do everything. And that was discretionary. So we hope that this is a beginning salvo for a more intense discussion with these universities. And I -- for the record, two things. I'm a Pennsylvania Human Relations commissioner. I don't like discrimination of any sort, whether it is Jewish, whether it is Gaza. I don't support that. But when you start taking away protections, you encourage disparate impact that at some point hits a population numerically that shows discrimination. And they need to be aware of that as well because you are complicit by removing the very things that were welcoming signs to students and faculty. And I just am thankful for giving us what we -- Senator Haywood, and I were up at a town hall right when these executive orders first hit. And if you could have been in that room to see people just confused and it was like people threw 300 tennis balls with those executive orders all at once, and they just were confused and ducking. What this did today was stabilize us and said, all right, we can, we should fight back. And I'm thankful for that. Thank you, Madam Chair. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you. I want to thank all of you for your participation today and for your testimony, but moreover, for the critical work that you're doing in this moment. I want to let those who are participating virtually know we're going to end the call at this time, but we invite you, if you please, to continue listening in at phlcouncil.com. Thank you so, so much. Thank you, Professor Hawkins. Will the clerk please call the next panel of witnesses to testify?
Yvonne Harris, Day Building supervisor and president of AFSCME, Local 590, Jesus Fernandez, president Temple University Graduate Student Union.
Thank you all for your patience. So in the order in which you were called, could you please state your name for the record and begin your testimony?
Yes, my name is Yvonne Harris, and I am the president of AFSCME Local 590, representing the library employees at the University of Pennsylvania. And I've been a member of -- an employee of the University of Pennsylvania for 44 years, and president of the Local for years. 11 Okay. Thank -- I want to, 12 first of all, thank you guys for 13 actually convening the panel, and as 14 has been said before, this has been 15 an educational opportunity for myself as well. I represent just the library employees at the university, and as you guys know, it's a large university where many employees and lots of things that go on outside of the library. So this actually was very informative of -- to me of the conversations that transpired and the position that the university as a whole has taken. So I just wanted to say AFSCME has gone on record defending initiatives surrounding DEI, viewing them as essential for providing a fair and inclusive workplace and addressing inequities in the workplace. The union recognizes its role to fight for workers' rights, especially in the programs and initiatives in place to promote inclusion of all voices. The union also defends the rights to teach and learn about historical and structural racism viewed as crucial to understanding and addressing those inequities. At our recent international convention in August, AFSCME passed a resolution in support of defending affirmative action and diversity, equity and inclusion. I believe that in higher education, it's especially crucial to have programs and workplace commitments to ensuring a diverse faculty staff and decision-making roles represented historically underrepresented backgrounds. Students benefit from interactions within a learning environment, representing a range of social and economic backgrounds, including different gender and sexual orientations. Was -- it was already read into the record the belonging at Penn statement. And I just wanted to add, at our recent year-in-review by the director of the libraries, she spoke on -- reported on initiatives in place to support the library's priorities surrounding -- and surrounding communities. I do believe that, uniquely to the university, the library has done a lot to try to make sure that we support and engage with the community. Some of these initiatives included expansion of our open access policy and access to digital collections. Also to expand engagements to surrounding communities, an expansion of our native and indigenous collection called the Natives at Penn. Also, the library has promoted purchasing materials from minority bookstores for the collections for the library. I think a lot of this happens due to the fact that we do have a diverse community within the library that actually support diversity and inclusion in our practices. In addition to commitments to attracting -- in addition to that, they've had initiatives to attract underrepresented potential librarians by opening up fellowship programs. Whereas all these represent a positive commitment on the part of the library and the university, much more can be done by establishing anti-discrimination and anti-harassment training requirements and promoting a wider recruitment effort. Just to speak on the role that the unions have played and continue to play, I just wanted to share a personal story. Number one, before the union was actually present at the university, women and African Americans made far less money than their white male counterparts. And when there was time for promotion, they looked at the positions and said, well, this person is supporting a family, whether he was, you know, male or white or whatever. And females were looked upon as not needing to be able to support a family when, in fact, you have single parents. Just to give a personal story, the position that I hold right now, there were actually two African American males and two white women who were part of the committee that were interviewing for the position.
The position actually represented a substantial increase in pay for the person who was successful. At that time, I had a daughter in college and the son who was member of band camp. So, you know what that could be -- that cost could be. And I needed it. I needed that position and I was qualified for the position. The two male persons on the committee said, Well, we don't think that we should really be offering the position to Yvonne because, you know, she would be here in the building closing up at night by herself, and she has to leave here at o'clock at night. And, 8 you know, it might not be a safety 9 -- it might be a safety issue for 10 her. And the two women on the 11 committee said, No, no, I don't 12 think so. You know, Yvonne already works a second shift and I've witnessed, you know, her interaction with the students in her current position. So I think she would be actually a good choice. And they were able to push back enough so that those men did, you know, change their mind and offered the position. If those two women hadn't been in place, I don't think that would've happened, and I would not have gotten that position. So it's important not only for African Americans, but it's important for women to be in these positions of decision-making. And I think that inequity and inclusion would definitely help to make sure those processes in place definitely help to make sure that those issues are considered in the future. So I wanted to end by saying that unions, by using our collective power, advocate and lobby for improved working conditions for our employees and all workers. The union, through contract language, can fight for stronger language promoting equity and fairness and promotion language. And as we always say, we are the folks that gave you the five day, 40-hour work week. I know it's not always easy to do these things. I appreciate the information that was shared today. As you said, it kind of -- Councilman Curtis Jones -- it opened my eyes too because I also thought, Well, if you're going to do the same thing that equity and inclusion, you know, promotes, what's the -- what's the point of -- you know, what's the issue about what you call it? But the fact of the matter is, it -- the words do matter. And if nothing else, it shows that Penn should have the spine to stand up. If this is what they want to, you know, promote and teach the people who send their kids to the -- to the university to learn to be the new leaders of this world, what do we want to teach them, what do we want them to get from that experience? We want them to get the courage to be able to stand up against these kind of things coming out that are definitely not something that I would think that they would want their children to learn. So, thank you so much for the -- for this opportunity to testify. And I appreciate what you guys are doing. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much for being here, for everything that you're doing to protect workers and for sharing your powerful story. Please hang around for questions. President Fernandez, please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you, and good morning. My name is Jesus Fernandez, I'm a PhD candidate at the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at Temple University. I'm president of TUGSA AFT Local 6290. I wanted to start also thanking the committee, the senators, and the representatives that were here today for inviting us to speak in this important issue. Labor has not always been invited to participate in discussions around the pressures our societies are facing. Inviting us to testify demonstrates that a clear attempt exists to give a voice to those who work for a living to express our demands and worries, and TUGSA thanks all of you for that. I wanted to maybe create two or draw the two lines of attacks that we are seeing right now in higher education. Through a number of executive orders that highlight diversity, equity, and inclusion as a problem, the federal administration is trying to leverage funds used for research to try to disenroll these kind of initiatives. On the other side, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, directed by the richest man on earth, a multi- billionaire, Elon Musk, is guarding the federal agencies that control -- and the federal state that controls the more darkest side that a market economy can create in all of our societies. These two initiatives, these two pushes, are putting higher education at a very dangerous position. In my university Temple, personally, we've not seen any rollbacks in DEI initiatives, which we facilitate our leadership for doing. But we've seen how federal funds have been cut from programs like Jumpstart, an initiative that connects children from disadvantaged neighborhoods here in Philadelphia with higher education and gives them opportunities to enroll in classes in the university before they end high school. This has been terminated all across the country. More than universities have lost 12 funding for this program. 13 But the reality of this 14 concept, of this term, DEI, 15 Diversity Equity and Inclusion, 16 reveals itself a little bit more 17 complex. The reality is that the 18 most diverse social group in this 19 country, without a doubt, is our 20 working class. Those who earn a paycheck constitute the most diverse social block. Different ethnicities, cultural and religious backgrounds, and different languages where our -- and will be a constitutive element of the American working class. TUGSA members are no 5 different. We -- just as an example -- in our last campaign, we translated our literature and flyers to more than languages, including 10 Spanish, Mandarin, Farsi, Bengali, Japanese, Arabic, and Portuguese, among others to inform our members of what our demands were. Probably the mental image that we all have of what a graduate student or graduate worker is, resembles the following: A white young male, probably in his mid-20s or early thirties of a middle class background, with no 20 serious health conditions due to his youth, usually are responsible for no dependents, either a spouse, children, or an elderly parent. The reality is quite different. Many of our members are neither white nor male. Many of them choose to go to graduate school in their 40s, in their 50s, and their 60s even more come from working class and poor backgrounds, and some are single mothers or dads of three with special needs for care and healthcare. To address these, our last -- in our last negotiations, TUGSA that took an inclusive approach. The diverse reality of our workers meant that protections granted from our union contract need to reflect this. Temple had a paid-tier system that punished those disciplines more heavily occupied by women. People working in the humanities and the arts made almost 20 percent less than those working in the sciences, performing exactly the same job, teaching and researching. We got rid of these paid tiers and increased pay up to 40 percent for those in the lower pay wage ones.
Before, graduate workers didn't receive any kind of subsidy to cover for dependent health insurance. As of today, temple covers percent of it. Our 11 grievance process has gotten 12 streamlined, so claims of 13 discrimination or general 14 mistreatment on the workplace can be 15 investigated and get solved faster 16 to the benefit of workers in 17 general. This victory has built a 18 fairer and more inclusive workplace, 19 but ours is a multi-contract fight. 20 On February 15th, 2026, our 21 current contract expires, and as 22 such, we're involved in our next 23 contract campaign. We surveyed our 24 members to understand what priorities want -- they want to see reflected on our next campaign. More than 80 percent of graduate employees at Temple University can't afford to live in Philly without finding money in other sources outside of our paychecks, either through debt, other employment, or recurring to their savings. Graduate school should not be just for those who can afford it. Right now, only 11 percent of those workers that have children consider that Temple policies are adequate to maintain their family, especially regarding healthcare insurance issues. And most of those considering to form a family say they are -- they had to put it on a later -- on a later date because graduate school will not allow them to do it and the paycheck is too meager to do it. This is the reality of our working class organized, unionized and non-unionized. Our diversity is not a reality that's being forced or it's a provoked situation fabricated by a bureaucratic class to maintain itself. It's our best tool to defend the reality of our condition. And the best tool that we have right now is the self-organization of workers through our unions and their usage to collective -- and their usage to collectively bargain for better working conditions and a fair workplace. Thank you all for your time. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much for being here for your testimony and for all of the wonderful work that you've done organizing at Temple. I have a few questions for both of you before I open it up to my colleagues. So first, can you describe barriers to full acceptance and belonging that you have experienced or that your colleagues or peer students have experienced on campus? In other words, in your experience, what prevents minorities, women, and the LGBTQ plus community from feeling included and safe on campus?
Well, I did want to share one story that I feel that the unions actually have been -- have been beneficial and also because of the union presence, that they've been a benefit to different -- like the LGBTQ community on campus. When I was early on a member of the union and we had coworkers that belonged to that group, and they were asking and fighting for health rights, and there were no rights for them to have health insurance rights for their partners. And the union fought for that. And one -- and at that time, you know, they educated me on what that meant for them because I didn't understand that. I didn't come from that community. But I think that people in the union did understand that because we had that kind of representation and we were able to fight for that and actually -- and win those benefits that then actually got distributed to the rest of the university community. I think that happens quite a bit. Things that the union has won at the University of Pennsylvania and benefits that we've won have also been extended out to the rest of the university as well. So I think the coalition that's building up at Penn right now, with other groups wanting to unionize, you know, is going to help us to be able to strengthen our abilities to fight for those things that we -- that the community feels is unfair. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you for sharing that. That's a great win. President Fernandez, do you want to add?
Tall and wide are the walls of the ivory tower. No. I think we need to turn those down probably to try to bring together communities that bring -- that live across our streets and are expelled from our campuses right now. I think Pennsylvania is one of the most expensive states to study. That's a fact right now. So increasing public expenditure and increasing public participation in our public universities, especially in our community colleges and the PASSHE system under state related is going to help all of those communities to come to our campuses -- yeah, and to stay here. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you. This is for whoever wants to answer. Can you speak about what kind of anti-discrimination measures are currently in place for staff and students who are not a part of a union? And how do those measures contrast with anti-discrimination measures that you all have negotiated in your contracts?
All universities have offices of inclusion, Title IX, Title VI, et cetera, et cetera. Although students and non-unionized staff can use non-compliance offices and these kind of things that have hearings and the processes that most of the time the law establishes, these are decided over the whim of the employer. If the employer doesn't think there needs to be a case, there need -- there is no need for a third party to actually, well, research and decide on these kind of cases. I have to say, most of the times the people that work in offices of Title IX and the compliance offices are professionals -- unionize themselves. In our case, it's ASME Local 1760. But for our workers or workers or graduate workers at Temple that are non-unionized, we've seen that the behavior supervisors demonstrate towards them is way worse, and that the culture of collective solidarity and speaking up exists because the union exists. Without it, it's just way easier now to mistreat people. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Okay. Any other -- any questions for the panel from colleagues? Councilmember Jones?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. First and foremost, I want to, for the record, say that Howard Deck -- names like that -- and Senator Hughes come from that union. And what is important by way of anti-discrimination and feeling included is the university's benefits are the gift that keeps on giving. If you can be educated through the benefits of a union, because you were able to be welcomed into that position, and then your children can also receive that benefit. It is a direct pathway out of poverty into middle and upper classes that we cannot allow anti DEI efforts to close the door of. And I think it's important that we -- and I'm -- and I'm appreciative that from the top to the bottom, to the middle, that we have to be clear about what those policies at that the university has and that they don't shut doors to opportunity. Thank you, Madam Chair. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Any other questions for the panel? Senator Haywood. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you. Thank you, for the panelists. I have a question from my colleague, Senator Saval. He asked if academic programs like gender studies, black studies, even what's library holdings, have any of that been affected as far as you know from the decisions of the university?
At the University of Pennsylvania, I don't think so. However, I can't speak to that in any real knowledgeable way. I can speak as far as the library is concerned. I know that we are trying to double down on the initiatives that we've had in place before this came down from 47. I do believe -- and I do believe it's because we have a unionized environment there; that the commitment to trying to keep those principles alive and going is really important and something that we are -- we fight for as workers for the library, and we definitely communicate that to the leadership there. And -- but as far as -- but I am fearful. I am fearful because I think about a phrase that 47 made in one of his rants about We are woke -- woke no more. And I'm like, So does that mean we now supposed to go to sleep on all that we fought for for all these years? And I think that's a -- that's a real fear, is that, you know, yes, we have benefited, I think, from some of these policies in the past. And some of us who weren't born in 1957 -- I was too -- some of us who didn't live through those fights don't recognize the fight that went on to actually get those benefits. So I think that we have to be reminded. And hearings like this are going to remind us that that was a fight that, as you said, people died for, and we can't go to sleep on it. SENATOR HAYWOOD: Thank you.
As far as we are aware, not right now, Temple programs, especially in the humanities, have been strangled budgetarily speaking for a while, and we are vigilant on any attempts to close any programs. What we know is that most academic programs, especially in the humanities and the liberal arts are not accepting new graduate students next year, which is very bad news for the programs for the university and for the city and the state, I would say. SENATOR HAYWOOD: You're serious. And one comment, if I could, just to clarify. I want to make sure that folks who may have been listening to my comments here about the difference in the treatments of Jewish students and Black and Brown students, this is not to say that Jewish students should not be protected. It was not to say that Jewish students should not be the beneficiaries of Title VI of -- and every other type of anti- discrimination. That was not my point at all. I just want to make sure that everybody's clear about that. My point is that we all have equal dignity. Equal dignity. And so, the dignity of black and brown students who get offended and mistreated and harassed is no less than Jewish or any other students. So I don't want people to think that I have any kind of anti-Jewish approach to me or this conversation but the equal dignity point needed to be raised. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Senator Williams. SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I don't really have any questions, but great regard and reverence for your work beyond today, your daily commitment to the values that we hold dear. So thank you very much. And of course, to my friend who was born in 1957, it was a very good year. Thank you much.
Thank you very much. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: I have one final question. You have city and state officials here today. Can you tell us how we can best support the expansion of unions in institutions of higher learning?
Well, I can start. Number one, I feel like you, Council Woman Gauthier, from my district, all of you have come to the rallies and showed up when we've asked you to, to continue to do that. Hearings like this, I think, you know, really help to educate and inviting unions to be a part of those hearings and to provide testimony is definitely going to help us. The work that you guys are doing, having come out to the University of Pennsylvania and demanded answers from the leadership there, I think that actually helps the unions as well, because we feel like we are supported. The issue of -- what is it -- tuitions for marginalized students in Philadelphia, Penn, part of the money that Penn gets is because of the tax exempt. They get tax exempt money, and in exchange, they're supposed to give a certain amount of scholarships a year to minority students. And I know that a lot of those scholarships go, you know, unapplied and people don't actually benefit from them. Definitely not people from the African-American community, which I think was originally the community that was supposed to be benefiting from it. So to continue to press Penn for those kind of things, I think, is going to help to enforce what the union is also fighting for. So thank you for the support that you've given in the past, and I look forward to working with you guys in the future. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you, President Harris. We greatly appreciate you.
And you also all know my son, probably, Robert Harris -- VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Yes.
-- before this committee at large. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: He's amazing. Definitely a friend to this council.
There are a few ongoing campaigns in state related universities. I think faculty in Penn State and faculty -- and grads in Pittsburgh, and in Penn State are currently unionizing. Those are institutions that receive millions of dollars a year from the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We can assure that those tax dollars go directly to the workers that provide the services that make those universities happen. We should make sure that zero dollars of the people are spent on union-busting firms that charge our universities millions every single year to secure that workers are underpaid and exploited. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much. We really, really appreciate both of you for being here today.
Thank you. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: If there are no other witnesses to testify --
Is that St. Joseph's? VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Yes. If there are no other witnesses to testify on this resolution, will the clerk now read the title of Resolution 240842?
Resolution 12 240842, authorizing the committee on Education to hold hearings to investigate the level and effectiveness of community engagement and outreach initiatives carried out by higher education institutions in Philadelphia that directly impact adjacent neighborhoods. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Will the clerk please call the first panel of witnesses to testify on the resolution?
Wadell Ridley, Jr., assistant vice president of Government and Community Relations, St. Joseph's University. For those interested in other -- and then testimony from other universities, please come up to the desk and pick up a copy. We have written testimony from Valerie Harrison, vice president of -- for Community Impact and Civic Engagement at Temple University, and Jeffrey Cooper, vice President for Government and Community Affairs at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as written testimony from Drexel University, written by Brian Keech. Thank you so much. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yeah. Wadell Ridley, assistant vice president for Government and Community Relations, St. Joseph's University. Good afternoon. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Good afternoon. Proceed.
Great. So I'm here to share information -- and if you don't mind, I'm going from the testimony that I submitted to share information regarding community engagement outreach initiatives at St. Joseph's University. For years, St. Joseph's University has maintained a strong presence in the community, including close partnerships with elected officials, civic organizations, groups of faith, public and private schools in the Wynnefield and Overbrook neighborhoods and beyond. Quite simply, from university leadership to faculty, to our students and alumni, community engagement is at the very core of what we do at St. Joseph's University. Consistent with our Jesuit educational identity and mission, academic engagement at the university is rooted and informed by five elements of Ignatian pedagogy. Some of the definitions that are in here, if you don't mind, I'll read them into the testimony unless you say, We see it and you don't have to. You tell me. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Go ahead.
Great. Okay. So, number one is context. Number two would be experience. Number three is reflection, four is action, and then five is evaluation. This framework confirms our curricular and non-curricular programs, especially our approach to community engagement and civic engagement. So wanted to just share that our definition of community engagement is located in our community engagement website, which is probably two years old, so that is in the document. So the purpose we align with the Carnegie classification of community engagement, that system, and quality outreach activities and partnerships should aim to do two things: One, strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility, and then, two, address critical societal issues and contribute to the public good. The process of outreach activities and partnerships should also prepare, educate and engaged citizens. And that's on both sides of it, whether it's university personnel, students, and in the community itself, when we have the opportunity to also to enrich scholarship, research, creative activities, and then to enhance curriculum teaching and learning. So these standards are grounded in research and best practices in the field of community engagement. But there's questions that come out of each one that need to be answered as we move forward through the process. So one would be reciprocity. And I would tell you that coming into the university in 2006, after I had spent time here in City Council, that was the biggest thing to try to get people to understand that reciprocity is really needed. Whatever we do, we have to make sure our external partners understand what we are offering and then understand what they're looking for. Reflection, so the participants in our outreach activities should have structured opportunities to critically reflect, the characteristics of critical reflection are being continuous and connected and challenging and contextualize. And then No. 3 is the issue of partnership. So St. Joseph's and community organizations should communicate and should plan, and we should access programs collaboratively. And moreover, partnerships necessitate that collaboration becomes sustainable over time. So with our recent mergers, both with the University of the Sciences and with the Pennsylvania College of Health Sciences, the scope of community engagement has changed significantly. We have more opportunities now. So we are now present in the areas of West Philadelphia through the clinical experiences of pharmacy, occupational therapy, physician assistant, and physical therapy programs through the legacy of the University of Sciences programs. So, our most recent economic impact report found that schools at -- our school provides approximately 575 million in the annual economic benefit to the region. 5 million in grant awarded -- grant aid awarded to students from Pennsylvania, and then two million of vendor businesses to minorities and women owned businesses. The university also coordinates the delivery of over 87,000 hours of community service yearly. So one of the examples that I wanted to share is recently of a community engagement initiative, is the community benefit agreement that we worked with Representative Morgan Cephas. And also, we had -- we made sure that we involved our Councilmember Jones in that process as well as Senator Vincent Hughes in that discussion. So for years -- and I'd probably say going back to the early 2000s, we worked the Wynnefield Overbrook Revitalization Corporation. And since its inception we provided equipment, office space and high-level representation on their board. So starting July 2024, through this agreement that we -- came to be, we agreed to pay a sum of $100,000 to work, which could be used by work any way they need to do it, whether it's operation costs, technology or whatever, but, you know, just make sure that they have financial support.
And one of the reasons that came about was that their only fund -- their sole source of funding was coming from the revenue tax credit program. And for a short period of time, that would turn into a lottery system and they did not get renewed, so they ran without dollars for a period of time. So they will now have that annually. And then secondly, work shall -- with the -- with our input, establish a board for the purpose of award and grants to members of the community business organizations without the requirement for them to repay that money. So annually, we put $100,000 -- at least maintain $100,000 -- I should say it that way -- so that if someone applies for a grant, they can get that. And to date, we've probably funded 6 members at about 5,000 a piece. 7 And then finally, we 8 already had a longstanding 9 relationship with Gompers, but 10 through our School of Education and 11 Human Development, we enhanced the 12 Gompers program that we have. So Gompers is right next to St. Joseph's University on Overbrook Avenue, and it hosts 500 St. Joseph's students a year through service-learning, weekly volunteers, events, and education. In the fall of '22, we established a resource and established a VISTA volunteer, Gompers, to supervise the St. Joseph's students and support the partnership. And that person is supervised by our associate dean, Aimee Terosky. So that volunteer's intent was to offer the university temporary resource while establishing a long-term response. So we have now fully funded that position and continue to work with Gompers. I also have to add that in addition through the discussion, we are adding Science Leadership Academy at Beeber into that space. So we are working with them, and while we do that, one of the things we are looking to do with them is dual enrollment programs. So I'll close with the testimony at that point, because the rest of it, I just gave you a list of some of the partners that we have. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much. And just a quick comment before I pass it on to Councilmember Jones. So we are certainly still building a relationship --
Yes. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: -- now as it relates to your recent presence in southwest Philadelphia, we're building that relationship, we're trying to figure out the best ways to engage the community, and we'll continue that work together. But I do want to commend you for being the only representative out of 10 universities invited here today to show up. Showing up matters. And it shows a commitment to partnership to dialogue and to engagement no matter what the -- the issues are. So thank you for actually being brave enough to be here. And I'll pass it off to Councilmember Jones.
Mr. Ridley, I've known you a very long time and I grew up in the shadow of your university. You -- your list of what you put down doesn't even begin to talk about what the impact has been to the Wynnefield, Overbrook, and Overbrook Farms community. I know for a fact that there were dozens of track teams that got the use of your track in order to run little children into success. One of them is State Representative Morgan Cephas, who got her training on your track. That doesn't even come up in your columns, but I want to state for the record that that's what St. Joseph's University has done. I want to say for the record on public policy, I've always talked to you and your president, and they said, well, What money do you need? I don't need your money. I need your intellectual property. When we have a policy, whether it was the blueprint for a Safer Philadelphia, all hands-on deck, professors, students, interns, help to facilitate that discussion, and then produce a document that is being used by the city of Philadelphia to reduce violence in the city of Philadelphia. Not to mention more recently, last week, we had over 225 block captains being educated about the Block Captain's Bootcamp. You're an example. Your university is an example of how it should be done. And I'm very thankful that you stuck around. I saw your face when we were talking about other universities, and I said, I hope you don't leave. I hope you -- I wanted to give you and your university your flowers to show how it should be done, and that kind of cooperation. What you do for Gompers, what you've done for the playground, what you do to nurture the students and teachers in that is laudable. And so when -- we are going to attempt to quantify what that impact, direct impact, obviously, in wage taxes that you do, but far beyond that, again, the things that -- there's a saying we have that if you remember every good thing you did, you're never getting in heaven. You didn't even list all of the things that I know that your university is -- and I am truly grateful to represent St. Joseph's University. Thank you.
Yeah, I thank you for that. And I look forward working with not just you, the other members from the Commonwealth, as well as other members of council to try to do more with your guidance and leadership. And, you know, Councilmember Gauthier, you said, we are establishing our relationship. So you get ideas and you want us to do certain things. I mean, we'd had the opportunity to do one thing, which was host COBRA with their space. You know, but that was just a short thing. But we look forward to doing more. So we looked forward to that partnership in that direction. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Likewise. Thank you so much. Senator Williams. SENATOR WILLIAMS: Like my colleagues, I want to thank you for staying and being present and giving testimony. I also want to thank you for -- because we're going -- this is being -- I think the term videotape is old, but I -- that's the best word I can use. I'm sorry. Recorded. Thank you. So that we can provide this information to many other institutions. The reality is this, and I think Penn, of all, should understand this, you, who we know, are not just an employee there. You are a person who is listened to by the president with regard to these programs. I can't say that about all these institutions. They have a face with no power. The consequence of what you're doing and what you're talking about today, and what the councilman is alluding to is that because you speak multiple dialects in an academic institution, and I don't hold it against academics that they're academics. I think that's what's really important. But that's their lane. The integration of relationship between the communities in which they reside and the school's purpose is always -- not always as effective as it could be if you don't have someone in your position that has authority, understanding, power, influence, and is listened to. I truly believe University of Pennsylvania would've been here today if they had someone like you. Because they would've explained to them that their absence is larger than a trivial inconsideration. It speaks of privilege and power and the removal of that from the community in which it resides. So the fact that you stayed gave information that we all knew that was coming because we've all felt -- I don't represent that area but, you know, children, young people from my community go to that institution and has had a long history of what we -- what we hold dearest, and that's inclusion, diversity, equity, and inclusion before the terms were even phrased, because a person like you sits in a position that allows for the translation of the needs of the community to be reflected in its budgetary priorities, its resources, and its activities every day. So we thank you for your service. We also thank you for being a part of this gathering today.
I thank you and like I said, I look forward to us doing more. So any guidance that you provide, any direction that you have, any ideas that you got, you share those things and we can work together and to do those things. And I guess at this point, I'm probably most fortunate of being where I am at the university because the team that I work with, the administration, the new President, all really pay attention to what's going on in the community. Don't always understand it right away, but at least listen and can see signs because of what they hear. And it's not just me, but there's others. But I'm glad that we had that relationship. So I thank you for that. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much for your participation today.
Thank you. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Now we will move on to the public comment list. Would the clerk please call the names of the people who have signed up to testify?
Justin Mullikin, Clancy Murray, Lorena Grundy. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Good afternoon, thanks to both of you for coming here today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Okay then. Got it. Thank you. As I said, my name is Clancy Murray. I'm a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Pennsylvania, where I've also worked as a teaching assistant. I'm also an organizer and bargaining committee member with GETUP-UAW, the union of more than 4,000 graduate student teaching and research assistants at Penn. Since last October, graduate student workers have been bargaining with Penn for our first contract. In our union contract, we are seeking to address conditions that impose prohibitive burdens on working class people, parents, queer people and people of color. By bargaining a strong enforceable contract, we will improve the lives of those of us currently at Penn and also make pursuing a graduate education at Penn accessible to a wide diversity of scholars. Penn's response to federal anti DEI measures over the last several months has only made it more difficult for graduate student workers from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed at Penn. This response has gone far beyond changing a few words. For example, quietly and without notice, Penn removed gender identity as a protected category from their already minimal policy prohibiting discrimination. I am myself a trans graduate student worker, and Penn's current position is that it is perfectly fine and permissible to discriminate against me on that basis. If Penn can quietly change its policies to permit discrimination against me and my queer and trans coworkers, there is nothing stopping them from revoking protections for any other group. In negotiations over our first union contract, graduate student workers have proposed enforceable protections against discrimination, harassment, and abusive conduct. Disappointingly, Penn's negotiating team has cited the Trump administration's executive orders as an excuse for why they can't agree to these rights. Last month, in response to Penn's intransigence, the majority of all teaching and research assistants at Penn, more than 2000 of us signed a petition calling on university admin to agree to the basic fundamental protections against discrimination and harassment that we are proposing. Going back to Senator Williams's comment, we are not getting over it. Penn graduate student workers agree that attacks on DEI are attacks on all workers' rights, including queer workers, workers of color, working parents, and workers with disabilities. I urge everyone here to join us in standing up to Penn's anti- diversity, anti-student, and anti- worker actions and to push the Penn administration to do better. Thank you. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you for being here and for sharing your testimony. We definitely stand with you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Justin Mullikin, I am the current membership -- the current membership secretary and treasurer for AAUP Penn and a non-tenure track faculty member at Penn. I'm here reading a statement on behalf of AAUP Penn's Executive Committee and would like to just note that my colleague, Wadhwa, was here, who had prepared the statement to read and wants to apologize that she had to leave. All right. A statement on behalf of the AAUP Penn Executive Committee. We are proud to testify today to amplify a message sent by Penn employees across the university this spring. The Penn administration must end its backtracking on racial and social justice. It must uphold basic principles of equity and it must reaffirm that diversity and open inquiry are essential to research, teaching, and the advancement of knowledge. In March, over 1,100 Penn employees signed their names to these demands in a petition to the administration and hundreds of us demonstrated on campus. We are proud that the Penn chapter of the American Association of University Professors was one of six campus labor organizations that co-sponsored this petition, and we are proud to stand together in this work with unions representing Penn graduate workers, post-docs, medical residents, library workers, and museum workers. These are consensus issues among those of us who work at Penn. It is important to understand that the Trump administration attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies are in fact attacks on the gains of the civil rights movement and the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It is also important to understand that those movements won institutional changes that improve the quality of US universities. During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, US universities were relatively closed, segregated institutions with little tolerance for critical thought and open inquiry. Faculty were purged for participating in the civil rights, and labor movements and those purges impoverished the intellectual life of our entire society. They drove out scholars in the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities, and they chilled the speech of faculty staff and students who remained. Just as important, those purges compounded the effects of decades of racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination that had already put higher education out of reach of most people in the United States. In many ways, we owe the revitalization of our universities to the Black Freedom Movement and the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which broke through the repressive atmosphere of the early Cold War and opened us higher education to people, ideas and entire fields of knowledge that had been shut out. We have those movements to thank for the very existence of African-American studies, ethnic studies, the study of gender and sexuality and critical research on racism, colonialism, and imperialism. It is no accident that those are precisely the areas of study under attack today at Penn and across the country. And it is no accident that attacks on those fields are going hand in hand with assaults on the diversity of racial -- on diversity, on racial and social justice, and on our colleagues and students who are people of color, non-citizens, trans and LGBTQ plus who have every right to be at Penn and whose very knowledge and insights are university and our society would be impoverished without which. For many of us, and the DEI initiatives that existed, we're only a step in the right direction as they often did not address the structural and systemic inequities and power dynamics built into the institutions of higher education, learning processes, and means of knowledge production that have led to the reproduction of the status quo. If they had been successful, we would not have been in this place so soon. Now, even those overtures and attempts at change are under attack leading to further regression. So we stand against executive orders that would return us to the days of segregation.
We stand against politicians, donors and lobbying organizations that would like to control what can be taught and studied in the United States, and we believe that it's time for the Penn administration to stand with us. To this point, Penn's administration has failed to do so. In the wake of Donald Trump's executive orders attacking DEI, we are proud that the national AAUP sued the Trump administration arguing that the orders were unlawful and unconstitutional. By contrast, Penn's central administration began directing faculty and staff to scrub websites and sensor academic programming. Some colleagues were told by supervisors that while Penn's -while Penn's general counsel had a list of prohibited words, they were not allowed to see the list. Some colleagues were told that, really, they could keep teaching and researching whatever they wanted, just change all the words. As these colleagues noted, it is not possible. Censorship threatens the very existence of many fields of study. It is not possible to conduct research or teaching on racism, gender, or sexuality when those terms, concepts and issues are deemed unspeakable. It is not possible to hold a workshop for faculty on how to make classes accessible to students from diverse backgrounds when you can't circulate an announcement using any of the words that would tell people what the workshop is about. Censorship fatally undermines the freedom of faculty to teach as well as the freedom of students to learn. It destroys the conditions of free and open inquiry that are necessary to universities to fulfill their missions, to produce and disseminate new knowledge that can serve the public good in a democratic society. For these reasons, 1100 Penn employees have called on Penn's administration to end its backtracking on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The Penn administration must cease instructing faculty, staff and students to censor programs, funding proposals, and websites. It must restore policies, websites, and programming that were in place to make sure the university -- to make the university open and accessible to all before the publication of executive orders. It must retain staff who implement those policies and programs, it must vigorously defend researchers and instructors who face targeted harassment for their scholarship and teaching on racism, disability, gender, and sexuality, and all future decisions on these issues must be made by the affected members of the university, not handed down unilaterally by the central administration. Thank you very much. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you so much for being here today and for your testimony. And thank you for standing up and taking legal action as well. We stand with you. Do you have any questions?
No, thank you. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thanks to the both of you. Will the clerk please call the next person to testify?
Lorena Grundy. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Okay. Is there anyone else here to testify on this resolution? Seeing no one else here to testify on the resolution, this concludes the business of the Committee on Education for today. The public hearing on Resolution Nos. 250185 and 240842 is recessed to the call of the Chair. Thank you all very much for your attendance and participation.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. VICE CHAIR GAUTHIER: Thank you. (Public hearing of Committee on Education concluded at 1:00 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me of the above case, and this copy is a correct transcript of the same. _______________ Samanda J. Rios