photo by: John Hanna/Associated Press

This photo from Friday, April 12, 2024, shows the sign above the door to the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging inside the main administration building on the main University of Kansas campus in Lawrence, Kan. Republican lawmakers across the U.S. are seeking to restrict diversity initiatives on colleges campuses, arguing that they enforce a liberal orthodoxy.

UPDATED 3 P.M. JULY 23

KU faces no immediate loss of state funding if it declines to comply with a state proviso prohibiting the use of preferred pronouns, such as “he/him,” “she/her” or “they/them,” in email signature lines, the Journal-World has learned.

A state employee with detailed knowledge of the state budget proviso in question confirmed to the Journal-World that legislators did not attach any funding penalties to the legislation that aims to eliminate diversity and equity programs in all state agencies, including public universities.

The pronoun prohibition is set to begin Aug. 1, and stems from concerns that a majority of members in the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature expressed about diversity, equity and inclusion programs at universities and other state agencies.

Earlier in the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers had proposed withholding $4 million in state funding from the state’s Department of Administration, until the secretary of that department certified that all state agencies had eliminated DEI programs, including the use of preferred pronouns in email signature lines of employees.

But the employee, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the topic, said the proposed $4 million withholding of state funds did not make it into the final budget legislation. The approved budget proviso — which is a seven-paragraph section of the state’s approximately 300-page budget bill — still requires the Secretary of Administration to certify that universities and state agencies have complied with the DEI provision. However, the proviso doesn’t state how that certification is to take place, nor what happens if the secretary is unable to certify that an agency or university hasn’t complied.

The detail that KU faced no funding loss by not complying with the controversial pronoun policy was not clear in the Tuesday email announcement sent to KU employees notifying them of the change.

Given that the proviso was tied to the state’s budget bill, there was concern any agency that didn’t comply with the proviso could lose state funding, of which KU receives more than $155 million for the operation of its Lawrence campus alone.

The Tuesday message from Chancellor Douglas Girod and other top KU leaders, however, didn’t specifically mention what the funding ramifications might be for the university. Rather, the message stated KU was following a directive given to it by the Kansas Board of Regents, which is the agency charged with overseeing the state’s public universities.

The Journal-World began reviewing the budget proviso language to try to determine how much state funding may be at risk for KU. After the language of the proviso indicated there was no financial penalty, the Journal-World reached out to state budget experts to determine if that indeed was the case.

While the current state budget bill doesn’t include a penalty for not complying with the pronoun issue, KU or any other agency choosing not to comply likely would be inviting future funding battles.

KU’s $155 million in state funding for the operations of its Lawrence campus, for example, is subject to approval of the Kansas Legislature each year. If KU chose not to comply with the policy this year, legislators could seek major funding cuts to KU in the next budget year.

But for those arguing KU should take that risk, the language of the budget proviso does not technically direct universities or other state agencies to eliminate all DEI programs and adopt the pronoun policy. Rather, the only directive in the proviso is to the Secretary of Administration, who is instructed “to certify to members of the state’s finance council” that “all state agencies” have complied with five provisions related to DEI programs, including the pronoun policy.

An equally large question for the chancellor and other KU leaders is whether their bosses — the Kansas Board of Regents — are ordering them to comply with the policy.

Public universities last month received a memo from the general counsel of the Board of Regents stating that adopting the policy prohibiting the use of preferred pronouns in email signature lines would be appropriate, given the language of the budget proviso.

However, it remains unclear whether the office of the Regents directed universities to adopt the pronoun policy or whether the memo merely was guidance for university CEOs to consider. The memo — which was never approved by the nine-member, governor-appointed Board of Regents itself — is titled “Kansas Board of Regents Diversity Equity and Inclusion Guidance for State Universities in Kansas.” The first paragraph of the document states the information is “guidance to assist universities as they seek to comply with state law.”

That language indicates each university may have some discretion in whether to implement the change in pronoun policy. But the last section of the memo uses different language and states universities are “directed to” make five changes, which includes the new pronoun rules.

The Journal-World on Tuesday asked for clarification from a Regents spokesman on whether the Regents have mandated that universities implement the pronoun change or whether each university has the discretion to act as it sees fit. The Journal-World did not receive a response Tuesday, and renewed its request on Wednesday morning.

As for how KU leaders viewed the June 18 memo, university spokesman Joe Monaco said it was read as a directive that the university must implement.

“This is a directive from the Kansas Board of Regents, and not at the discretion of university CEOs,” Monaco told the Journal-World via email on Tuesday.

All Regents universities have or are in the process of notifying their employees of the change, a Regents spokesman said.

The Journal-World on Wednesday asked the Regents spokesman whether the lack of a financial penalty for noncompliance factored into the Regents’ thinking of how the universities should respond. The Journal-World hasn’t received a response to that inquiry.

Complying with the proviso, for example, may create other direct or indirect costs for the university, including the possibility of legal action. Almost immediately after the new pronoun policy was announced, university employees on message boards and through other means began wondering how the pronoun policy wasn’t a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The Journal-World on Tuesday asked the Regents spokesman for information on how First Amendment issues factored into the Regents’ thinking on the matter. The Regents spokesman has not responded to that inquiry. A KU spokesman referred any questions about potential First Amendment conflicts to the Regents office.

Following the announcement, message boards with KU employees included posts about efforts to get civil liberties organizations like the ACLU or Equality Kansas involved in the issue. By Wednesday afternoon, some groups were starting to engage. Equality Kansas, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, posted on its Facebook page that the pronoun policy was “founded in fascism,” and urged employees to defy the policy or comply “maliciously.”

A spokesperson with the ACLU of Kansas also told the Journal-World on Wednesday afternoon that the organization was “following and concerned” about the pronoun issue, and was gathering more information.

KU employees who ultimately defy the order on their own could face discipline from the university. The Tuesday email from the chancellor’s office said supervisors should contact the university’s Human Resources team if an employee has been directed and reminded to make the email change but declines to do so.