In theater spaces across the country, the rehearsal room has long served as a space of welcome and discovery, especially for queer and nonbinary voices. At its best, theater offers a place where we learn about ourselves, each other and the world we share. It’s a space where authenticity is not only accepted but vital. Our field depends on the freedom to express one’s full self — without fear.

That’s what the Department of Theatre & Dance at KU strives to be: a space where students, staff and faculty can show up whole. Several members of our community — brilliant, compassionate and essential to our shared work — use they/them pronouns. Under the Kansas Board of Regents’ new directive, they are now required to erase this meaningful part of their identities from their university emails. This policy doesn’t just threaten expression; it makes KU palpably less welcoming. It makes our department less welcoming.

Now, maybe some folks are frustrated by what they see as gender politics. Maybe pronouns in email signatures have prompted eye-rolls. Maybe there’s even agreement with the Regents’ decision. But it doesn’t matter where one falls on the political or cultural spectrum; when the government starts mandating what individuals can and cannot say about themselves, that should concern everyone. This isn’t about ideology; it’s about the Constitution.

The Kansas Board of Regents’ directive, which mandates the removal of gender-identifying pronouns from email signatures and other university communications, raises serious constitutional concerns. It is not an act of neutrality; it’s an attempt to scrub away protected expression. And public institutions like KU need to tread carefully.

The First Amendment clearly protects what the state calls “non-disruptive personal expression.” In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, affirming that symbolic personal expression is protected in public institutions unless it causes substantial disruption. And in Meriwether v. Hartop (2021), a federal court ruled that even a professor who refused to use a student’s pronouns could not be compelled to do so — because both speech and the refusal of speech are constitutionally meaningful. While no court has ruled directly on this policy, relevant legal precedent suggests that identity-based expression has been recognized by the courts as protected, and restricting it may raise serious First Amendment concerns.

And yet, KU has begun to comply. The university has instructed all employees to remove pronouns from their signatures by July 31. It has done so quietly, without public acknowledgment of the constitutional concerns, without affirming its stated values and without publicly challenging the Board of Regents’ mandate. Perhaps KU feels its hands are tied. The pressure on public institutions is real — and likely immense. But if the university has already pushed back behind the scenes and lost that fight, it should say so. Transparency invites an honest, intellectually grounded conversation about what this moment demands.

KU’s own mission statement pledges to “foster a supportive, inclusive environment” and to value “diversity of thought, experience, and culture.” The university’s Impact: Belonging initiative states that “belonging requires us to understand, support, and celebrate our many individual identities.” And yet, when a directive arrives demanding the removal of those very identities from view, KU responds with compliance — rather than challenge, or delay, or any kind of pushback that has been made publicly known.

Yes, resistance may come at a cost. The university could face political backlash or funding threats. But there is also a cost to silence: the erosion of trust, the normalization of censorship, and the message — sent loud and clear to some students and employees — that this might not be a place they belong. That message is already landing. In just the past few days, I’ve heard from students who are devastated by this policy — some even questioning whether they will return to KU in the fall. That’s not theoretical harm. That’s now.

If you share these concerns, I urge you to write to the Kansas Board of Regents. Acknowledge the budget proviso in Section 161 of Senate Bill 125 that prompted this policy, but urge that its implementation be carefully reviewed to avoid infringing on protected rights.

KU has the power to follow the law while still living its mission. But to do that, it must speak — clearly, publicly and in defense of its people. Because silence is not strength; it is surrender.

— Markus Potter is artistic director and associate professor in the Department of Theatre & Dance at the University of Kansas. He previously served as artistic director at NewYorkRep in NYC and has directed Off-Broadway and regional productions across the country.