This post shares a case study I wrote for EDD 837: DEIJ in Higher Education, a doctoral course focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in higher education. The assignment asked us to develop a surface-level communication and implementation strategy for Metro State University, a fictional institution facing backlash after converting certain campus restrooms into all-gender facilities. It is worth noting that this assignment came with a strict three-page limit following APA 7 formatting guidelines, so the analysis is intentionally brief and touches the surface of what is a much deeper and more nuanced topic.
I explore how Metro State can balance the needs of LGBTQ students with the concerns of other stakeholders, communicate policy changes without inviting culture war sensationalism, and promote understanding across campus without resorting to mandatory training that breeds resentment rather than growth. The case study draws on peer-reviewed research and my own experience in higher education to argue that evidence, not fear, should drive institutional decision-making, and that all students deserve to learn in spaces free from persecution and prejudice.
The most effective approach is to lead with a formal, evidence-based statement that explains the research behind the policy and directly addresses misconceptions. James and Coley (2023) noted that multiple federal courts have found no evidence that allowing transgender individuals to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity compromises the privacy or safety of others. That evidence needs to be front and center in the university’s messaging, not buried in a policy document no one reads. Alongside the statement, the administration should develop a frequently asked questions resource that anticipates concerns before they snowball, accessible across campus platforms and written in clear, non-defensive language.
What the university should avoid is engaging directly with external media. This kind of story can easily become a lightning rod for culture war rhetoric that has nothing to do with the actual students on campus. Even with good intentions, press releases and media interviews risk inviting sensationalism that could do more harm than good. Instead, the administration should partner with student journalists to tell the story from within the campus community, where it carries a credibility that no press release can match.
A more effective path is to create opportunities for learning rather than obligations, such as offering voluntary professional development for faculty and staff, supporting LGBTQ student organizations in leading peer education efforts, or bringing in scholars who research gender inclusion to ground the conversation in academic rigor. James and Coley (2023) warned that if a university simply adds a unisex restroom alongside the traditional options without doing the harder work of shifting campus culture, it risks creating a two-tiered system where transgender students are technically served but still set apart, a dynamic that creates segregation rather than inclusion. That cultural work has to happen, but in a way that respects the autonomy of the campus community. Institutions of higher education must be safe places for everyone, free from overt hatred, inaccessibility, microaggressions, and systemic bias. This policy is one step toward honoring that responsibility.
DeChants, J. P.,
Price, M. N., Nath, R., Hobaica, S., & Green, A. E. (2024). Transgender and
nonbinary young people’s bathroom avoidance and mental health. International
Journal of Transgender Health, 26(2), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2335512
Huff, M., Edwards, K. M., Mauer, V. A., Littleton, H., Lim, S., & Sall, K. E. (2023). Gender-neutral bathrooms on campus: A multicampus study of cisgender and transgender and gender diverse college students. Journal of American College Health, 73(3), 1178–1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2023.2239358
James, S., & Coley, J. (2023). Separate but unequal: Revisiting the discussion of trans-inclusive bathrooms. Sexuality, Gender & Policy, 6(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12056
Introduction
Metro State University’s decision to convert certain campus restrooms into all-gender facilities is, at its core, the right thing to do. It signals to transgender and nonbinary students that they belong and that their safety matters. However, the backlash that has followed, including formal complaints citing privacy concerns and polarizing local media coverage, is a reminder that doing the right thing and doing it well are two different challenges. This paper presents a communication and implementation strategy that addresses three central questions facing Metro State's administration as it navigates this resistance: balancing the needs of LGBTQ students with other stakeholders; communication strategies for addressing public criticism; and promoting understanding and acceptance across campus.Balancing the Needs of LGBTQ Students with Other Stakeholders
Research makes it overwhelmingly clear that denying transgender students access to restrooms aligned with their gender identity carries serious consequences. DeChants et al. (2024) reported that nearly half of transgender and nonbinary young people in their study avoided public restrooms due to safety concerns, and that this avoidance was associated with increased anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. At the same time, the discomfort expressed by some members of the campus community should not be dismissed outright as doing so can destabilize the campus community. Huff et al. (2023), in a multicampus study of over 4,000 college students, found that cisgender students expressed varying levels of comfort with gender-neutral bathrooms, while transgender and gender diverse students reported significantly more fear of harassment.
I feel the solution here is not to choose one group over the other, but to create conditions where both can coexist with dignity. Metro State should maintain traditionally gendered restrooms alongside the new all-gender facilities so that no one feels their access has been eliminated. My own institution, the University of Hartford, operates under a similar model, and it works because it affirms the rights of those historically excluded without forcing anyone into a space where they feel uncomfortable. The university should also invest in redesigning converted restrooms with full floor-to-ceiling stall partitions, directly addressing the privacy concern rather than using it as a reason to deny access. The current state of most restroom stalls is undignified for everyone regardless of gender identity. And lastly, anonymous feedback channels should be created so individuals uncomfortable voicing concerns publicly can still be heard, and the entire policy must be grounded in research, because this is an academic institution, and decisions should be driven by evidence, not fear.
Communication Strategies for Addressing Public Criticism
How the administration communicates about this policy matters just as much as the policy itself. Get it wrong, and the university risks being dragged into a culture war media frenzy with repercussions far beyond the campus. Horne et al. (2022) demonstrated that anti-transgender legislation and the surrounding public discourse significantly increased anxiety and depression among transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender LGBQ people alike, suggesting that careless or reactive communication could cause real harm to the very students the policy is meant to protect.
The most effective approach is to lead with a formal, evidence-based statement that explains the research behind the policy and directly addresses misconceptions. James and Coley (2023) noted that multiple federal courts have found no evidence that allowing transgender individuals to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity compromises the privacy or safety of others. That evidence needs to be front and center in the university’s messaging, not buried in a policy document no one reads. Alongside the statement, the administration should develop a frequently asked questions resource that anticipates concerns before they snowball, accessible across campus platforms and written in clear, non-defensive language.
What the university should avoid is engaging directly with external media. This kind of story can easily become a lightning rod for culture war rhetoric that has nothing to do with the actual students on campus. Even with good intentions, press releases and media interviews risk inviting sensationalism that could do more harm than good. Instead, the administration should partner with student journalists to tell the story from within the campus community, where it carries a credibility that no press release can match.
Promoting Understanding and Acceptance Across Campus
This is where many institutions get it wrong. The instinct is often to mandate training and roll out workshops, and while the intent is good, research suggests that forced education on these topics tends to breed resentment rather than understanding (Dobbin & Kalev, 2018). This applies to faculty and staff, certainly, but it applies equally to students who are paying for an education centered on their chosen field, not compulsory modules on social issues that feel disconnected from their coursework. Anyone who has sat through a mandatory HR training knows the feeling of being talked down to, and students subjected to required orientation programming on politically charged topics are no different.
A more effective path is to create opportunities for learning rather than obligations, such as offering voluntary professional development for faculty and staff, supporting LGBTQ student organizations in leading peer education efforts, or bringing in scholars who research gender inclusion to ground the conversation in academic rigor. James and Coley (2023) warned that if a university simply adds a unisex restroom alongside the traditional options without doing the harder work of shifting campus culture, it risks creating a two-tiered system where transgender students are technically served but still set apart, a dynamic that creates segregation rather than inclusion. That cultural work has to happen, but in a way that respects the autonomy of the campus community. Institutions of higher education must be safe places for everyone, free from overt hatred, inaccessibility, microaggressions, and systemic bias. This policy is one step toward honoring that responsibility.
Conclusion
The research is clear that bathroom access is tied to the mental health and dignity of transgender and nonbinary students (DeChants et al., 2024; Huff et al., 2023). By maintaining gendered options alongside new facilities, investing in privacy, communicating with transparency, and fostering a culture rooted in respect rather than compulsion, Metro State can navigate this resistance. People should be able to come to higher education to learn, free from the persecutions and prejudices of the world outside. Learning, knowledge, and facts should guide the path, and all must be welcome.
References
Dobbin, F., &
Kalev, A. (2018). Why doesn't diversity training work? The challenge for
industry and academia. Anthropology Now, 10(2), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182
Horne, S. G.,
McGinley, M., Yel, N., & Maroney, M. R. (2022). The stench of bathroom
bills and anti-transgender legislation: Anxiety and depression among
transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender LGBQ people during a state referendum. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 69(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000558
Huff, M., Edwards, K. M., Mauer, V. A., Littleton, H., Lim, S., & Sall, K. E. (2023). Gender-neutral bathrooms on campus: A multicampus study of cisgender and transgender and gender diverse college students. Journal of American College Health, 73(3), 1178–1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2023.2239358
Tags
EdD