Equity Infrastructure Recommendation Report 2023

The Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) role is an executive-level role in an organization providing leadership and support for the Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) outcomes in people, programs, and policies. Historically, the predecessor roles of CDOs led compliance and EEO initiatives, while today, many of these roles focus instead on strategic priorities, campus climate, and organizational visioning (Wells, 2021). While versions of CDOs have existed in various forms in higher education for decades, they often encounter challenges and struggles related to myriad dynamics on campus. The term “Chief Diversity Officer” is a broad title designated for the most senior administrator focused on leading the institution’s equity and justice efforts.

Key Challenges for Chief Diversity Officers in Higher Education

CDOs face several barriers to success from conception to implementation. Institutions may create roles in response to national or campus incidents and fail to fully identify the scope and boundaries of the position (Parker, 2019). Shawn Washington (2019) found that the key challenges that CDOs must address in their roles include: a) an institutional lack of clarity about the expectations of the position; b) few or no resources or staffing to support the various needs placed on them; and c) explicit and implicit institutional resistance to the role and responsibilities they are tasked with addressing. CDOs may be hired with broad expectations to improve campus climate, support disproportionately impacted populations, build capacity on the executive leadership team, build relationships with constituents on and off campus, and meet the ever-expanding compliance needs of a campus (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Jennifer Wells (2021) stated that these positions could vary in reporting structure, responsibilities, authority, and tasks as CDO roles are crafted in the context of the campus they serve. Connectedly, Wells discussed the difficulties CDOs encounter when they do not report directly to the Chief Executive Officer.

Additionally, few Chief Diversity Officers are given the staffing and resources needed to be successful long-term in their roles in light of the leadership and support expectations placed upon CDOs (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). The expectation that a single person or small office will be able to be the Diversity Superhero (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013) can lead to individuals feeling tokenized, unsupported, and burnt out and may lead to turnover, according to Dickenson (2022; Lemons & Medina, 2022).

Chief Diversity Officers must be leaders of diversity and champions on their campuses while also serving as collaborators, relational leaders, more than crisis managers, and JEDI knowledge experts (Parker, 2020). This executive-level professional must set the vision and tone for the campus community supported by institutional diversity plans and C-Suite colleagues who take this work seriously, do their work, and point toward accountability and action (Wells, 2021; Washington, 2019; Parker, 2019).

Identified Goals

This report will focus on the following identified goals:

• Identifying areas of concern and opportunities for growth within the JEDI structure at CSUN
• Recommending improvements to JEDI infrastructures, role and scope of the Chief Diversity Officer, and resources allocated to JEDI efforts

Overview of Process

As PMJ approached this report, they created a process to move from information gathering to implementing the review recommendations. The initial process began with identifying the goals with CSUN leaders who were charged with implementing the review. The information gathering occurred to understand the situation and needs of the campus community fully. PMJ analyzed the data and information collected and identified key themes and challenges. PMJ then created recommendations based on promising practices and proven practices described in relevant equity and inclusion literature. The recommendations were prioritized based on relevance, scope, the layout of the framework, and resources. Once the report was developed, it was presented to the CSUN leaders charged with implementing this review and key stakeholders to gather feedback.

Key Terms

In the development of this report and in working with stakeholders, it was important that PMJ established shared definitions of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI):

Justice (Social Justice) – full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of an equitable society where all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure (Adams & Griffin, 2007).

Equity – creating opportunities and ongoing support for historically marginalized, underrepresented, and excluded populations (racial/ethnic minorities, women, persons with disabilities, LGBTQ+, etc.) to have access to and participate in opportunities in the classroom, employment, and other university programs and activities that can close the opportunity, economic, and overall success gaps among diverse groups.

Diversity – the full array of individual differences we all have regarding ability, age, country of origin, culture, economic class, ethnicity, gender identity, immigration status, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, veteran status, and other ways we may be socially identified similar to one another. Diversity is needed to facilitate the expansion of a welcoming and nurturing environment for discovery, inquiry, and learning that enriches the CSUN environment.

Inclusion – ongoing engagement and support to address the campus climate and culture to create and maintain an environment where diverse, marginalized, excluded, and underrepresented populations feel welcome as active participants in the campus community. The goal is to create an environment where differences are welcomed, and differences in perspectives and opinions are respectfully listened to and heard.

The focus of the project is the evaluation of the equity infrastructure. For the sake of this project, an “equity infrastructure” will look at departments, divisions, positions, committees, and boards with a primary focus on serving marginalized, historically excluded, and socially disadvantaged groups, such as those disadvantaged by race, income, gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, language, citizenship, and possibly other identities. Some of those could be related to:

• Compliance
• Student support
• Training and development, teaching and learning, professional development
• Campus climate and institutional research
• Human resources
• Community relations
• Outreach and recruitment
• Academic areas (ethnic studies, queer studies, feminist studies, and disability studies)
• Shared governance committees and other committees,
• Student-led initiatives (student organizations, houses, etc.)
• Government relations and tribal relations

Report Structure

This report is segmented into various parts. Part 1 is Information Gathering and Analysis. Part 2 is Areas of Concern & Key Opportunities. Part 3 is Recommendations. Part 4 is Considerations and Next Steps.

In Spring 2023 President Beck charged PMJ to work with Vice President of Student Affairs, Dr. William Watkins, and Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Meera Komarraju, to begin the process of reviewing JEDI structures at CSUN. The review follows the launch of CSUN’s Road Ahead, strategic direction, and priorities. In the subsequent months, PMJ met with the above CSUN leaders to set the foundation for the planning process. They defined stakeholders and provided background documents for this report. The scope of the review included past initiatives addressing JEDI efforts and structure; active programs sponsored by campus units, divisions, schools, and colleges; best practices at peer institutions; and advice from leaders within and beyond a university setting.

PMJ defined themes and goals and hosted multiple stakeholder listening sessions. Each stakeholder group was invited to meet with PMJ consultants during the Spring 2023 semester. PMJ hosted 16 listening sessions. Most stakeholder listening sessions were focused groups, departments, committees, or individuals doing JEDI work at CSUN. Some groups and individuals could not join stakeholder sessions, so PMJ gathered information via an open-ended questionnaire and email. This report includes the full list of invited groups and the guiding questions (see Appendix).

General Goals of the Stakeholder Sessions

The following were the general goals of the stakeholder sessions:

1. Identify challenges and opportunities for improvement within the current JEDI infrastructure.
2. Propose recommendations for future directions of JEDI work, organizational structures, and the role of the Chief Diversity Officer.

Each listening session had extensive notes and themes collected during the sessions. The listening sessions were led by higher education consultants with extensive experience with qualitative research and JEDI topics. After gathering information from key stakeholders, Dr. Prieto, Dr. Moon-Johnson, and Nick Daily analyzed the notes and transcripts to identify key themes. In addition to notes from the stakeholder listening sessions, the consultants also gathered and analyzed information from CSUN websites, reports, and other documents provided by CSUN. The consultants independently analyzed the stakeholder notes, developed major themes, and then collectively created key areas of concern and growth. The major themes were discussed using literature about higher education JEDI efforts; these themes were compared to common themes from articles, practices, and research from JEDI literature nationally and internationally. As key opportunities emerged, those were categorized and shared with the CSUN leaders charged with implementing this review. Once the key opportunities were identified, PMJ consultants focused on creating recommendations to address those challenges. The recommendations can be found in Part 3 and are based on promising practices from higher education and JEDI efforts

After gathering information and analyzing the data in comparison to relevant articles on JEDI issues in higher education and other organizations, PMJ has identified several areas of concern and opportunities for growth for the Equity Infrastructure. CSUN has substantial structures, resources, and efforts making outstanding progress towards its equity and justice efforts; the institution has a solid foundation and many committed individuals and groups. The following areas named are not necessarily deficits, but could be focused on to move the institution to the next level. Those concerns and opportunities include A) JEDI Vision for the Institution; B) Focus of JEDI Efforts; C) Infrastructure to Support the CDO; D), Structure on Accountability; E) Communication; and F), Capacity Building.

JEDI Vision for the Institution

Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) have become increasingly important considerations for educational institutions, and especially CSUN. Recognizing the significance of these principles, CSUN has expressed an on-going commitment to fostering a JEDI-focused environment. Moreover, CSUN recognizes it is essential to assess the effectiveness of this vision and evaluate the extent to which it is being implemented. This section of the report examines the limited clarity with the JEDI vision at CSUN, highlighting stakeholders' uncertainty regarding the vision and goals, a lack of clarity regarding actionable steps, and the resulting perception of performative actions.

Vision and Goals: Some stakeholders, including faculty, staff, and students, have expressed a sense of uncertainty regarding the JEDI vision and goals at CSUN. Despite the institution's efforts to communicate its commitment to JEDI principles, there remains some lack of clarity surrounding what the vision entails and the specific goals it seeks to achieve. This uncertainty has led to some feeling frustrated and confused among stakeholders eager to understand the direction of CSUN's JEDI initiatives. With limited clearly articulating the vision and goals, it becomes challenging for stakeholders to align their efforts and contribute meaningfully to the institution's JEDI endeavors.

Knowledge of Actions Being Taken: Even among stakeholders who understand CSUN's JEDI vision, there is often limited knowledge regarding what this vision looks like in action and what concrete steps are being taken to move the university closer to its JEDI goals. This limited knowledge can create a disconnect between the institution's stated commitments and the visible actions being undertaken to address JEDI concerns. Stakeholders have expressed a desire for transparency and regular updates on the progress made in implementing JEDI initiatives. Without this information, stakeholders struggle to gauge the effectiveness and impact of the actions taken, leading to further skepticism and doubt.

Perception of Actions: The combination of limited JEDI action and a lack of knowledge about ongoing initiatives has fueled a perception among a small group of stakeholders that the JEDI vision at CSUN may be performative in nature. When stakeholders observe a gap between the institution's rhetoric and the tangible actions being implemented, they may question the authenticity of the JEDI commitments. The absence of visible progress and a clear roadmap for achieving JEDI goals can reinforce the perception that the institution's efforts are merely superficial and intended to appease external stakeholders rather than affecting meaningful change within the campus community.

JEDI Efforts

Across the country, many colleges and universities encounter dynamics where individuals and groups do the work aligned with the mission but are disjointed due to siloing. CSUN leadership is aware of multiple groups committed to enacting JEDI on campus and the likelihood that these efforts are not being as strategic as they could be due to a lack of clarity about the scope of this work and where responsibilities lie in that regard. The positive note is that there are many groups doing meaningful JEDI work; however, with any large institution, coordinating many efforts creates challenges. This section of the report focuses on the many constituents that contribute to JEDI goals on campus, the challenge of collaboration and cohesiveness, and the possibility of duplication of efforts and missed collaborative opportunities.

The JEDI Team at CSUN: The JEDI ecosystem is supported and held up by many individuals, groups, departments, and committees, all working towards CSUN’s JEDI Goals. These groups include academic departments (e.g., Educational Opportunity Program - serving since 1968 - and the CSUN Council of Ethnic Studies), administrative departments (e.g., the Equity and Compliance office), co-curricular programs (e.g., the Identity-Based Resource Centers), student-initiated programs (e.g., Asian American Student Pathways Project) and numerous individuals and committees working to address the disproportionate impact that is seen on campus for students and employees alike. Each of these is working in its lane toward CSUN’s JEDI priorities; however, this spread often leads to limited collaboration opportunities and limited cohesive initiatives.

Duplication of Efforts: With such rich work being done across campus, the JEDI needs of the community being so great, and the ambiguity about the boundaries of responsibilities, some initiatives, activities, and programs may have the same mission (and indeed may have many of the same participants). There was an expressed need to evaluate the entire JEDI ecosystem for which initiatives exist, what their charge is, and assess their impact on the populations served (qualitatively and quantitatively). Additionally, stakeholders wanted to ensure that mapping the JEDI ecosystem did not hinder the creation of programs, initiatives, and activities that are essential to be created to support the needs of the campus. A clear institutional vision describing how each area connects to the larger strategy can help streamline efforts and increase collaborations where they may be missed.

Focus of JEDI Work

With a push toward using Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) as a framework and model for supporting campus climate and outcomes comes a need for an intersectional approach to what JEDI initiatives are and can look like. CSUN’s “Road Map to the Future” emphasizes the need to infuse JEDI in every campus area. This section focuses on the tensions and frustrations that arise for some within organizations when racial justice is seen as the sole focus of JEDI efforts, when specific populations (e.g. the disabled community, undocumented community, LGBTQ+, etc.) are rarely discussed as parts of the JEDI strategy, and when there is a limited understanding of intersectional approaches to JEDI work in theory or practice.

JEDI as Racial Justice: Several stakeholders feel that CSUN’s vision for JEDI has a narrow focus on racial justice, omitting the multitudes of ways that race and racism shape the experiences of multiple-marginalized people. Others feel that even that myopic view of JEDI as racial justice is not accurate enough because, at CSUN, racial justice might be limited to Black and Latiné populations. Some felt that we treat Black and Latiné populations like monoliths, failing to see the nuances in experiences between Black American and Black International students or assuming all undocumented students are Latiné.

“We’re Not Included in JEDI”: Due to the strong focus on JEDI as racial justice (specifically for Black and Latiné populations), some other communities shared they did not feel included in institutional efforts. Constituents shared that disabled, undocumented, veteran-serving, non-Christian religious, formerly incarcerated and justice-involved, and LGBTQ+ communities are not treated as a priority in JEDI conversations or activities. There is an opportunity to acknowledge how people whose identities put them at the intersections of oppression (e.g., a Vietnamese-American Deaf student) have unique experiences. An additional opportunity lies in laying out which groups are disproportionately impacted and are thus prioritized in JEDI initiatives. A broad focus and prioritization of communities is an on-going challenge for all organizations as the scope of efforts expand.

Intersectionality conceptually and practically: There was also a theme that intersectional approaches to JEDI work were not common across campus initiatives. While identity-based spaces are important to create and cultivate community, it is also imperative to account for and make room for how identity salience changes in different contexts. CSUN’s JEDI leadership can provide training and development regarding how to think about intersectionality in the context of one’s work and how to use an intersectional framework practically within one’s work.

Infrastructure to Support the Chief Diversity Officer

One significant challenge that has limited the effectiveness of the Chief Diversity Officer role at CSUN is the infrastructure to support their responsibilities. This limited infrastructure has manifested in two primary areas: insufficient staffing to meet institutional goals and a disproportionate focus on compliance rather than strategic leadership.

Firstly, the CDO's office faces a staffing shortage, which impedes its ability to effectively carry out its responsibilities and meet institutional goals. The scope of the CDO's role is extensive, encompassing developing and implementing JEDI initiatives, fostering a welcoming campus climate, and addressing systemic barriers that impede marginalized groups' success. However, the limited number of staff members supporting the CDO hampers their capacity to fulfill these obligations comprehensively.

Without an adequate team to provide the necessary support, the CDO is burdened with an overwhelming workload that prevents them from dedicating sufficient time and attention to each essential aspect of their role. This reduces the ability to develop innovative strategies, engage with stakeholders, and foster meaningful dialogue about diversity and inclusion across the university community. Consequently, the CDO's impact is diminished, hindering progress toward achieving a truly inclusive campus environment.

Secondly, the CDO's role has been disproportionately focused on compliance rather than strategic leadership. While ensuring compliance with diversity and inclusion policies is undoubtedly crucial, an excessive emphasis on this aspect detracts from the CDO's ability to lead and create a vision for the institution. Compliance measures often necessitate reactive, transactional approaches, leaving little room for the CDO to proactively drive long-term change and address systemic issues at their root.

By being primarily consumed with compliance-related tasks, such as policy review, reporting, and documentation, the CDO is denied the opportunity to invest in transformative initiatives that could significantly impact the campus culture. This limitation undermines the potential of the CDO role. It perpetuates a cycle where diversity and inclusion efforts are primarily driven by a need to meet legal obligations rather than a genuine commitment to equity and social justice.

To address these infrastructure challenges, CSUN must acknowledge the critical importance of adequately resourcing the Chief Diversity Officer's area. This includes allocating sufficient staffing levels to support the CDO's multifaceted responsibilities and ensuring that their workload allows for strategic leadership rather than being overwhelmed by compliance-related tasks. By providing the necessary resources, CSUN can enable the CDO to operate effectively, fostering a more inclusive campus environment and facilitating meaningful progress toward equity and social justice.

Accountability Structure

In analyzing the current landscape of JEDI initiatives, it becomes evident that there are gaps in the existing systems of accountability. The absence of robust structures hampers the ability to hold various entities, groups, and individuals accountable for their actions or inactions regarding JEDI outcomes. This section will highlight the challenges arising from the limited structure on accountability and the unclear avenues for reporting bias in situations where it does not constitute a legal or policy violation.

One of the foremost concerns surrounding JEDI initiatives is the lack of established mechanisms to hold members accountable. While organizations and institutions may have policies and guidelines in place to promote JEDI principles, the absence of tangible consequences for noncompliance undermines the effectiveness of these efforts. Without clear systems to hold individuals, groups, and areas accountable, there is a risk that JEDI objectives may be neglected or overlooked altogether.

Moreover, the current understanding of where to report instances of bias remains ambiguous, particularly when they do not constitute explicit legal or policy violations. While legal and policy frameworks exist to address overt instances of discrimination, subtle biases, and systemic inequities that often go unaddressed, this creates a challenging environment for individuals who encounter such issues but are unsure of the appropriate channels to voice their concerns. The absence of clarity on reporting procedures may contribute to a culture of silence, preventing the identification and resolution of pervasive JEDI issues.

Another challenge is holding employees accountable for learning about JEDI and departments accountable for JEDI actions. Stakeholders named that there are no consequences when employees do not prioritize JEDI professional development. Additionally, some departments do not prioritize JEDI work, and there are no consequences for their lack of interest or commitment. A positive note is that there are many employees who highly value and do prioritize JEDI learning and development.

The goal of accountability is not to shame or blame individuals or departments but to demonstrate that the institution truly values and supports JEDI's work. By strengthening the structure of accountability, organizations and institutions can foster an environment that prioritizes JEDI outcomes and holds all stakeholders responsible for contributing to a more just, equitable, and inclusive society. This requires a collective commitment to establishing clear guidelines, implementing effective reporting mechanisms, and ensuring that consequences for noncompliance are proportionate and meaningful.

Communication

JEDI initiatives on campus have also had several communication challenges, which have been identified that can hinder the effective implementation and understanding of these efforts. This section aims to shed light on two key challenges: the lack of awareness among stakeholders regarding JEDI activities and the limited trust some stakeholders have in senior administrators, emphasizing the need for increased transparency.

Firstly, stakeholders across campus have expressed uncertainty about the activities and efforts undertaken concerning JEDI work. This lack of awareness has created a disconnect and hindered collaboration among different groups. Stakeholders must comprehensively understand the ongoing initiatives, as this knowledge is crucial for fostering a sense of shared purpose and engagement. Without clear and consistent communication channels, stakeholders may not fully appreciate the progress being made or opportunities available to contribute to JEDI efforts. Consequently, this challenge could potentially limit the effectiveness and impact of the campus-wide JEDI initiatives. It is important to note that communication at a large institution is a common challenge; moreover, when communication regarding JEDI topics occurs it has an elevated level of sensitivity.

Secondly, it has been observed that some stakeholders have limited trust in senior administrators. This lack of trust can stem from various factors, including historical experiences, perceived hierarchical structures, or a lack of transparency in decision-making processes. Stakeholders who feel this way may question the authenticity and sincerity of the JEDI initiatives, perceiving them as superficial, performative, or lacking in substance. Distrust with senior administrators is unfortunately very common in organizations. To overcome this challenge, it is crucial to prioritize transparency in communication, ensuring that stakeholders are well-informed about the decision-making processes, progress, and challenges faced by the JEDI initiatives. This transparency can help build trust and demonstrate the commitment of senior administrators to address concerns, ultimately fostering greater engagement and participation from stakeholders.

Addressing these communication challenges requires a proactive and multifaceted approach. This collaborative approach can help bridge the communication gap and build a culture of trust, enabling the successful implementation and integration of JEDI principles across the campus community.

Capacity Building

Throughout the listening sessions, a common need stakeholders identified was a lack of institutional structures that provided strategic and comprehensive JEDI training and development. Many groups and individuals desire to learn about JEDI topics and want to ensure their work centers on JEDI principles and actions; however, many do not feel like they have the knowledge or skills to do so. They noted some training, but it seems more one-off, disconnected, or not regularly offered. Others noted that some of the JEDI-focused offices provide training and development opportunities. Still, they cannot offer robust training programs for other employees. Some of the JEDI offices, programs, and departments charged with direct student support do not feel it is their role to educate the campus community about how to best serve the population they are charged with serving. Additionally, some offering training and development may not have the training or skills to deliver effective training.

Stakeholders also noted that there is a population of employees who do not participate in JEDI training, and there are no consequences if an individual or department does not prioritize or focus on JEDI work. Some are eager to learn how to be anti-racist and JEDI-focused; however, some may not feel it is a priority or even resist or obstruct it.

The areas of growth for CSUN are understandable and manageable. There is consistent, meaningful ,and relevant JEDI work being done. Moreover, the institutional leadership is committed to on-going growth to JEDI work, and is eager to move CSUN to the next step.

Part 2 describes the opportunities for growth that CSUN should focus on, and Part 3 will offer recommendations to support CSUN in reaching those opportunities of growth. The recommendations below follow stakeholder listening sessions and a review of existing documents, key themes from the stakeholder listening sessions, and promising practices we are aware of from other literature or institutions of higher education. Similar to Part 2, Part 3 will focus on recommendations to include A) Developing a JEDI Vision; B) Broadening the Focus of JEDI Work; C) Creating Systems of Accountability; D) Creating Systems of Capacity Building; E), Creating a JEDI Communication Strategy; F), Connecting and Collaborating; and G), and Structural Support for the CDO (senior JEDI leader) and JEDI Division.

These recommendations should be considered at the adoption of this report, prioritized, and planned for phased implementation. The recommendations will require additional resources, discussion and planning, and evaluation. Even if all recommendations are fully adopted, it would not be feasible to move into implementation all at once. We recognize these recommendations take substantial resources and time; however, urgency and significant financial investments are highly encouraged.

Developing a JEDI Vision

PMJ recommends that CSUN develop a comprehensive Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) vision for the campus. This should be led by the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) with a shared language and responsibilities across the executive leadership team. A few specific actions could include:

• CDO Strategy & Planning: The CDO should have the capacity and space to create a vision, strategy, and action plan that can align with the “Road Map to the Future.” This process may take a while to create a cohesive and institution-wide strategy, and the CDO should also communicate the vision, strategy, and action in progress while developing the “finalized” strategy. Of the possible responsibilities of a CDO, this is one of the most pressing.
• Embedded in Institutional Planning Efforts: JEDI visioning and strategy should be built into strategic and annual planning processes. JEDI must be embedded as foundational aspects of these plans on institutional, divisional, and departmental levels.
• Executive Leadership Alignment: Senior Leadership can regularly and clearly communicate the goals, strategies, and actions necessary to propel JEDI initiatives forward. This should occur regularly in writing and oral messaging, emphasizing the explicit ties of JEDI initiatives to their teams’ work.
• Executive Leadership Presence: Senior Leadership should be present at JEDI-focused programs and events to showcase their support and commitment to JEDI initiatives. Attendance and presence at these events will also help them build personal and professional capacity.
• Communication and Transparency: The CDO should create an annual report to update stakeholders and the community on progress towards achieving the vision of the “Road Map for the Future.” This includes communicating the conditions for success and failures, parties responsible for metrics and outcomes, and ongoing projects for action. There will be more focus on this in the Communication section.

Broadening the Focus of JEDI Work

PMJ recommends CSUN broaden the focus of JEDI work on campus beyond a racial justice lens. Racial justice can be the center of JEDI, but it must go broader and intersectional and not approach race from a binary Black and White framework. Acknowledging dimensions of intersecting identities and oppressions is essential for JEDI initiatives across campus. Some specific actions CSUN could take include the following:

JEDI Employee Development: Ensuring all employees working in JEDI-related roles have a clear understanding of JEDI research, theory, and practice (generally and in their fields) can support employees in actualizing principles that align with the values of JEDI work. Additionally, employee training and development in understanding how intersectional approaches improve their ability to serve students and employees across campus will elevate the overall JEDI climate. There will be more details in the Capacity Building section.

Identity-based & Intersection Education: CSUN leadership should engage with employees focusing on disability justice, undocumented communities, LGBTQ+ communities, veteran communities, and formerly incarcerated/justice-involved communities and assess their needs. Additionally, JEDI-related visioning, strategies, and efforts should include disabled people, LGBTQ+ people, undocumented people, veterans, formerly incarcerated/justice-involved people, and non-Christian religious people with an intersectional lens, as these communities are not mutually exclusive or monolithic communities. These are key populations identified as priorities on CSUN’s campus, as evidenced by the offices, committees, and programs targeting these students’ success.

CDO Uses Intersectional Lens: The new Chief Diversity Officer should have a strong lens of intersectional understanding regarding race, gender, sexuality, disability, immigration status, veteran status, and other dimensions of social identity. The CDO should also have the demonstrated experience to implement intersectional approaches to JEDI work and educate others on JEDI in organizational change management strategies.

Creating Systems of Accountability

PMJ recommends that CSUN create more systems of accountability around JEDI topics and issues. There should be clear expectations from the President and at all levels that every department and employee must prioritize JEDI learning and actions. A few specific actions could include:

• Annual planning and strategic planning: All departments should have specific JEDI goals as they create annual and strategic planning. From an institutional perspective, this should be built into planning systems and structures. Those leading the planning efforts should receive training to understand how to create goals and identify success metrics. Department directors and divisional leads must be trained to hold teams accountable to the JEDI goals. The department and divisional leads must also be held accountable by their senior leaders. Annual reporting should include specific JEDI metrics and goals that each unit is expected to address. The new JEDI division and even the Office of the President should have systems of accountability around JEDI goals. A system of accountability should be infused into all aspects of the culture. Holding individuals and units accountable to JEDI learning and action should come from a place of love, respect, and care.
• Institutional research should center JEDI work and ensure research and assessment provide disaggregation by demographics, identities, and communities. Institutional research likely already disaggregates around race and gender; moreover, they should expand to include LGBTQ+ identities, disabilities, veteran status, carceral-system impacted, religion, and veterans. JEDI values should be the center of research and outcomes related to classes, programs, support services, and human resources. The disaggregated research should be widely communicated and utilized to start a conversation on action plans.
• Budgets and resource allocation should take JEDI work into account. Departments doing meaningful JEDI work should be resources to encourage their efforts, and financial support should align. Departments that do not prioritize or center JEDI work should be held accountable regarding financial resources. As institutions prioritize JEDI work, the financial and staffing resources should reflect the expected additional work.
• Performance evaluations for all employees should include JEDI topics, and people should know they are evaluated on their JEDI learning efforts and actions. The focus should be on growth and effort and should meet people where they are. Those who do not actively engage in JEDI learning and action should be held accountable through performance review, performance planning, and disciplinary processes. The supervisors providing the evaluations must also have the training to understand how to engage in this conversation and coach the employee toward growth. Adjusting performance evaluations will often require conversations with shared governance groups and bargaining units.
• Numerous stakeholders named that when bias incidents occur outside of a formal policy or legal violation, nothing comes of it. A bias reporting and response process should be created to address bias-related incidents. It should focus on employees and students. It should collaborate with Title IX, human resources, and student conduct. This recommendation also aligns with the Cozen Report, which emphasized accountability and transparency and addressed incidents that do not violate policy. The focus should be on restorative justice, addressing the harm caused, and learning for those who caused the harm. A common model for bias response is a team with a lead chair, and as it evolves, a full-time employee may be needed. This often can be in collaboration with an Ombudsperson. The process should be well communicated and transparent and ensure people know where to report, how to report, and what happens after they report. A successful example to learn from is the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

Creating a System for Capacity Building

PMJ recommends that CSUN establish a new program or department with intentional goals of JEDI employee training and development. CSUN has over 4,000 employees, and to effectively train and develop employees, a new office would need to be created to train and develop employees effectively. A growth goal would be to have a minimum of two full-time trainers. The trainers should be highly trained in JEDI topics, intergroup dialogue, and action planning. Learning outcomes should focus on social justice theories, self-awareness and identity exploration, intergroup dialogue skills, individual actions, and department JEDI strategies. They should offer training around anti-racism, LGBTQ+ issues, UndocuAlly training, disability justice training, sex and gender-based violence, and interfaith dialogue workshops. This recommendation aligns with the recommendations from the Cozen report, specifically focusing on sex and gender-based violence. The trainers should host regular and ongoing training for individuals and departments. They should also be provided with a budget to outsource to experts as needed. An example to consider as a model is the Social Justice Hub at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Learning Communities for Institutional Change, which provide both short-term and long-term development opportunities. Employees should be provided release time to engage in ongoing JEDI training and development, and it should be placed on them only to do JEDI work outside of the normal job duties and time.

The new JEDI training officer should begin their efforts by working with the senior leaders, institutional researchers, and marketing and communication team members.

Creating a JEDI Communication Strategy

CSUN has many amazing JEDI efforts occurring. However, stakeholders often felt unaware of the goals, actions, and collaboration methods. CSUN should employ a full-time communication staff member focused on JEDI work. PMJ recommends it reports to the Office of Marketing and Communications, but directly supports the work of the Chief Diversity Officer. The role should create close collaborations between the CDO area and Marketing and Communications. The person in this role should have a strong understanding of JEDI topics and issues. A few specific JEDI Communication Strategic Actions should include:

• Creating a clear JEDI vision, strategy, and action plan, and widely and regularly communicating this. Ensure employees have an understanding of foundational JEDI terms and values.
• Creating a communication plan focused on JEDI work. The communication officer should ensure adequate communication goes out to employees, students, alums, and community members on JEDI challenges, efforts, impact, and next steps. There should be regular press releases and social media communication to update on crises as well as celebratory accomplishments. Transparency should be at the center of the communication plan
• The communication officer should ensure all senior leaders are aware of the communication plan and JEDI efforts, and the senior leaders should have the skills to openly dialogue about JEDI issues and efforts.
• The communication officer should also have the skills to engage with the media about JEDI topics and crises.

Connecting and Collaborating

PMJ recommends creating structures that intentionally and regularly promote collaboration, trust, and communication between individuals, groups, committees, and coalitions doing JEDI work, so they can easily share information and build effective, efficient, and synergistic efforts. Some specific actions to encourage collaboration could be:

• Host regular meetings or gatherings each semester or quarter with all individuals and departments doing JEDI work, whether under the CDO, student affairs, the Provost, the Union, or auxiliary services. The CDO should also lead an annual retreat to ensure people are aware of the vision, mission, and key JEDI priorities. There could also be sub-groups, such as a racial justice coalition for those focused on anti-racism work.
• The group should create a shared communication plan. Hence, they are aware of key priorities, efforts, and events not to duplicate efforts and move towards a just campus synergistically.
• The groups should focus on trust-building, healing, co-conspirator actions, and coalition-building. Many JEDI-focused groups have intergroup challenges that deter them from collaborating and being effective. The group should prioritize trust-building, cross-group and intergroup coalition building, and healing. An outside facilitator is often more effective at leading these efforts versus the CDO, as it can make it difficult for them to lead and be a part of the group.

Fully Utilizing DEI Commission CSUN is very fortunate to have a DEI Commission that has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to fostering an environment that is equitable, diverse, and inclusive for all members of the campus community. However, in order for the Commission to be successful, there are necessary resources that are needed. Here are some recommendations to ensure the success of the DEI Commission:

1. CSUN Establish Clear Goals and Objectives:
   • The larger institution needs to develop a clear vision for DEI/JEDI with respective metrics.
2. Diverse Representation:
   • The Commission already reflects the diversity of the CSUN community, including faculty, staff, students, and community stakeholders.
3. Transparency and Accountability:
   • Create a transparent process for selecting Commission members and leadership roles.
4. Reporting:
   • Require the Commission to provide regular reports to the CSUN administration, faculty, staff, and students about its activities and outcomes to show they are providing oversight for the CSUN DEI vision.
5. Assessment and Data Collection:
   • Implement a robust system for collecting and analyzing data related to diversity and inclusion on campus. Regularly assess the campus climate, survey the CSUN community, and use metrics to track progress toward DEI vision.
6. Inclusive Policies and Practices:
   • CSUN leadership should collaborate with the Commission to review and revise university policies, practices, and procedures to ensure they align with DEI principles.
   • Encourage academic departments and administrative units to develop and implement their own DEI action plans with alignment to institutions goals.
7. Resource Allocation:
   • Ensure that the Commission has adequate resources, including funding, personnel, and administrative support, to carry out its initiatives effectively.
8. Partnerships and Community Engagement:
   • Foster partnerships with external organizations, community groups, and businesses that share a commitment to DEI. These collaborations can provide additional resources and perspectives.
9. Long-Term Planning:
   • Develop a multi-year DEI strategic plan that outlines the Commission's goals and initiatives over several years. This will provide a roadmap for sustained progress.
10. Monitoring and Adaptation:
    • Regularly assess the effectiveness of the Commission's initiatives and adjust strategies as needed. Be willing to adapt to changing circumstances and evolving needs.
11. Communication and Outreach:
    • Promote the Commission's work through various communication channels, including social media, newsletters, and campus-wide announcements. Engage in proactive outreach to ensure that the entire CSUN community is aware of DEI efforts.

Structural Support for the Chief Diversity Officer and JEDI Division

PMJ recommends several shifts as the new Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) hiring process begins. Through stakeholder listening sessions as well as current research and literature around CDOs, PMJ recommends a shift in the structure around JEDI work and JEDI leadership. This section will overview several recommendations, including a JEDI Division, JEDI staffing structure, reporting lines, CDO resources, and CDO support.

Division of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

Though many JEDI functions are occurring at CSUN, some work efforts and groups are disconnected. The CDO role at many institutions, including at CSUN, has often been a singular role with many expectations. For the CDO to be effective, it should have the resources, power, and expectations to address the many forms of injustices and oppression occurring at the institutional level. The CDO would lead the new JEDI Division and have the people, financial, and political power to be effective as an institutional leader. The JEDI Division should include several reporting lines, including several new areas previously mentioned. The CDO cannot do the work alone and needs aligned staffing, support, and autonomy to take immediate action, plan for long-term campus climate change, and serve as an advisor to the President and consultant to other campus leaders. CSUN is a large and complex institution, and a single CDO cannot shift an organization of its size. Resources, including people and budgets, must be allocated to create real change. Establishing a JEDI unit adds significance and value to other traditional university units. For example, University of Wisconsin-Madison has an office structure that includes a CDO; an Assistant VP for learning & development; an Assistant VP for student development and engagement; a research officer; a deputy Title IX Coordinator (with a dotted line to the compliance office); and more. Additionally, University of Michigan’s model includes a CDO (within a Central Office), includes four (4) Assistant/Associate Provosts, administrative supports, a DEI strategic planning team, four (4) programming units, an evaluation & assessment team, as well as a Business Office and Communications/Marketing team. Lastly, California State University, Sacramento’s model includes a VP and CDO, Director of Operations, oversight of the Office for Equal Opportunity (compliance), Office for Disability Justice (ADA/504), and Office for Cultural Transformation (programming, training, and faculty diversity). These models are just a few of possible campus models that can support a community as large and diverse as CSUN¹.

---

¹ University of Michigan and California State University, Sacramento are listed as peer institutions according to Carnegie rankings from 2015, the most recent year readily available.

Some direct and/or dotted reporting lines to the new JEDI Division include the following:

• Associate Vice President of Compliance and their direct reports should closely align with the JEDI Division regardless of where it reports to; the AVP should be the lead for compliance, and the CDO should support their work but not spend significant time doing day-to-day compliance work. Although the AVP of Compliance needs to understand specific policies and laws, it should also be connected to the overarching JEDI vision of the institution and go beyond compliance. Establishing the CDO as separate from the day-to-day operational responsibilities of the work of the AVP of Equity and Compliance allows them to focus on the strategic and visionary approach to advancing the systemwide equity framework for CSUN. Both roles are of paramount importance in any organization. Still, they encompass different responsibilities and require distinct skill sets. The CDO cannot have the potential overwhelming workload of being heavily involved in the day-to-day AVP of Equity and Compliance department.
• Office of JEDI Training and Development (see the section in Capacity Building); a significant function of JEDI work includes shifting the campus climate, which can largely happen by educating the institutional employees. This office can also serve in a coaching and consultation role as departments move to create and implement their own JEDI strategies. This office should ensure that managers and institutional leaders have the knowledge and tools to engage in JEDI work and lead JEDI work effectively. This areas should be led by a seasoned, knowledgeable, and skilled JEDI administrator.
• Bias Reporting and Response; a significant theme that emerged from stakeholders was the lack of knowledge on what to do when a bias incident occurs. Stakeholders shared about incidents that harmed individuals and the campus climate yet did not fall under a specific policy or law. There should be a response team and a full-time individual to educate on bias incidents, manage reports, and guide the institution with response plans. The goal is to prevent bias incidents from occurring; however, the current situation will be supporting those impacted and their communities and restoring harm that has been done. This person or team could also sit under the Office of JEDI Training & Development.
• Communication officer (see Communication JEDI Strategy); one key strategy to ensure JEDI work is effective is dedicated communication staffing and plans. The role of a communication officer is critical to the CDO’s success. This role can remain in the Office of Marketing and Communications, but should have dotted line reporting to the JEDI Division. If communication is not transparent, regular, and well-planned, the JEDI Division will not succeed. A long-term strategy would also be having a project manager lead key initiatives within the JEDI Division. However, at an initial period, the Communication Officer may also have the skills to serve as a communication officer and project manager. The communication officer should ensure it regularly communicates to the institution about the success and outcomes of key initiatives. The institution needs to know what current issues are, what actions are being planned, and the progress being made. Consider JEDI dashboards, press releases, social media campaigns, and annual and strategic reports.
• The Division of JEDI needs dedicated team members focused on research and effectiveness. This should be in collaboration with the Office of Institutional Research. Ideally, all Office of Institutional Research employees would have the knowledge and skills to focus on JEDI topics deeply; however, in the current state, a researcher should either sit in the Division of JEDI or be assigned to support this new Division. There are many JEDI efforts, and the institution needs to understand the impact and outcomes.
• The Commission on Diversity and Inclusion is pivotal in promoting equity and inclusivity within an organization or institution. The Commission should continue to report to the President to ensure that the Commission's efforts are well-coordinated, elevated, and aligned with the overall strategic vision of the institution with a dotted line to the CDO. Additionally, the university needs to adopt a comprehensive DEI strategic framework, complete with measurable metrics to support the work of the Commission.
• The Division of JEDI and CDO needs administrative support like other senior institutional officers to be effective.
• Budgets should be analyzed and ensure they are sufficient based on expected work and outcomes.

Naming of the Chief Diversity Officer

The title of the Chief Diversity Officer is a standard and known title in higher education, private industry, and in governmental organizations. “CDO” is a common organizational title similar to chief academic officer or senior student affairs officer, which may or may not be used in an everyday title. However, there could be some limitations to using “CDO.” The term “diversity” is a simplistic word that does not fully encompass the breadth or depth of what someone in this role should be doing. If CSUN would consider a change in title, a few other options could be “Vice President of Justice, Equity, and Inclusion,” “Vice President of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” or “Chief Equity & Inclusion Officer.” Some institutions use dual titles, such as “Vice Provost of Equity and Chief Diversity Officer.” The challenge with changing the title would lead to the person and institution having to explain the role and function, which could be a challenge but also an opportunity to redefine and set new expectations. Regardless of title, it is critical to note that this role should have the same level of title, influence, and power as other vice presidents or cabinet level officers. The position should also report to the President and have influence over the entire institution regarding JEDI vision and efforts.

Support for the Chief Diversity Officer

Outside of a new JEDI Division, there are several other needs to ensure the CDO is successful. Many senior officers as well as anyone doing JEDI work, the emotional exhaustion, burnout, and turnover are high. In order to fully support people in these roles, a support structure and wellness plan must be considered. The working world and higher education is shifting, and employees are demanding more emotional and well-being support in order to be effective and be retained. The following are critical to the long-term success of the CDO:

• The President should continue to supervise the CDO, and the CDO should have direct and regular access to the President.
• The President should have a strong understanding of how to support a CDO. Supervising the CDO should include an understanding of how to lead, mentor, develop, and support a team member doing full-time JEDI Work with an identity-conscious lens (Brown et al., 2019). The institution should consider direct support around wellness, emotional health, and well-being for the CDO–as well as all employees and especially those who may experience vicarious trauma– and support them in attending conferences and development opportunities. The CDO role should consider the institutional structure that can support wellness as well as reduce the need for self-caret. Their emotional, mental, and physical health is critical to their success.

The recommendations stated above may not be achievable all at once, but there should be a long-term strategy to get to the point of having a well-structured and resourced Division of JEDI. The CDO needs the institutional power to create a strategy, act, and hold the institution accountable. The fundamental role of the CDO role is to challenge an institution to change. Many CDOs are not set up to be effective and are held accountable for not meeting expectations. Additionally, the work of a CDO is deeply personal, and often the person in a CDO role is personally experiencing racism, sexism, cisgenderism, homophobia, ableism, and other forms of oppression, while also trying to shift a large institution's culture. The CDO needs personal and institutional support to be effective and maintain their wellness.

Areas of Concern & Growth	Recommendations Overview
JEDI Visions for the Institution	Create a JEDI vision, strategy, and plan Embed JEDI vision in the annual planning process Executive leadership should understand the JEDI vision and align with their work Executive leadership should be present at JEDI event and efforts JEDI vision must be thoroughly communicated with transparency at the center
Coordination of JEDI Efforts	Host regular gatherings and spaces for those doing JEDI work Groups doing JEDI work should have shared communication plans Collective group of those doing JEDI work should invest in trust-building, healing, and coalition work
Focus on JEDI Work	Expand JEDI work beyond a simple focus on race, and take an intersectional approach to racial justice and social justice work Train those doing JEDI work on intersectional theories and practices Ensure disabled community, LGBTQ+ community, veterans, undocumented, and carceral impacted populations are included
Infrastructure to Support the CDO	Create a JEDI Division led by CDO AVP of Compliance and compliance work should sit under JEDI Division, but the CDO should not be doing day-to-day compliance work Office of JEDI Training & Development should sit under CDO Bias reporting and response team and staff should sit in JEDI Division JEDI communication officer should support JEDI Division Administrative support and budgets should align with goals and expectation
Structure on Accountability	Imbed JEDI work into strategic and annual planning Institutional research should understand and support JEDI work; research and assessment should disaggregate across all marginalized communities Budget and resource allocation should align with JEDI goals and actions Performance evaluations should include JEDI topics and outcomes A bias reporting and response process should be created and well-communicated
Communication	Create a long-term JEDI strategy and implement short-term actions. Hire a JEDI-focused communication officer to adequately inform and connect CSUN communities JEDI communication inform, educate, and empower JEDI communicator officers should have the skills to engage with media during crisis
Capacity Building	Create a JEDI Training & Development Office Trainings should focus on short-term and long-term employee development JEDI training and development should be incorporated into systems of accountability. JEDI training and development should begin with a focus on senior leaders, communication officers, and institutional researchers

The recommendations offered are extensive and will take time and resources. As CSUN aims to implement this report, a number of factors should be considered. Some key considerations are:

Create a Timeline:

The recommendations listed will take time, yet some initial actions can be implemented immediately as the search for a new CDO begins. As CSUN searches for a new CDO, they can ensure they are hiring the right person for the role, and the new CDO would know they will be building a Division. A key recommendation is hiring a CDO well-reversed in racial justice and social justice work related to other marginalized communities. The new CDO should have theoretical knowledge of intersectional approaches to social justice work and proven practice in serving various communities; those specifically named were BIPOC, undocumented, LGBTQ+, disabled, veterans, and carceral impacted populations.

Build Upon Resources:

As named above, the recommendation includes expanding personnel to include training and development staff, bias response staff, and communication and project management staff. In addition to staffing, time and operational budgets must be planned for.

Maintain Communication:

Many individuals shared their ideas, hopes, and pain to create this report. As the report is finalized, sharing the report is critical to building trust and transparency. A timeline and realistic expectations of what is accomplishable with institutional resources should be shared with those supporting this project.

Remain Committed:

CSUN continues to dig deep and explore new ways to advocate for JEDI work and is not fearful of hard conversations. We recommend remaining committed to challenging conversations, trust-building gatherings, and moving the needle toward justice. The recommendations listed may seem intimidating at first review, but over the next few years, it could be accomplished, and the results will be evident. Guiding an institution toward justice, equity, and inclusion takes time, commitment, and resources.

1. Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
2. Aguilar, C., Bauer, J., & Lawson, K. (2017). The critical first year: What new chief diversity officers need to succeed. A Witt/Kieffer Survey Report in the Fields of Higher Education, Healthcare and Academic Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.wittkieffer.com/webfoo/wp-content/uploads/The_Critical_First_Year_CDO_Survey.pdf
3. Brown, R., Desai, S., & Elliott, C. (2019). Identity-conscious supervision in student affairs. New York. Routledge.
4. Dickenson, S. (2022). Symptoms of burnout for DEI practitioners. DSRD Consulting. Retrieved from https://www.dsrdconsulting.com/post/symptoms-of-burnout-for-dei-practitioners
5. Lemons, J., & Medina, C.N. (2022). Higher education chief diversity officer: The toughest job you will ever love. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.diverseeducation.com/opinion/article/15287783/higher-education-chief-diversi ty-officer-the-toughest-job-you-will-ever-love
6. Parker, E. T. (2019). Structuring diversity: Chief diversity offices as structural responses to a cultural issue. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 4, 263-277. https://doi.org/10.28945/4433
7. Parker, E.T. (2020). Do colleges need a chief diversity officer? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/08/20/chief-diversity-officers-play-vital-role-if-appropriately-positioned-and-supported
8. Washington, S. (2019). Leading through ambiguity: A phenomenological examination of chief diversity officers (Doctoral dissertation). Concordia University, Oregon.
9. Wells, J. (2021). Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: A qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, California.
10. Williams, D.A. & Wade-Golden, K.C. (2013). The chief diversity office: strategy, structure, & change management. Stervling, VA. Stylus Publishing.

Facilitation Guide for Stakeholder Meetings

• Introduce facilitators. Acknowledge our role.
• Share why we were hired to partner with CSUN; to gain insight, perspectives, and ideas on Equity Infrastructure at CSUN.
• All comments will be kept confidential, and nothing will be directly associated with individuals or collective groups.
• Please share verbally or put comments or questions in the chat.
• There are no right or wrong answers. We just want to hear from you.

(Questions will be adapted depending on the audience the participants work directly with)

1. Can you share who you are, any pronouns you want us to use, and your role at CSUN related to this project?
2. What is going well now on the campus related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion that you hope would NOT change?
3. What are some of the top needs of the audience your area is charged with serving?
4. What are some of the top obstacles you or your program have in supporting your audience?
5. What are specific resources you or your department/program need to be successful in supporting your audience?
   • Of these resources you named, what would be the top priority that you think would bring the most impact?
6. Do you feel like your program is able to actively collaborate with other offices and/or identity-focused programs?
7. Do you feel like you have a clear understanding of CSUN’s vision for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion? Please explain why or why not.
8. What type of support, supervision, or leadership do you and your program need to be successful?
9. When you think about the current CSUN organizational structure that is related to diversity and equity work, are there any changes that could be made that would help your area more effectively do your work?
10. As you think about what type of person or role should be guiding and leading justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion work at CSUN, what are important elements?
11. Are there other individuals or committees with campus responsibilities related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion work that you recommend we interview?
12. Is there anything else you want to share?

Conclude by thanking them and letting them know they can share more information by emailing .

Stakeholder Groups Invited for Listening Sessions

Employees/Centers/Departments/Committees:

• AVP, Human Resources
• Director, National Center on Deafness
• Director, Disabilities Resources and Educational Services
• Commission on Diversity and Inclusion
• AVP, Student Affairs, Equity and Inclusion
• LGBTQIA+ Advisory Committee
• Faculty Senate Educational Equity Committee
• USU Associate Executive Director, Equity, Programs and Leadership
• CSUN Black Student Success Council
• AVP, Faculty Affairs
• AVP for Student Success
• Co-Directors for Equity and Compliance for Faculty Recruitment and Retention
• Ethnic Studies Dept. Chairs
• Senior Advisor to the President for Inclusive Excellence
• Resource Center Directors/Manager/Coordinators
• Educational Opportunity Program

About PMJ Consulting Team:

Dr. Emily Prieto (she/her) serves as Managing Partner for PMJ Consulting as well as the Vice President of External Affairs and Chief of Staff to the President at Samuel Merritt University. She has extensive experience in higher education, formerly serving as Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of California, Davis, the director of the Latino Resource Center at Northern Illinois University, and in adjunct faculty roles teaching courses on US-Mexico Border Relations and Multicultural Education.

She has dedicated her professional career to creating a more inclusive environment for first-generation, immigrant, and underrepresented school youth; she also served as the executive director of the AB540 and Undocumented Student Center at UC Davis. During her time at Northern Illinois University, Dr. Prieto served on the Board of Directors for Instituto del Progreso Latino. As a leader at IDPL she helped pioneer education pathways tasked with providing a comprehensive set of services for low-wage and low-skilled workers.

Dr. Prieto earned her Bachelor’s of Science degree in Community Rhetoric from the University of California, Davis in 2002, and her master’s and doctoral degrees in Education from UC Davis. She is also a graduate of U.C. Berkeley’s Executive Leadership Academy and has received two Fulbright Specialist grants administered by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State to work with educators in Nigeria and Japan on teaching and research strategies.

Dr. Joshua Moon Johnson (he/they) serves as a Managing Partner at PMJ Consulting as well as the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at West Valley College. He also was formerly the Vice President of Student Services and the Title IX Coordinator at the College of San Mateo. He has published four books; his first book, Beyond Surviving: From Religious Oppression to Queer Activism was a #1 Best-seller on Amazon.com for Gay & Lesbian Activism. Joshua's other books include Authentic Leadership, Queer People of Color in Higher Education, and Queer & Trans Advocacy in the Community College.

Joshua previously served as the Dean of Equity and Title IX Coordinator at American River College in Sacramento, the Assistant Dean/Director of the Multicultural Student Center at UW-Madison and as the Director of the LGBT Center at the University of California. Santa Barbara. Joshua received a doctorate in higher education and LGBT studies from Northern Illinois University, and a master's degree in student affairs from Binghamton University. Joshua also has a master’s degree in Marketing Analysis from the University of Alabama and a bachelor’s in business from the University of South Alabama.

Joshua has served as a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Semester at Sea/University of Virginia, Concordia University-Portland, and Binghamton University-State University of New York. Joshua is a former chair of the NASPA (Student Affairs in Higher Education) MultiRacial Knowledge Community and held several positions with the Asian Pacific Islander Knowledge Community. Joshua serves as a Board member for the Association of California Community College Administrators and as the Equity Team Lead. Joshua also served as the Vice President of the board for the Sacramento LGBT Center. Joshua has presented more than 50 national presentations and regularly serves as a trainer, consultant, and keynote speaker at campuses and conferences across the country. Visit www.joshuamoonjohnson.com to learn more.

Nick Daily (he/they) has over a decade of work leading, advancing, implementing and training in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion spaces. He has a BA in Women’s and Gender Studies with a minor in religious studies, and a Master’s in Education with a specialization in Oppression Reduction. Nick is the Founder and CEO of an equity and inclusion consulting company supporting non-profit organizations and large national & international corporations. They formerly served as a Dean of Equity and Inclusion, the senior diversity officer on a college campus of 32,000 students in central California. The foundational philosophy of their approach to life is: LuvServedDaily - The consistent pursuit of happiness for self and others.