Is This the End of DEI?

[music]

0:00:11.9 Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to Office Hours with EAB. We launched this podcast five years ago at the height of the pandemic to help university leaders navigate urgent and evolving challenges. Every episode tackles a critical issue, but today’s conversation addresses a threat unlike any we’ve covered before. The new presidential administration has introduced policies that could fundamentally reshape higher education. In particular, a recent “Dear Colleagues” letter from a political appointee at the Department of Education orders colleges and universities to eliminate all diversity initiatives or risk losing federal funding. What does this directive actually mean? How should higher ed leaders respond? Our experts break down the implications and discuss potential paths forward in an uncertain policy landscape. So listen closely, think critically, and prepare to act with both caution and conviction in the months ahead, for the sake of your students, your institution, and the future of higher education.

0:01:22.1 Carla Hickman: Hello, and welcome to Office Hours with EAB. My name is Carla Hickman, and I lead the research division here at EAB for our K-12 and higher education partners. As I hope many of our listeners know, our job in the research division is to examine some of the biggest threats and challenges to higher education, to K through 12, and to help our partners, institutional leaders, all shapes and sizes, navigate their way through those challenges with confidence in their decision-making. Now, there is no other issue in recent years that has the potential to change the way college and universities operate more than the executive orders that have been issued across January, the early part of February, by the current president that seeks to end any vestige of diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs at colleges and universities. And then, of course, a late Friday night surprise, on February 14th, the acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education issued what is known as a “Dear Colleague” letter that expanded upon those orders.

0:02:23.6 CH: In short, if you’re a little less familiar, that “Dear Colleague” letter articulates a broad expansion of the legal framework established by the Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. It ordered all colleges and universities to eliminate all diversity initiatives or risk losing federal funds. We’re going to talk about the practical effect of this order, share our thoughts on how higher education institutions might navigate the new federal policy landscape, find a path forward that is consistent with your mission, your vision, your values. Importantly, I want to say at EAB, again, we’re researchers. We are here to help you synthesize all of the information, the data, the facts.

0:03:04.8 CH: We’re looking at the evidence. We aren’t a policy shop. There are incredible associations and leaders that are doing important work on that front. We’re also not lawyers. So this is not legal expertise. We are telling all of our partners that with this issue and all of the executive orders that are impacting higher education today, it is essential that first and foremost, you are seeking the counsel of your legal advisors. But I do think that it is important that we’re all discussing the issues. And I hope through the conversation today, we can give you a little bit of a sense for what are the issues at hand? What are we hearing from partners? And what are some of the decisions and actions that you can take with no regrets today? So to help me examine these issues today, I’ve invited my colleague, Kate Brown, to the discussion. So Kate, would you mind telling our listeners a little bit about your role here at EAB?

0:03:55.8 Kate Brown: Yeah, thank you so much for having me, Carla on the podcast… So my role at EAB, I lead best practice research studies for university leaders, primarily focused on topics like DEI, flashpoints activism, student mental health. So a lot of those types of topics that intersect what we see going on right now.

0:04:21.9 CH: And Kate, you’re also co-leading our effort internally to just understand the policy landscape. So I want to thank you for that work. I know you and all members of our team have been kept very busy over the last few weeks. So thank you in advance for the insights you’re going to share today, but also for all the work that you’re doing on behalf of EAB partners and the industry more broadly.

0:04:41.8 KB: Of course.

0:04:42.8 CH: And I wanted to ask, maybe we start, let’s make sure that everyone listening today is understanding a high-level summary of that Students v. Harvard Supreme Court decision. And talk to us a little bit about the connection between that case and the “Dear Colleague” letter that I referenced.

0:05:00.9 KB: Yeah, that’s a really great question. So SFFA, or Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, was decided by the Supreme Court in June 2023. In this decision, the Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions. And this specifically targeted the use of an applicant’s racial identity as a formal criteria in the admissions process, specifically at Harvard and UNC. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority and held that affirmative action in college admissions is in fact unconstitutional. But I want to just go back. I know you had asked about how this relates to the “Dear Colleague” letter. Carla, I’m wondering if it might be helpful for some of our listeners if we offer a bit more context about what a DCL, or “Dear Colleague” letter, is.

0:05:50.9 CH: Yeah, good point. So, for… A “Dear Colleague” letter has been used. Actually, it was originally used quite often by congressional representatives, by senators, as a way in which to lobby support for a legislation or to communicate to others in the government, as well as to the stakeholders writ large, how they understood an issue or why they were supporting an issue. But “Dear Colleague” letters have also been used by agencies like we’re seeing here with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education, to explain their interpretation of the law or their understanding of what a particular issue or set means. And I think what’s important to realize “Dear Colleague” letters do not have the force of law. So they are not a legal mandate. They are instead a communication tool. So in this case, the Office of Civil Rights is communicating out to higher education, but also to other stakeholders, to other agencies, to Congress, how they understand a particular issue set.

0:06:49.4 KB: Great, thank you. Yeah, so you had asked about how does the SFFA ruling about race-based affirmative action relate to the recent “Dear Colleague” letter, or DCL. And I want to be specific that the DCL that we’re referring to here was issued on February 14th, 2025, from the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. And it provided context about how the Department of Education intends to interpret and enforce civil rights laws related to race-based preferences and DEI initiatives in all educational institutions in the United States, so not just higher education. And how this ties to SFFA is that the DCL explicitly cited that SFFA as it cited as the basis for what it outlined as new guidelines for educational institutions. So everything that the DCL explained as mandates for educational institutions is really based in that court decision. And specifically, the DCL expanded the scope of the SFFA ruling, stating that the Supreme Court’s ruling applies more broadly beyond just college admissions and essentially applies to every corner of education and any race-conscious decision or program or practice.

0:08:12.9 KB: In addition, in the letter, OCR extended the SFFA ruling to argue that even race-neutral programs that are motivated by racial considerations are impermissible, and any attempt to use proxies or other cues to determine or predict race would also be considered a violation. So that is a really big change for institutions as well. The letter directed all educational institutions to adjust their practices to comply with these guidelines within 14 days, or they would be subject to investigation and loss of federal funding. And I can’t emphasize enough how much of a shock and fire drill this felt like for educational leaders. 14 days after issuing guidance on a Friday night is unprecedented. For context, in our analysis of anti-DEI state legislation, typically states gave educational institutions at least three to six months to comply with oftentimes more specific guidance than the broad and vague mandates in the DCL letter.

0:09:21.0 CH: Yeah. I think that’s such an important point, Kate. I know instantly, not even waiting until Monday morning, we were already hearing from partners. And what made the panic feel so acute was the vague and broad mandate, right? Not only did this feel like it was an extension, maybe, I’ve seen the word overreach, of the Supreme Court’s original decision. But the 14 days was intended, I believe, as a strategy to create scramble, to create chaos. And while partners do have good records, this was so broad, you know, everything that they were doing on campus. And in the DCL, I recall it said, you know, “This isn’t just thinking about your admissions or scholarships.” This is programs, it’s housing, it’s graduation ceremonies, right? And so just think about a large research institution or an entire K-12 school district trying to simply get a good record of everything that may or may not be included. A lot of panic there. You know, I think right now when we think about this connection, we think about this moment that our partners find themselves in. What do you think is important for educational leaders to know about how this case and this “Dear Colleague” letter are related?

0:10:37.2 KB: Yeah, well, like I mentioned, the letter uses that court case as a foundation for their ability to enforce these guidelines. However, like you mentioned, Carla, DCLs are not always law. They’re not law. And in fact, there are some important differences to note. So the first one I wanted to just call out is the decision was limited to the admissions context, the SFFA struck down just one component of admissions policies, the practice of using an applicant’s racial identity as a formal criteria during the admissions process. So it’s really not clear whether the SFFA ruling applies beyond admissions. So that’s important to keep in mind. And then even if it does expand beyond admissions, the decision is limited to policies that employ “racial classifications” which is a term the Supreme Court has historically applied to policies that classify or treat individuals differently based on their racial identities. But in this ruling, the majority and concurrences that were all authored by conservative justices distinguished between the racial means Harvard and UNC used. So what I mean by racial means is that racial classification, which they did deem legally suspect.

0:11:57.6 KB: And the racial ends the defendants pursued, and that being racial diversity, which was labeled legally permissible. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts characterized the defendants’ diversity-related interests as worthy and commendable, and opinions from Justices Scalia, O’Connor, and Kavanaugh noted that governments and universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race. So all of this is to say that when looking at that court case as precedent, the majority in that case actually explicitly supported that the racial ends the defendants pursued, just not the means of racial classification, but the ends were permissible. So the mission of undoing effects of past discrimination, combating biases, eliminating unjustifiable barriers, and cultivating inclusion, is all supported in this case by the majority, which actually was heavily conservative in this particular ruling.

0:13:09.0 KB: Those are just some of the differences between SFFA and the DCL. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in our legal system over the next year or so. But what I think is important to remember here is that the DCL alone is not law. And institutions should be cautious about preemptive action. It’s really great to begin planning and organizing to implement so that you’re agile and prepared. But working to adapt proactively before there is a clear legal mandate to do so can come with some pretty serious risks.

0:13:43.4 CH: Yeah, I wanna underscore this point. When we are working with partners, when I’ve been speaking to educational leaders about how they are navigating this moment, one of the terms that’s really stuck with me is we must follow the law. And that is clear, that is important. I don’t think that is in dispute. But what we cannot do is allow these moments when things are still being adjudicated, when there is a lack of clarity, to prevent institutions from taking what you called preemptive action. I’ve been calling it anticipatory compliance, right? So just going into your university and immediately shuttering programs and immediately stopping the good work that institutions are engaged with that not only support students, but support their broader mission, their community, their staff, their faculty, their principals, because as you said, this applies to K-12 as well. I think there is a real risk to moving forward before you are legally required to do so. And in some ways, I think that may be what this administration is looking and hoping to do, that with enough chaos and sort of a lack of clarity, people will simply begin dismantling the commitments that they have made to creating an inclusive environment.

0:14:56.2 CH: Almost every strategic plan that I read from a higher education institution today expresses a commitment to inclusive excellence. And as the justices wrote in the opinions for the SFFA case, as you notice, that’s going to be a tongue twister. We’re just going to have to start calling it something else. But as they noted, the ends of creating a vibrant and diverse environment that benefits the educational experience of all students, that has been affirmed. And so I just want to remind folks, we’re talking a lot here about that “Dear Colleague” letter you referenced at the top. There are also a number of executive orders that are saying that certain diversity, equity and inclusion practices must be stopped at risk of federal funding. That is actively in the court now. So there were immediately cases brought saying that this was unconstitutional. One that we are watching, there has been a federal judge that has issued what is known as a preliminary or provisional injunction. When they looked at the anti-DEI executive orders, the judge found that the plaintiffs did have standing on three different terms.

0:16:03.5 CH: So there were a couple of provisions in those executive orders that were deemed by at least the initial federal judge as perhaps being against the First Amendment. You know, the termination provision that said all executive agencies needed to terminate equity-related grants and contracts, has a First Amendment consideration. There’s a certification provision in those executive orders where federal contractors and grant recipients have to certify they don’t operate any program promoting DEI that would violate applicable federal anti-discrimination laws, that’s a First Amendment issue.

0:16:37.1 CH: There’s an enforcement threat provision that directs the Attorney General to encourage the private sector to end diversity, equity, and inclusion. And there again, First Amendment, there’s vagueness issues, right? So again, that does not mean that that court case has been decided, but there are injunctions in place. The courts are doing what the courts do, which is understanding, interpreting, and enforcing the law. And I want folks to understand that I know it can feel uncomfortable to sit in this moment when we have a lack of clarity, but simply moving forward and ending those supports can have real detrimental impacts. And I would not encourage folks to do much more right now than plan, organize, audit your activities, work closely with your policymakers and your legal counsel, and make sure that at the end of the day, you’re really thinking about: What is it that we do as higher education, as educational institutions? What are the commitments that we have made? And stay informed.

0:17:35.3 CH: So the “Dear Colleague” letter, Kate, that has been very focused on race. Our conversation so far has been sort of focused on race, but other student groups here are being impacted. Diversity, equity, inclusion is not a conversation about race alone. We have students here who are impacted, who identify as something other than the two biological sexes that have been recognized by the current administration. I hope you could talk to us a little bit about other student groups, student cohorts, students that are potentially at risk.

0:18:04.9 KB: Yeah. Yeah. And I want to double down on that point that DEI is not just about race alone. So combined with recent executive orders from the Trump Administration, basically what we’re seeing is demands for dismantling diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives at educational institutions. And that DEI umbrella covers more than race. What is at risk here are programs and initiatives that support non-binary students, transgender students, students part of the LGBTQIA+ community, students with disabilities. And I know that I’m probably preaching to the choir here because most of our listeners work in education, and understand that DEI initiatives support many students with many identities across campus and across their journeys as students. But just wanted to underscore that point. So because the guidelines and directives are so vague, it puts educational leaders into this corner where they feel like they have to scrub their institutions, as you kind of mentioned, Carla, of anything DEI-related.

0:19:14.8 KB: But again, it’s not yet clear as to the legality of that mandate. And I think specifically something that a student group that I want to touch on a little bit more deeply is I think we’ve seen an attack on gender identity recognition and protections. So in particular, folks on your campus who are non-binary and they’re deeply impacted by these changes going on at the federal level. As many of you probably know, the Trump Administration released an executive order explaining that the federal government only recognizes two biological sexes, male and female, determined at birth. So now I think in this moment, it’s really important to pause and think about how just having that executive order issued at the federal level in our country, regardless of implementation on your campus might be impacting members of your community, being students, faculty, and staff. So it’s a really… It’s a good time to start thinking about how to leverage existing supports for these populations and how to optimize your ability to recognize those on your campus that are in need of help and your ability to connect them to resources.

0:20:32.5 CH: Yeah, I love that point that even without the force of law, the mere fact that it has been issued. And we have a mental health crisis in this country already. And I know many of the listeners, many of our educational partners, have been working diligently to provide and support students. This is going to be another moment when our students and our community are going to need us. So how should university leaders communicate with their students, their faculty, their key communities and stakeholders, about these policy changes in a way that sort of minimizes the confusion, takes the temperature of the room down a few degrees, but also maintains trust? I think that’s a really important issue here, that they trust that the institution is clearly communicating and helping them to navigate.

0:21:19.5 KB: Oh, that’s such a good question. And I think it’s… Just want to acknowledge how hard that is right now. That’s a really hard thing to figure out how to do. As a university leader and, or an educational leader of any kind, we’ve seen a lot of different flavors of how leaders have approached communication around what’s going on, especially with the rate at which things are being released and things are changing. It’s just really complicated. So obviously, this administration has caused truly extreme amounts of instability and uncertainty across the industry. And I think that will continue. And in general, when there is an open question, I think it’s human nature and no one’s really answering that question to just fill in the blank with whatever information you do have. So I would encourage leaders to think as much as possible and take as many opportunities as possible to fill in that blank proactively, to answer the questions that they can answer and provide the information that they can provide at any given time.

0:22:24.3 KB: And we’ve seen a few different examples of how institutions are doing this. Some are using a webpage that is regularly updated. Some are using just a memo or a letter from the president communicating the knowns and unknowns of what’s going on and their intentions as a leadership team. And some are hosting regular town hall forums where people can bring questions and concerns. And with that last one, I just wanna stress that whatever methods or combination of methods that you might choose to communicate with your campus, preparation is key. And I also wanna stress that having some kind of element to your plan that is an engagement component, so you’re able to have conversations with members of your campus community about what’s going on, it is really important. I think that having that person to person interaction can really help build a sense of community.

0:23:24.5 CH: Yeah. And I think closing the loop. So if you’re going to create a dialogue and you’re going to host a town hall or you’re going to send out a notification, thinking about consistency so that their groups are hearing the same thing. I had one partner share with me that they thought very intentionally. About if they needed different communications for the faculty versus the staff versus the students. At the end of the day, they realized the consistency of the message was important, because a student may go to a faculty member for clarification. That might be the person they trust and know best on campus. And you want to make sure everyone is working from the same set of facts. Any other proactive measures? I know at the top you said you’ve worked a lot on campus activism, on flashpoints management. Any other things universities can do now to sort of prepare for those flashpoints that may happen over the course of the next weeks, months, years ahead?

0:24:16.5 KB: Yeah. And I thank you for stressing that point about thinking about your messaging for different audiences and groups on your campus. We have some really great tools at EAB. We have a Higher Education Flashpoints Resource Center that has some communication tools that help as message map templates and all kinds of good stuff to help you plan that messaging. And it also has some other flashpoints-related advice, like a risk registrar and other resources to definitely check that out. But one that I want to elevate to your question, Carla, about other proactive measures is scenario planning. I think a really important… I think it’s really important and underestimated right now. And it’s understandable. There’s so much going on. It’s hard to take time aside to sit down and scenario-plan when you feel like you’re in the middle of a scenario at all times. But Carla, I know that you’ve spent a lot of time engaging with leaders on the topic of managing crises. Would you agree that now is a good time for scenario-planning or is there something else you might prioritize?

0:25:22.0 CH: Yeah, I think I really learned this lesson most during the pandemic when many of our partners, again, found that they did not have a regular time when their executive leadership teams were sitting down together and thinking about the future.

0:25:35.2 CH: And considering what might happen if things stay the course. So if a status quo scenario, a best case, a worst case, and in that exercise, thinking through, one, assigning accountability. So who are the very specific individuals, teams, and offices on your campus who should be monitoring and communicating with stakeholders? Thinking through what we call your no-regret actions. So regardless of where things turn out, what can we do now? Thinking through where you may have risk and may be underprepared. Maybe you don’t have a communication protocol in place. Maybe you haven’t thought through how the decision-making process will work in relation to shared governance at the moment of a crisis when you have less time.

0:26:17.8 CH: Shared governance is a time-intensive exercise or way of governing. And we don’t always have the luxury of time. We certainly felt that during the pandemic, but we need to maintain trust. And as you noted, it can feel like the last thing I want to do is pull up and think about what 2027 is going to look like, right? I’m just trying to get through Wednesday. But I do think it’s important because it can actually give you a great sense of confidence. We have found that it helps people prioritize their time, energy, and attention.

0:26:47.1 CH: I know you and our policy team have been thinking through what do you need to spend time on this month, this term, this semester, versus what are the things that should be sort of in that wait and see and monitor category? And putting that down on paper as a leadership team so that everyone has clarity and understands what is first order business, what is next, what can we do now, what do we have to wait? That as humans gives us some comfort. And I do think we’re all seeking right now that feeling of agency. And we’re also seeking that prioritization, that sense of direction. And I do think that that is something I would highly encourage. EAB is coming in and facilitating. And for us, it is not just describing the issues or what the future may hold, but it’s really focused on a decision guide. It’s really focused on a risk assessment, again, so that you walk out of that meeting with a set of action steps, and that can feel really empowering in a moment where you feel like a lot of your power has been taken away.

0:27:47.6 CH: So, Kate, I know we’re still in the early days. It is… Felt like a hundred years and yet it has only been a month. We’re still in these early days and it’s shaping up to be, I think, a pretty long and difficult four years under the administration. I don’t want to in any way minimize how challenging it has been. What do you think for you is some of the most important pieces of advice that you want to share with our listeners and with university leaders who are trying to deliver on the mission of our institution? And we had some tough challenges that we were facing before, but amidst all this upheaval, what do you want folks to hear?

0:28:25.6 KB: I think the first point I’d like to emphasize is just something that we’ve talked a lot about through this conversation. And that’s that overwhelming uncertainty. It’s expected over the next few years. It’s a political strategy that is really impacting education right now. And so, again, I would urge listeners to proceed with caution and certainly take steps to remain agile to respond, but also don’t lean too much into that pre-compliance. It’s a really difficult but worthwhile practice to find that sweet spot of prepared to comply as opposed to inability to comply or pre-compliance. It’s a bit of a threading the needle exercise, but it’s worth it. The second point I think I want to emphasize here is just keeping those most impacted in your communities in mind and continuing to elevate support resources available. I want to just emphasize that coming into this period of time, a lot of members of our campus communities were already feeling burnt out, overwhelmed. We were navigating a growing student mental health crisis. Faculty members were feeling burnt out. Staff members were feeling burnt out.

0:29:51.8 KB: So for everybody, I think elevating those support resources is really important right now, but especially for the groups who are feeling extra attacked, unwelcomed or unseen right now. So continuing to ask ourselves, what can we do to make them feel seen and included in our community is really important through this time. And then the last one, I actually would love to hear you elaborate a little bit on, Carla, but want to emphasize the point of not losing sight of core priorities. I know something that’s really tough, but right now is important, is thinking about how to still run the institution over the next four years.

0:30:31.9 CH: Yeah, I think about a lot that the chaos of this current moment, and you did notice the political strategy, it can be a distraction. We release every year a state of the sector where we look at the external landscape and all the threats and trends and forces that are impacting our partners and education. And we are in the midst of a crisis of public confidence in higher education right now. Trust in institutions writ large is at an all-time low. But trust in higher ed and its vision and its ability to deliver outcomes that it intends to deliver, there are a lot of folks who are skeptical. And those aren’t just the individuals who have not personally benefited from college. That includes college graduates.

0:31:16.0 CH: And so I know our university partners have been focused on: How do we ensure that we are hearing our skeptics, that we are not too quick to dismiss their concerns about the affordability and the accessibility of college, that it is an inclusive and welcoming place that is meant for all, that we celebrate the diversity of opinion, that we celebrate the plurality of our communities, that we are a place for civil discourse and learning how to agree to disagree, that we are a place that solves problems and makes the world better, that we are impacting our communities in large and small ways every day and focusing our strategic plan on that work? Every institution that I partner with is focused on the financial sustainability of their organization. It seems almost silly to talk about the demographic cliff these days because we’ve talked about it so much, but it impacts us in the United States in 2026, that is next year.

0:32:12.3 CH: And so thinking about demographic shifts and changes, thinking about pressure on your funding sources, not just your federal funding sources, but your state support. I think one of the things we’ve not touched on that’s been really hard for folks is state guidance and federal guidance may be in conflict. And so we have leaders who are trying to understand how to strike that appropriate balance when their governor and their state house may be pointing them in a different direction or may be moving at a different speed than what they’re hearing from the federal government. I don’t want to just focus on the challenges, there’s also good, important work in research and in teaching and in the adoption and interrogation of artificial intelligence. There’s incredible work being done with employer partnerships and community outreach. Good, important work that we cannot simply put to the side if we are going to deliver on that mission.

0:33:02.0 CH: And I fear already that the chaos is causing us to step aside. So, we are certainly at EAB a partner in helping bring that sense of prioritization and focus. But I think the ways in which we can get the advocacy and support of stakeholders, which we are going to need, we’re going to need, Kate, loud voices talking about how important education is. We need every student who has been impacted. We need every alum, every donor, every state legislator. We need federal government being able to explain and articulate why our university systems can be and should be a priority.

0:33:44.3 CH: And so you got to keep doing the work so that you’ve got those strong outcomes and great stories of impact to share. I want to thank you, Kate. I want to thank you for walking us through these issues today. And I want to thank all of our listeners for joining us. I want to give you a little message. First of all, I want to urge everyone in the education community to visit EAB’s new Federal Policy Resource Center. This morning, we’ve been talking about diversity, equity, inclusion and civil rights. But we are certainly looking at the many, many other issues that are touched. Everything from research funding and the research enterprise to the issues around immigration and international enrollment, issues of accreditation, of financial aid, the future of the Department of Education as an agency. There are lots and lots of issues here. And so I know that sense of overwhelm. We’re going to be trying to release on a regular cadence a set of policy proposal primers that distill that information and give you a discussion guide.

0:34:42.9 CH: We’re producing an index which gives you a sense, again, of what might be of more immediate concern, what are the things that we think are further down the road, we’re convening our partners on a regular basis, I think remembering the power of network and community right now. I don’t want folks to turn too inward, I don’t want you to insulate yourself, this is a moment to reach out. I think the education industry speaking with one voice and being connected to one another and pressure-testing ideas and working through response together is critically important.

0:35:11.3 CH: I’ve been so heartened by the work and the messages of association leaders, of faculty groups, of researchers and scientists and industry speaking up for research and science, we’re gonna need that community support. So, Kate, again, thank you. Thank you to all of our listeners. Take heart. You know, certainly at EAB, we believe so very deeply in the power of education to change lives, to help all students and all members of our community achieve their various goals and means. I know that this is a challenging moment, but we have weathered challenging moments and there is no industry that has more intelligent thinkers, more problem solvers, more optimists than education. And so I believe that we will see this through. And I think that that force of speaking in resistance when it is appropriate, clarification, information-sharing could never be more important. So thank you all. As again, take heart, look to us. We’re here to help. I thank you for the work that you are doing every day. And we’ll look forward to seeing you at another Office Hours soon.