Guidance on Federal Actions

Dear Worcester State Community,

Worcester State University President Barry Maloney has signed the public statement by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, “A Call for Constructive Engagement.” As of April 27, more than 500 current leaders of colleges, universities, and scholarly societies have signed the letter. The full text is below. Please visit the AACU website to view the signatories.

A Call for Constructive Engagement

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.America’s system of higher learning is as varied as the goals and dreams of the students it serves. It includes research universities and community colleges; comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges; public institutions and private ones; freestanding and multi-site campuses. Some institutions are designed for all students, and others are dedicated to serving particular groups. Yet, American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.

Because of these freedoms, American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good. Colleges and universities are engines of opportunity and mobility, anchor institutions that contribute to economic and cultural vitality regionally and in our local communities. They foster creativity and innovation, provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce, and are themselves major employers. They nurture the scholarly pursuits that ensure America’s leadership in research, and many provide healthcare and other essential services. Most fundamentally, America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy.

The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.

University Communications
Worcester State University
486 Chandler Street
Worcester, MA 01602
worcester.edu

Dear Students, Faculty, and Staff,

We, the nine presidents of the state universities, write to share yesterday’s statement by Patrick Tutwiler, Massachusetts Secretary of Education, regarding federal actions that impact our students, employees, and the Commonwealth:

“This country has long fought for all students to have equal access to a public education. Resting policy on the denial and retelling of history and demanding that we do so as well is neither sustainable nor acceptable. This is an attempt to take us back decades, exacerbating real inequities that still exist today. Massachusetts will continue to acknowledge and address historical and persistent gaps in student access and achievement, including Black and Brown students, students with disabilities, low-income students and other marginalized student populations. We are working with our Attorney General’s Office to support schools and higher education institutions to continue progress, within the law, towards building a more equitable education system for all students.”

We stand united with Secretary Tutwiler and write to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to inclusive education. Massachusetts’ state universities have long been dedicated to the fundamental belief that public higher education should be accessible, inclusive, and empowering for all students. Our mission is rooted in the principles of opportunity, access, instructional excellence, academic freedom and the transformative power of education.

We are dedicated to providing a safe and supportive learning and working environment for all our students and employees. Our universities exist to educate, uplift, and empower students from all backgrounds, perspectives, and identities. We recognize that many within our community are experiencing fear, uncertainty, and frustration with the executive actions coming from the federal administration. To those who feel this uncertainty and fear, know that we hear you, we support you, and we will continue to advocate for you.

Please be assured that we are collaborating with the Department of Higher Education, the Executive Office of Education, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, and our colleagues at the University of Massachusetts and community colleges as we all work “towards building a more equitable education system for all students.” We applaud Secretary Tutwiler for his leadership as we navigate the evolving federal actions and impact on our campus communities.

As public higher education institution leaders, we embrace our duty to champion policies and practices that ensure every individual has the opportunity to learn and to thrive. We are guided by our shared responsibility and remain committed to advocating for policies that support our campus communities.

Respectfully,

President Linda Thompson, Westfield State University
Chair, State Universities Council of Presidents

President James F. Birge, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts

President Frederick W. Clark, Bridgewater State University

President Mary K. Grant, Mass. College of Art and Design 

President Donna Hodge, Fitchburg State University

President John D. Keenan, Salem State University

President Barry M. Maloney, Worcester State University

President Francis X. McDonald, Massachusetts Maritime Academy 

President Nancy S. Niemi, Framingham State University

As elected committee members, the AUC represents the entire campus community. Recently, the committee drafted a resolution affirming its commitment to university core values, and the resolution was unanimously approved. These core values will continue to guide the committee as we navigate future decisions.

We are pleased to share the the resolution with the campus community:

The All University Committee (AUC), composed of and representing the university’s faculty, staff, and students, serves as a governance body engaged in all academic matters, including curricular and policy. The AUC hereby reaffirms its commitment to Worcester State University’s core values; in particular, Worcester State is an inclusive community that respects the dignity of all of its members. The AUC believes that the success of the university as an institution is indivisible from its adherence to its core values, and encourages all members of the university community to take this opportunity to reacquaint themselves with the statements of those values.

Worcester State Core Values:

Academic Excellence: We are committed to providing opportunities to excel in a close-knit learning environment characterized by distinguished faculty, excellent teaching, and creative linkages between classroom learning and real-world experiences.

Engaged Citizenship: We are committed to promoting community service, social justice, the democratic process, environmental sustainability, and global awareness to prepare students to be active and informed citizens.

Open Exchange of Ideas: We are committed to inviting and considering the most expansive range of perspectives in teaching and learning, in scholarly and creative work, and in the governance of a complex, diverse institution.

Diversity and Inclusiveness: We are committed to being an inclusive community in which our diversity enhances learning for all and in which people from all cultures and backgrounds have the opportunity to participate fully and succeed.

Civility and Integrity: We are committed to respecting the dignity of all members of our community and to demonstrating this commitment in our interactions, decisions, and structures.

Dear Worcester State Community:

The new presidential administration’s recent executive orders and policy announcements have raised many questions about how these changes will impact Worcester State University and our students. I want to begin by underscoring that student well-being and success remain our top priorities. Through the efforts of many faculty, staff, and students, we have built a strong foundation of inclusiveness and belonging on our campus that puts students first, and that will not change. In addition, Worcester State is part of a large and diverse community where the matters at hand concern us all.

It is with that lens that the university is evaluating the federal changes both internally and in collaboration with partners across the state.

I have been working with the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, as well as other state agencies that are addressing the impact of federal changes on state universities. I am committed to keeping the campus community informed through email updates and Campus Conversations regarding the impact of these executive orders and policy changes, including, but not limited to Title IX, LGBTQIA+ rights, immigration enforcement, DEI policy and initiatives, and federal aid, as they develop and are analyzed. Recently, the university organized a very well received citywide presentation on “Know Your Rights” for faculty and students with the Mass Office for Refugees and Immigrants, and we will continue to look for opportunities to share useful information. In a separate communication today, we will provide information regarding university procedures should you be asked by immigration law enforcement about the immigration status of a student or employee.

Internally, I have charged three colleagues — Chief of Staff Carl Herrin, Vice President for Enrollment Management Ryan Forsythe, and Interim Assistant Vice President for Communications and Marketing Deborah Alvarez O’Neil — with staying abreast of the changes, gathering information, coordinating across campus divisions, and providing real-time recommendations to the university. Moving forward, we will be inviting faculty and student involvement as we navigate these changes.

On Tuesday, we began to closely monitor the pause on federal grants and loans that was issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with particular attention to any implications for federal student financial aid and federal grants. The U.S. Department of Education has signaled that the pause would not affect financial aid. This rapidly evolving policy change was rescinded by the OMB on this afternoon, after a judge on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., temporarily blocked the implementation of the OMB directive until Feb. 3. 

We recognize that the executive orders and policy changes raise questions and uncertainty for members of our community. At the end of this email are resources and support available to students, faculty and staff. 

Sincerely,

Barry M. Maloney

President

Worcester State University Resources

• Office of Inclusive Excellence and Belonging
• Title IX Office
• Counseling Services for students
• Employee Assistance Program for employees
• International Programs Office

The following procedures for university employees reflect the Mass State Attorney General’s Office guidance for state colleges and universities.

Guidance for Worcester State University employees responding to visits or inquiries by government or law enforcement agents

Background: Until recently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were generally prohibited from engaging in surveillance, interviews, searches and arrests at or near
institutions of higher learning, which were designated as “protected” areas along with hospitals and places of worship. On Jan. 20, 2025, the Acting Department of Homeland Security
Secretary issued a directive rescinding ICE guidelines regarding protected areas. The updated directive does not include concrete rules for ICE agents to follow, and instead instructs agents to use “common sense” when determining where to engage in immigration enforcement.

Responsibility for enforcement of federal immigration law does not rest with local law enforcement or University Police. Under Massachusetts law, public safety officials including University Police do not have the authority to and will not detain an individual “solely on the basis of a Federal civil immigration detainer.”1 University Police will continue to uphold state law. Moreover, University Police by its policy do not specifically request information about citizenship or immigration status. 

It is important to note, however, that immigration officials may also be on campus for reasons unrelated to enforcement, for instance, for routine administration regarding international students.

Student and Employee Information

Student records remain protected by Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Massachusetts Fair Information Practices Act (“FIPA”). Any request for records about the
immigration or citizenship status of students should be referred to Vice President of Enrollment Management Ryan Forsythe for review. Any request for employee records related to
immigration or citizenship status shall be referred to Employee Services AVP and Chief Human Resources Officer Sathi Mitra for review. To ensure compliance with FERPA, FIPA, and/or other
applicable law, employees are prohibited from providing any information about any university student or employee to any government agent or law enforcement, unless specifically
authorized to do so by VP Ryan Forsythe for students and AVP Sathi Mitra for employees.

Federal immigration officers must comply with legal process, such as obtaining a subpoena or court order, in order to access student records; with one notable exception: ICE officers may
request information regarding international students in attendance as F-1 or J-1 nonimmigrants. Such queries from immigration officials should be directed to the International Programs Office.

University procedures

In-person visits: If you observe a law enforcement officer other than University Police on campus, please notify UPD by calling 508-929-8044 to confirm UPD’s knowledge of their
presence on campus. If you are approached in the workplace by a government agent or law enforcement officer requesting information about a student or employee, with or without a warrant, subpoena or other legal document, take the following steps:

• Do not attempt to review or verify their legal documents. Do not attempt to respond to their request.
• Ask for and write down the agent(s) name, agency and badge number(s).
• Ask the official(s) to wait so UPD or a representative from the President’s Office can be called to provide further assistance.
• Call University Police at 508-929-8044 or the Office of the President at 508-929-8020.
• Notify your supervisor.

Other types of requests for information: If you receive a phone call, email or written request for information regarding a student or employee, these requests will be routed to either
Enrollment Management (Admin 159) for students or Employee Services (Admin 313) for employees.

• In writing: Hand deliver the document to the VP of Enrollment Management’s office if the request concerns a student and to Employee Services if it concerns an employee.
  Notify your supervisor.
• Phone: Take the name, agency, and phone number of the official and the nature of their request. If the request concerns a student, pass the information along immediately to the
  Office of the Vice President of Enrollment Management. If it concerns an employee, pass along the information to Employee Services. If you are not sure, pass along the
  information to the Office of the President. Notify your supervisor.
• Email: Respond to the email and copy VP Ryan Forsythe for student records and AVP Sathi Mitra for employee records. Your message should read: I am forwarding your request to xx for review and response. Thank you, Your Name

Private spaces on campus

If a government agent or law enforcement, other than University Police, is within non-public campus space or seeking to gain access to any non-public space, University Police should be contacted immediately.

Resources

The following resources have been provided by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office:

• Mass.gov: Finding legal help
• Student Immigrant Movement
• United We Dream
• Educational Resources for Immigrants, Refugees, Asylees and other New Americans | U.S.Department of Education
• Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
• University of California, Principles in Support of Undocumented Members
• National Immigration Law Center
• Greater Boston Legal Services
• President’s Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration

Know Your Rights: Ice Enforcement, A Guide for Immigrants, Families and Communities

Information for Massachusetts Colleges and Universities Regarding Immigrant Students

Student records remain protected by Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Massachusetts Fair Information Practices Act (“FIPA”). In accordance with FERPA and other Federal and state laws, Worcester State does not share student information or other protected data unless compelled to do so by law or a court order, and only after legal review. Similarly, employee records are confidential under protections afforded by state law.

Information for Undocumented Students

To: Massachusetts Institutions of Higher Education and K-12 Schools
From: Office of the Attorney General, Executive Office of Education, Department of Higher Education, and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Date: February 26, 2025

In view of recent Executive Orders (EOs) and a U.S. Department of Education (USED) “Dear Colleague” letter dated February 14, 2025 targeting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility policies and programming in schools, the Office of the Attorney General, Executive Office of Education, Department of Higher Education, and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education are reissuing the appended and updated Joint Guidance regarding the Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision on race-conscious admissions policies at institutions of higher education, and providing the below supplemental guidance to clarify the legal landscape for the Commonwealth’s Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) and K-12 schools as they work to advance educational goals and access to educational opportunities.

Educational institutions should continue to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility among their student bodies. The USED’s February 14 “Dear Colleague” letter correctly identifies federal civil rights laws that apply to IHEs and K-12 schools. It then, however, misconstrues Supreme Court precedent, wrongly implies that it might be unlawful for schools to consider the impact of policies and practices on diversity, and creates a misimpression of the impact of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programming. To be clear, nothing in the letter changes existing law and well-established legal principles that encourage – and even require – schools to promote educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds.

The February 14 Dear Colleague letter asserts that the Supreme Court’s holding in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) “sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But SFFA is specific to higher education admissions practices that use an applicant’s race as a “plus” factor in evaluating an applicant for admission. Schools can and should assume that SFFA’s reasoning extends to a school’s provision of a concrete benefit or opportunity to a particular individual based on that individual’s race – and that any such preference would have to meet the exacting standard of strict scrutiny. But it is not unlawful for a school generally to take race into account in its operations and programming, contrary to the USED’s suggestion otherwise in its letter. And a school may lawfully consider the ways in which a particular student’s qualifications are related to their race, as the Supreme Court itself pointed out in SFFA.

The February 14 Dear Colleague letter also incorrectly suggests that it would be unlawful for educational institutions to implement a race-neutral policy in order to increase racial or other forms of diversity. SFFA did not hold race-neutral policies unlawful, and in fact, the Supreme Court has encouraged “draw[ing] on the most promising aspects of . . . race-neutral alternatives” to achieve “the diversity the [institution] seeks.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 339, 342 (2003).

Binding precedent in the First Circuit Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed that it is not unlawful for a school to implement race-neutral admissions practices in order to increase student body diversity. Specifically, on December 19, 2023 the First Circuit upheld a temporary admissions plan for three selective high schools in Boston that was intended to and did result in an increase in racial, socioeconomic, and geographic diversity. The temporary plan shifted admissions criteria from standardized test scores to GPAs and student zip codes. The First Circuit held that the plan violated neither Title VI nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the First Circuit held that “[t]here is nothing constitutionally impermissible about a school district including racial diversity as a consideration and goal in the enactment of a facially neutral plan.” The First Circuit found “no reason to conclude that [SFFA] changed the law governing the constitutionality of facially neutral, valid secondary education admissions policies under equal protection principles.”

Finally, the February 14 Dear Colleague Letter mischaracterizes DEI programs, stating that they “frequently preference certain racial groups” and “stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes.” On the contrary, practices and programming that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility confer important educational and social benefits for students. They foster learning environments that provide all students an equal opportunity to learn and better prepare students to work in our diverse country and participate in our multiracial democracy. They are essential to promoting fair treatment and eliminating stigmatization. The SFFA decision has no bearing on these lawful DEI programs, and the February 14 Dear Colleague letter cannot and does not prohibit them. Similarly, the February 14 Dear Colleague letter does not disturb the continued viability of course offerings that address race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or related topics.

Longstanding legal precedent has established that educational institutions may take steps to build student bodies that are meaningfully diverse across numerous dimensions, like geography, socioeconomic status, race, and sexual orientation and gender identity, among others. The President cannot change this longstanding legal precedent by executive order, and a Dear Colleague letter certainly cannot do so. The attached guidance provides additional information on legally compliant ways that educational institutions can continue to meaningfully and successfully achieve the worthy goals of diverse and equitable student bodies consistent with state law, Title VI, and the U.S. Constitution.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, AND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Legal Guidance Regarding Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v Harvard and Lawfully Promoting Access to Educational Opportunity The Office of the Attorney General (AGO), Executive Office of Education (EOE), Department of Higher Education (DHE), and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) are issuing this updated Joint Guidance to reaffirm our support for the Commonwealth’s institutions of higher education and K-12 schools furthering their work to promote access to educational opportunity in the wake of recent documents issued by the federal government.

The original version of this guidance was released in October of 2023 following the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. the University of North Carolina (“SFFA”).

This updated Joint Guidance clarifies that nothing about the federal government’s recently issued documents changes our original guidance on this matter; nor do they prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in admissions and access to higher education or other educational settings. As in the original guidance, this Joint Guidance also includes steps that K-12 schools can take to set their students up for success.

LEGAL OVERVIEW

On June 29, 2023 the Supreme Court issued its decision in SFFA, holding that the race-conscious admissions systems utilized at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, respectively.

In SFFA, the Court asserted three bases for its determination that Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause and therefore also Title VI in relying on individual students’ race as a factor in the admissions process. First, the programs were not operated in a way that could be “subjected to meaningful judicial review” under the applicable strict constitutional scrutiny, because their stated goals were “not sufficiently coherent” to be measurable, and the programs did not “articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and the goals they pursue” due to the use of “imprecise” and “opaque” racial categories. Second, the programs used race in a “negative” manner that “operate[d] as a stereotype.” And third, the programs lacked a “logical end point.”

Accordingly, the Court found Harvard’s and UNC’s programs violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. In its decision, the Court recognized the “tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions” and noted that “[u]niversities may define their mission as they see fit” within constitutional limits. Similarly, at the end of the decision, the Court stated that schools could continue to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life” so long as that consideration was specific to that student’s “unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, students must be treated based on their experiences as individuals—not on the basis of race.”

Importantly, SFFA involved a challenge to higher education admissions processes that used race as a “plus” factor in specific ways. The case has no direct application to programs outside of higher education admissions or to admissions policies that do not use race as a factor for admissions in the same way.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Institutions of higher education and K-12 schools can and should adopt numerous approaches as they work to advance their respective missions, break down barriers, and increase access for historically underrepresented students. The following answers to Frequently Asked Questions are intended to provide guidance on steps that can be taken, consistent with SFFA and existing state and federal law, to improve post-secondary access and success.

Institutional Mission

Can institutions of higher education still include diversity as part of their missions? And may institutions of higher education still work to support efforts to achieve equitable outcomes in persistence and graduation of their students?

Nothing in the Court’s opinion or the federal government’s recent documents challenges institutions’ ability to work to achieve diversity and equity, so long as the particular race- conscious admissions practices at issue in SFFA are not the tools through which they seek to achieve those goals. Institutions of higher education may continue to articulate missions and goals related to student body diversity and equitable outcomes for students and may use all legally permissible methods to achieve that diversity and equity, some of which are described below.

Admissions

How can institutions of higher education consider race in admissions?

The Supreme Court in SFFA limited the ability of institutions of higher education to consider an applicant’s race in and of itself as a factor in deciding whether to admit the applicant.

However, the Court made clear that “nothing in [its] opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” As such, an institution may choose to advance its educational goals by using a holistic review in admissions considering factors such as cultural competencies, income level, first generation to attend college, neighborhood or community circumstances, disadvantages overcome, and the impact of an applicant’s particular experiences on their academic achievement and on the perspectives they would bring to the school environment. Institutions may use admissions criteria that look beyond traditional measures such as grades to more holistic ones that allow for consideration of applicants’ life experiences more generally, including their experiences linked to their race and how those experiences shaped their lives and the unique contributions they can make to campus.

As stated in the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA, institutions remain free to consider any quality or characteristic of a student that bears on the institution’s admissions decision, provided that any benefit is tied to “that student’s” characteristics, and that the student is “treated based on his or her experiences as an individual,” and “not on the basis of race.”

What changes should institutions of higher education make to their admissions practices?

Those institutions of higher education that consider race in the manner that the Court addressed in the SFFA decision will need to re-evaluate their current practices to ensure compliance with the law. For instance, using an individual student’s race as itself a “plus” or a “tip” in holistic admissions decisions was directly addressed by the Court, and any such practice must be re-evaluated. Institutions may also choose to audit their existing admissions processes, practices, and criteria to identify potential barriers to access for historically underrepresented students and use the Court’s decision as an opportunity to retool operations in ways that better align with their institutional mission. More specifically, institutions can reconsider and recalibrate criteria that have generally created barriers for certain student groups, such as application fees, early admissions plans, legacy preferences, testing requirements, athletic preferences, curricular requirements, and grade thresholds.

What kind of data can institutions of higher education collect?

Institutions of higher education may continue to collect data based on race and ethnicity, and other aspects of identity. The Supreme Court in its SFFA decision addressed the use of individual students’ race as a plus factor in admissions decisions—not collection of data on race for broader informational, research, and evaluation purposes. Accordingly, while such data collection may continue, under the Court’s decision, institutions may not provide an advantage to an individual applicant specifically on the basis of the data collected about their race, including, e.g., based on how their race compares to the race of other students admitted thus far during a rolling admissions process.

Recruitment Practices and Programs

How can institutions of higher education target outreach of potential applicants?

As part of a comprehensive approach to conducting outreach to potential applicants, institutions of higher education can make special efforts to reach particular groups. Institutions do not have to ignore race when identifying prospective students for outreach and recruitment programs, provided such programs do not give targeted groups of students preference on the basis of racial status in and of itself and that all students have the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.

For instance, campuses may work with community organizations serving particular groups to share information about the application process and attract applications from that population. Similarly, as long as programs are open to all participants, regardless of their race, institutions may offer outreach, informational, and other programs that may, because of their content, be of particular interest to members of a particular racial group. For example, partnering with affinity groups associated with community-based organizations is one culturally sustaining approach often undertaken by institutions that seek to diversify their student bodies.

Additionally, institutions of higher education may continue to target outreach to potential applicants based on a wide range of characteristics, such as academic interests, geographic residency, financial means and socioeconomic status, family background, and parental education level.

Institutions of higher education may also engage in expanded outreach by increasing the number and types of high schools, organizations, and regions admissions officers visit during the recruiting season.

How can institutions of higher education support potential transfer students?

Institutions of higher education may continue to make every effort to recruit and support transfer students, including learners from the Massachusetts community colleges. To that end, institutions should deepen relationships with the full range of associate-degree awarding institutions in the Commonwealth and create meaningful experiences for transfer students. Institutions should continue to work to implement all elements of state policy and programs like MassTransfer and/or consider joining the Massachusetts Transfer Guarantee. Colleges and universities can evaluate whether they have developed clearly articulated, well-publicized pathways from two-year institutions to four-year institutions for transfer students, like the DHE-developed Associate to Baccalaureate (A2B) Mapped Pathways.

Overall, transfer policies and practices should be examined to consider ways in which they might become more student-centered and broaden access. Institutions may consider providing additional financial resources and coordinating wraparound supports for transfer students. For example, programs that allow dual admission to both a community college and a university promote collaboration across institutions, with learners gaining greater access to services such as academic advising, career counseling, and cocurricular and social opportunities to better facilitate the transition between institutions and create a greater sense of belonging.

How can institutions of higher education build relationships with middle and high schools?

Institutions of higher education may engage in many policy and practice reforms to develop robust relationships with middle schools and high schools across the Commonwealth with particular emphasis on those schools with historically low college-going rates.

Practices may include

• Partnering with particular schools and/or community-based organizations to offer mentoring or other programming throughout the school year to enhance students’ academic exposure;
• Hosting or sponsoring local, state, and federally funded college access programming;
• Hosting Admissions Days at regional high schools, inviting seniors and partnering with admissions counselors and financial aid advisors to complete admissions applications;
• Reaching out to area high schools and designating a high school staff person to recruit students from inside the high school as a “high school liaison” who meets with students individually, in small groups, and in large settings and assists students in filling out applications, visiting the institution of higher education, and looking at career options;
• Offering tours on campus for local high school students that include information sessions where students can complete applications on the spot; and
• Hosting “academic preview days” for local high school students focused on individual programs, where students are invited to visit campus for the day including campus tours, lunch with staff and faculty, and a current student panel focused on the particular program.

Can K-12 schools continue programs aimed at ensuring that college and career programs are inclusive of all students, and that schools provide a safe and supportive environment?

Administrators, teachers, counselors, and staff at K-12 schools should be confident that they may continue to carry out the vitally important work of preparing all students in the Commonwealth for life after graduation and ensuring a safe and supportive school environment.

How can K-12 schools continue to prepare all students for college or careers?

It is imperative that the Commonwealth’s K-12 schools maintain and strengthen efforts toprepare all students for college and careers – including students from historically underrepresented backgrounds, who are disproportionately students of color. Schools must continue to provide all students with access to the course work, instruction, enrichment opportunities, counseling, and other preparatory programs necessary to prepare them for college and careers. In some circumstances, this may mean taking targeted action so that students from underserved communities, including communities of color, are aware of, have access to, and participate in these courses and programs. Schools should be confident that these vital programs and practices remain lawful.

Schools should consider dedicating particular attention to the following types of programs and services:

• My Career and Academic Plan (MyCap), a student-centered holistic, multi-year planning tool designed to provide middle and high school students with ongoing opportunities to plan for their academic, personal/social and career success in high school and beyond;
• Making available online college and career planning resources, that can help students and their families successfully navigate the college application and selection process, empowering them to envision the future that they deserve;
• Comprehensive counseling and coursework that prepares students for post-secondary education;
• Providing students with a rigorous high school course of study such as MassCore which aligns with college admissions standards;
• Offering Early College, which gives students the opportunity to take college courses and earn credits at no cost before they graduate high school;
• Innovation Career Pathways program, which provides workforce learning options to high school students, including learning opportunities in Advanced Manufacturing, Information Technology, Environmental and Life Sciences, Health Care and Social Assistance, Business and Finance, and Clean Energy; and
• Expanding access to Advanced Placement (AP), dual enrollment, and other advanced course work during high school; specifically for the expansion of AP courses taking advantage of DESE’s commitment to provide AP exam fee subsidies for all low-income public school students.

How can K-12 schools promote a safe and supportive school environment?

Schools should continue to take affirmative steps to create and maintain a positive school climate where all students feel safe, supported, respected, and ready to learn. School leaders should review their current practices to ensure that their district is complying with all applicable anti-discrimination, anti-bullying, and civil rights laws and developing and implementing programs and policies that incorporate best practices and meet the needs of their local community. Schools’ responsibilities under these laws include the following:

• Review curriculum to ensure that it promotes tolerance and does not perpetuate discriminatory or demeaning stereotypes;
• Provide students at all grade levels with needed skills, knowledge, and strategies through evidence-based bullying prevention curriculum;
• Develop and implement plans to support and protect students who are vulnerable to becoming targets of bullying or harassment because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability, among other identifying characteristics;
• Prohibit students from engaging in bullying or harassment and prescribe disciplinary measures that may be imposed for violations;
• Implement comprehensive policies and procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to bullying and harassment; and
• Train administrators, teachers, and school staff to successfully implement anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies and procedures, including by providing teachers with sufficient professional development opportunities to ensure that they can carry out the educational requirements above.

The Joint 2024 Guidance from AGO, EOE, and DESE on Schools’ Legal Obligations to Prevent and Address Hate and Bias Incidents includes best practices to help administrators, teachers, and school staff meet their obligations to prevent and address bias, hate, and prejudice in K-12 schools. Additional information and resources for creating and sustaining safe and supportive learning environments are available on DESE’s Office of Student and Family Support webpages.

***

If you have further questions, please contact our offices using this email address: accessandadmissions@mass.gov

February 26, 2025

Mass Attorney General Joint Guidance on Race Neutral School Programs

Dear Worcester State Community,

Recent federal policy announcements have raised many concerns for members of our community who are LGBTQIA+. While there are numerous changes happening at the federal level, Worcester State’s commitment to LGBTQIA+ students, faculty, and staff has not changed. Worcester State will continue to maintain a safe, inclusive, and welcoming community for LGBTQIA+ students and employees.

Moreover, LGBTQIA+ students and employees at Worcester State are protected under the Massachusetts State Universities’ Equal Opportunity, Nondiscrimination, and Title IX Plan, and Student Code of Conduct, which prohibit acts of discrimination, bias, or harassment against LGBTQIA+ students. Worcester State’s chosen name policy remains unchanged.

In May 2022, the university established Common Ground, a space outside of the Student Center where we permanently fly the LGBTQIA+ Pride flag. This flag is an important symbol for us all, affirming the university’s support and celebration of the LGBTQIA+ community. Just this week, the students, faculty, and staff gathered at Common Ground for a special event led by the Black Student Union to raise the Black Lives Matter flag alongside the Pride flag. Throughout the academic year, the student-led LGBTQ+ Alliance at Worcester State hosts numerous events, and I have particularly enjoyed Lavender Graduation held in May. 

Faculty and staff continue to be strong LGBTQIA+ advocates and allies. The university’s LGBTQIA+ Advisory Group within the Office of Inclusive Excellence and Belonging is charged with providing educational resources and programs supporting and celebrating the LGBTQIA+ community; collaborating with university offices, programs, and groups that address the needs of the LGBTQIA+ community; and making recommendations about policies, programs, and services for LGBTQIA+ students, faculty, and staff at Worcester State. 

I’m also pleased to share that we are in the midst of hiring a new assistant director for LGBTQIA+ Outreach and Title IX Resource Coordinator. This individual will lead a newly expanded LGBTQIA+ Community Center that we will open in the Student Center. Stay tuned for this good news in the near future.

You will find resources for the LGBTQIA+ community on the new MyWooState landing page, Guidance on Federal Actions, accessible with your university sign-in. This page provides students, faculty, and staff with updates, information, and resources regarding Worcester State University actions related to executive orders and policy announcements.

I hope you will join me Friday, Feb 7 at 11:45 a.m. for a Campus Conversation via Zoom. Here is the link, and I look forward to seeing everyone there. Join Zoom meeting: https://worcester.zoom.us/j/96508362157

Sincerely,

Barry M. Maloney

Worcester State is committed to nondiscrimination and equal opportunity. The University is dedicated to providing educational, working, and living environments that value the diverse backgrounds of all people. LGBTQ+ Resources and Information.

To the Worcester State Community:

While planning international travel, please be aware that U.S. federal travel restrictions are evolving and may influence travel plans. As the summer months of increased international travel near, we are sharing general information for all employees and students regarding recent changes at the U.S. borders. Employees and students are encouraged to stay informed, be prepared and seek consultation from an attorney, should they have concerns or need legal advice regarding circumstances specific to them. 

The decision to travel to another country, as always, should be made with consideration for one’s own personal risk factors, and made with caution and vigilant attention to detail given recent federal action on immigration enforcement and enhanced vetting at ports of entry. Travelers are encouraged to inform a trusted individual remaining in the U.S. where and when they are traveling internationally. Additionally, travelers may store additional copies of their documents and inform the trusted individual of where the documents can be retrieved if necessary.

In general, all travelers, including U.S. citizens, green card and visa holders, arriving in the United State at land border crossings and airports are subject to examination, inspection, searches, and screening by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). All travelers should be prepared when traveling overseas for CBP agents to perform the following actions:

• Request and Inspect Travel Documents: Ensure all travel documents are on your person and in valid order. The University’s International Programs Office can answer general questions regarding all other travel documents. Please also consult the U.S. Department of State’s website for any questions regarding passports.
• Questioning at the Border: Be prepared to answer questions about the nature and purpose of your travel and eligibility to be in the United States. CBP agents are allowed to speak to travelers and possess discretion to determine a traveler’s eligibility to enter the U.S. Refusing to engage with a CBP agent may cause one’s travel to be delayed or for the CBP agent to deny entry.
• Conduct Searches of Bags and Persons: CBP agents have the authority to collect travelers’ names, biographic data, biometric data, cross-reference records, and search a person and their belongings without a warrant. CBP agents are not required to have a suspicion of wrongdoing to conduct a search and are allowed to use their discretion and judgment to justify such a search or examination, or a traveler may be picked at random.
• Electronic Devices and Accounts: CBP agents may ask travelers for their voluntary consent, but can also direct them to turn over and unlock electronic devices for inspection, including cell phones and laptops. CBP agents possess the authority to inspect, examine and copy any and all content and data that is stored locally on the device, including social media accounts, email and text messages, which may be searched for content deemed by authorities to be hostile toward the United States or supportive of foreign terrorists or threats to national security and utilized when determining eligibility to enter the U.S..Travelers being admitted as a U.S. citizen can refuse to allow their device to be searched when returning to the U.S.; however, U.S. citizen travelers should be prepared for delays, and possible seizure of their device if they refuse to comply. Meanwhile, visa holders and foreign visitors can be denied entry to the U.S. if they refuse to comply. Before travelling internationally, consider which devices must be used while travelling, the content and data stored locally on your phone rather than on a cloud storage server, as well as the data you will acquire and generate during travel.

Dear Students,

Many of you have inquired about summer international travel. Below are some considerations to keep in mind in light of recent developments regarding U.S. immigration policy and practice.

At this point in time, we are strongly encouraging all F-1 students to remain in the United States and not to travel abroad due to the current uncertainties. If personal circumstances necessitate travel, we will require you to meet with our international programs staff prior to travel. Please be aware that, given the evolving landscape of federal immigration enforcement, F-1 students cannot be assured of readmission to the United States.

We are also advising all F-1 students to keep photos on your phone of the following “proof of status” documentation:

• Your current I-20
• Your EAD card (if applicable)
• The ID page of your passport
• Your I-94 record

Additionally, you should carefully consider whether you should travel with a personal computer or other similar electronic device; and you should review any information and apps on any cell telephone.  These devices are subject to inspection at all U.S. borders by immigration officials, and potentially subject to confiscation.

Finally, due to the prevailing uncertainty, Worcester State urges you to stay informed of current developments.

Additional resources can be found here:

• Stay Informed About Your Rights: https://www.worcester.edu/mywoostate-facstaff/guidance-on-federal-actions/
• Executive Orders and Federal Agency Actions: https://www.nafsa.org/executive-and-regulatory-actions-trump2admin
• Travel Information: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20defines%20a,within%20this%20100%2Dmile%20zone.
• Electronic Devices and the Port of Entry: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority/border-search-electronic-devices#:~:text=All%20travelers%20crossing%20the%20United,devices%20during%20the%20inspection%20process.