“`html

As state universities throughout the U.S. encounter intensifying scrutiny regarding topics like diversity initiatives and tenure security, fresh insights from the University of Washington provide critical lessons on how these institutions can address politically sensitive issues without abandoning their fundamental values.

The research, recently released in Organization Science, evaluates how public universities came to their decisions regarding same-sex domestic partner benefits in the early 1990s and 2000s. Scholars found that institutions—especially those in traditional states—often tactically modified not just if and when they enacted inclusive policies, but also how they defended those actions.

“When institutions face influential stakeholders who oppose their principles, the way they present their decisions can be just as crucial as the decisions themselves,” stated Abhinav Gupta, co-author and chair of management in the UW Foster School of Business.

UW News engaged with Gupta about what lessons universities can draw from this earlier era of socio-political tension.

Can you share the motivation behind this research?

AG: This endeavor started while I was pursuing my doctorate at The Pennsylvania State University, where my co-authors and I aimed to comprehend how institutional transformation occurs under ideological pressure. We were particularly intrigued by the LGBTQ+ rights movement, which has been one of the most effective in recent U.S. history — not only in shifting societal values but also in catalyzing real changes in workplace policy and practice.

Among these changes, the acceptance of same-sex domestic partner benefits by universities emerged as a tangible, quantifiable achievement with significant resource implications. It provided us with a focused avenue to analyze how inclusive policies are put into practice within organizations that must navigate conflicting political and economic pressures.

We weren’t merely interested in whether universities adopted these benefits — we aimed to understand how they managed the political dimensions of those choices, especially in areas where conservative legislatures controlled institutional budgets. This presented an opportunity to study how organizations pursue value-driven change pragmatically, often advancing their commitments in ways that acknowledge the perspectives of key stakeholders.

Over time, we constructed a comprehensive dataset of leading public universities, tracing the development of this policy from 1990 to 2013. Modeling that timeline was meticulous, but it enabled us to recognize patterns in how universities enacted and communicated these decisions — strategically aligning with credible entities within their environments, such as significant local employers, while adjusting their rhetoric to mitigate backlash.

While history doesn’t replicate exactly, the same fundamental dynamics frequently resurface. This instance presents a narrow yet insightful view of how change materializes — not solely through confrontation, but through patient, deliberate efforts that gradually forge consensus. For anyone aiming to promote equity in intricate institutional settings, there are significant lessons on how the LGBTQ+ movement transformed advocacy into enduring, systemic change.

What trends did you observe in universities’ decision-making?

AG: One of the most remarkable patterns we noticed was in states where public universities depended significantly on funding from conservative legislatures. In these situations, university leaders were often profoundly concerned about possible backlash. They feared that dedicating funds to support same-sex domestic partner benefits could be perceived as ideologically misaligned with legislative priorities.

We examined adoption trends across prominent public universities—research institutions and flagship facilities nationwide—and identified a clear and systematic pattern. Universities in more progressive states were often early adopters of these benefits, with some taking action as early as 1991. In contrast, their counterparts in more conservative environments frequently delayed nearly a decade longer to implement similar policies.

What was particularly revealing was how these late adopters articulated their decisions. Many universities in red states did not prioritize social justice arguments. Instead, they employed a “business case” perspective, tying their decisions to market-based justifications—stressing competitiveness, talent acquisition, and employee retention. These institutions typically adopted the policy only after significant local employers had done so, effectively using the private sector as cover. This allowed them to frame the decision as a practical response to labor market dynamics rather than an ideologically motivated action.

This observation led us to formulate a broader theoretical insight: when organizations foresee ideological pushback from key stakeholders, they often seek “exemplar organizations”—entities already perceived as legitimate by those stakeholders. By mimicking the actions of these exemplars and adopting rhetoric that resonates with stakeholder values, they can mitigate opposition and garner support without forsaking their objectives.

Conversely, universities in more liberal states commonly referred to peer institutions and articulated their decisions more explicitly in terms of fairness and inclusion. This illustrates that organizations do not merely comply or resist when faced with ideological pressures—they adapt. They make strategic determinations about when and how to act, often personalizing their messaging and references to acquire legitimacy in varied political and cultural landscapes.

What insights can universities derive from this case study, especially in today’s context?

AG: We’re navigating a period of intensified scrutiny and political strife, with universities increasingly positioned at the forefront. In many ways, higher education has historically enjoyed a level of autonomy—yet that autonomy hinges on relationships with a diverse range of external stakeholders whose values may not always coincide with those of university leadership, faculty, or students.

This moment raises a fundamental inquiry: What actions should universities take when their internal objectives clash with the beliefs or expectations of those who wield influence over their resources—like policymakers, donors, or local leaders? Some might contend that institutions should remain steadfast in their values, irrespective of the consequences. However, our research implies that universities often fare better when they strategically engage with their surroundings, rather than disregard it.

This doesn’t entail compromising principles. It involves recognizing the value frameworks of key stakeholders and learning to communicate in ways that resonate. For instance, when universities face resistance to inclusive policies, framing those choices in terms of economic vitality, workforce requirements, or community significance—topics that frequently enjoy bipartisan acceptance—can be effective. The objective is not to dilute the message but to rephrase it in a manner that broadens support rather than incites opposition.

In our research,
“““html

We additionally highlight the significance of “exemplar organizations” — revered institutions that doubtful stakeholders already regard as authentic. When a university can reference esteemed peers or leaders from the private sector who have embraced a similar path, it mitigates the perceived risk of emulating that approach and positions the choice as practical rather than ideological.

At their finest, universities are remarkable entities. They generate scientific advancements, educate healthcare practitioners and business executives, bolster local economies, and create opportunities for the upcoming generation. Their contributions aid individuals across political, cultural, and socioeconomic divides. To consistently provide that value, particularly in polarized times, institutions of higher education must forge broad-based alliances — not by sidestepping conflict, but by seeking commonality wherever feasible.

Other contributing authors included Chad Murphy from Oregon State University and Forrest Briscoe from Cornell University.

For further details, reach out to Gupta at [email protected].

“`