When the faculty at Williams College voted this October to approve revisions to their Faculty Handbook to remove language referencing DEI and affirmative action, the decision drew national attention. But the real story isn’t the vote itself. It’s the process that got them there.
Williams’ approach offers a clear example of how colleges and universities can navigate complex governance issues through transparency, consultation, and shared purpose. In an era where institutions must reconcile shifting legal frameworks with deeply held values, Williams College demonstrated that the way a community engages with change often matters more than the change itself.
The October 7 vote was the culmination of months of structured, faculty-led work. The Faculty Steering Committee facilitated a process rooted in inclusion and deliberation: open listening sessions, anonymous feedback through Google Forms, and multiple working meetings with legal counsel to ensure the revisions aligned with federal guidelines and funding requirements.
Leaders at Williams understood something essential — the goal wasn’t simply to edit language. It was to ensure compliance with current law while maintaining a clear institutional voice and shared understanding among faculty. The revised handbook now positions the college to remain eligible for federal research funding while continuing to reflect its values and priorities.
Just as importantly, the process itself reaffirmed Williams’ culture of shared governance. Faculty were not bystanders; they were active participants in shaping policy, reinforcing the sense that institutional integrity grows strongest when built collaboratively.
Williams’ process embodies the best traditions of shared governance in higher education. At its core, this model assumes that faculty expertise, administrative leadership, and legal oversight can coexist productively when structured communication is prioritized.
The school governance improvement framework Williams employed created a disciplined process for engagement: opportunities for dialogue, transparency about purpose, and clear procedural steps. This structure gave the community confidence that the work was not politically motivated or rushed, but thoughtful, evidence-based, and consistent with the institution’s educational mission formulation.
What stands out most is that Williams treated the handbook as a living document—a reflection of its institutional vision and strategy, rather than a static set of rules. This mindset allowed the college to modernize policy language while reinforcing its commitment to integrity, equity, and legal compliance.
Williams College’s process is a reminder that academic compliance documentation doesn’t have to be a reactive, behind-closed-doors task. Instead, it can be an act of leadership—a chance to clarify values, align governance, and improve communication.
By integrating stakeholder input and faculty expertise, the college moved beyond a narrow focus on regulatory alignment to achieve something broader: a clearer, more inclusive understanding of how policy and practice intersect. The resulting policy manual development not only met external standards but strengthened internal cohesion.
In this sense, Williams turned a compliance challenge into a governance opportunity. The review became an institutional self-study—one that clarified who makes decisions, how those decisions are communicated, and how they align with the college’s long-term institutional vision development.
What can other colleges and universities take from Williams’ example? Three lessons stand out:
In many ways, the Williams process offers a roadmap for other institutions facing similar crossroads: engage deeply, communicate clearly, and design governance structures that align policy with purpose.
Across higher education, institutions are facing mounting regulatory pressures, evolving political climates, and growing scrutiny of their internal policies. The challenge is not just what changes must be made—but how to make them.
Williams College has provided a compelling answer. By combining institutional policy consulting principles with authentic faculty engagement, the college set a precedent for balancing compliance, mission, and leadership.
The outcome wasn’t just a revised handbook. It was a renewed model for institutional trust.
Policy reform, when done well, is far more than an administrative task—it’s an act of community building. Williams College showed that through transparency, collaboration, and procedural rigor, even the most sensitive revisions can strengthen an institution rather than divide it.
For other campuses, the lesson is simple: the key to successful reform lies not only in what you change, but in how you lead the change itself.
At Stevens Strategy, we’ve guided dozens of institutions through similar Faculty and Staff Handbook reviews. Our structured process helps colleges and universities modernize outdated documents, clarify decision-making authority, and align policies with current law and best practice rooted in the spirit of shared governance.
Is your campus needing to make updates to its handbook and policy documents, but does not know where to begin? Contact us today for a free strategy call.
