Executive Summary
UWM Identity Centers Design Input Session
From early February through early March 2026, UWM engaged students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community partners to gather feedback on a proposed reorganization that would merge eight existing identity- and resource-based centers into a single comprehensive student center to be located in the Student Union. This process included twelve in-person and virtual design input sessions, an ad hoc meeting with the Chancellor, staff discussions, and an online survey. In total, feedback reflects the perspectives of 268 unique individuals across participant groups.
Key Findings
- Strong opposition to proposed reorganization: Across all stakeholder groups, there is overwhelming opposition to merging the existing centers into a single comprehensive center, particularly under the current proposal.
- Timeline perceived as rushed: The proposed implementation timeline targeting Fall 2026 is widely viewed as unrealistic and insufficient for meaningful engagement, planning, and risk mitigation.
- Identity-specific spaces are essential: Students, staff, alumni, and community partners consistently emphasized that the centers function as critical identity-affirming safe spaces that cannot be effectively replaced by a generalized hub model.
- Direct impact on retention and student success: Students repeatedly credited the centers with their persistence, academic progress, and wellbeing, and expressed concern that consolidation would undermine these outcomes.
- Significant trust and transparency gap: Participants reported limited clarity regarding the rationale for consolidation, decision-making authority, and supporting data, contributing to mistrust and anxiety.
- Emotional and operational strain on staff: Center staff described heightened emotional labor, uncertainty, and workload strain.
- Physical space and privacy concerns: Participants raised concerns that a single hub would reduce privacy, accessibility, and psychological safety—particularly for students seeking support for sensitive or trauma-related issues.
- Reputational, donor, and community risk: Alumni and community partners warned that consolidation could damage long-standing relationships, recruitment pipelines, and donor support tied to specific centers.
- Conditional support for coordination—not consolidation: While consolidation is broadly opposed, there is cautious support for improved coordination, shared leadership, and collaboration across centers if identity-specific spaces, expertise, and histories are preserved.
Recommendations
Participants in both in-person and virtual sessions overwhelmingly noted that the proposed timeline, with implementation targeted for Fall 2026, feels rushed. More importantly, feedback indicated that students, faculty, staff, and community partners do not want the reorganization of the centers into one comprehensive center to move forward—particularly without a thoughtful, transparent, and inclusive process. Participants expressed a strong desire for the release of retention, enrollment, and impact data, along with more direct communication from senior leadership. Recommended next steps include:
- Adjust the implementation timeline to allow for additional stakeholder input and ensure continuity of current services.
- Finalize the establishment of the Assistant Vice Chancellor role to provide sustained leadership, strategic oversight, and coordinated sharing of knowledge, resources, and best practices across centers.
- Ensure appropriate support for center staff during the transition, including dedicated time for strategic planning, alignment, and reflection.
- Establish a student advisory task force to inform and support future planning and decision-making.
Background/Context
UWM is reimagining how it supports students by creating a new, student-focused center that will unify several existing services and spaces into one welcoming hub. This center would serve as a place where students can access support, build meaningful connections, and develop a stronger sense of belonging. The new center would bring together the missions, holistic student care approaches, and staff expertise of three offices in the Division of Community Empowerment and Institutional Inclusivity (the Black Student Cultural Center, Roberto Hernández Center, and Southeast Asian American Student Center) and five offices in the Division of Student Affairs (the First Generation+ Resource Center, LGBTQ+ Resource Center, Military and Veterans Resource Center, Off Campus Resource Center, and Women’s Resource Center). The new center would be part of the Division of Student Affairs, and its proposed location is on the ground floor of the Student Union. Planning for this transition began in Spring 2026 with the initial goal of being completed in time for the start of the Fall 2026 semester.
Purpose and Process
The purpose of the design input sessions was to gather input from students, faculty, staff, and community partners about key support services to be sustained, refined, or developed; possible names for the new center; ideas and/or new opportunities for the center; and suggestions for designing the space. Though we made the decision to reorganize the centers, we sought to include many voices to help shape the new structure. It is important to note that although we prepared a series of questions addressing student experiences, community and broader engagement, and physical space and branding, we honored participants’ requests to have time and space to process and respond to the consolidation plan. As a result, we were not able to cover all prepared questions in all sessions. Input on space design was limited during the sessions, and only a small number of survey respondents offered suggestions. The in-person and online sessions ultimately became primarily listening sessions, focused on discussing the role and impact of the centers and responding to participants’ questions about the process that led to the decision to create a new center.
This report reflects the perspectives of 268 individuals. This includes 225 participants— 122 students, 90 staff and faculty, 8 alumni, and 5 community members—who took part in twelve design input sessions (ten in person and two virtual) held between February 11 and March 9. Eight sessions engaged students affiliated with the impacted centers, two were open to the general campus community, two focused on campus community members, and another two gathered input from community partners and alumni. In response to students’ requests to meet with Chancellor Gibson, an ad hoc session was held and attended by approximately 40 students on February 18. Because some individuals participated in multiple sessions, total attendance across the twelve sessions was 369. An online feedback option was also offered. In total, 28 individuals completed the survey: 11 students, 6 staff, 4 faculty, and 7 community members. Additionally, two discussion sessions were held with 15 staff members representing the eight centers, and several center staff who were unable to attend submitted written feedback.
Key Findings
Participants raised consistent concerns and priorities that cut across sessions and stakeholder groups. These themes highlight what students, staff, faculty, and community members view as most essential to supporting student success and creating a welcoming campus environment. Below are key themes that emerged by participant group.
Student Perspectives
- Safe Spaces, Privacy, and Psychological Safety. Students consistently described existing centers as essential safe spaces—emotionally, culturally, and physically. Many emphasized that these environments allow them to feel protected from judgment and external pressures, offering a rare sense of comfort and familiarity on campus. Students also highlighted the importance of privacy within these centers, noting that having discreet, dedicated spaces enables them to seek support, speak openly about challenges, and connect with peers who share similar identities or experiences. Together, these elements contribute to a strong sense of psychological safety that students view as foundational to their wellbeing and academic success.
Supporting Quotes:- “The beauty of these centers is that I didn’t need to trauma dump… That is what makes it a safe space.”
- “I use the LGBTQ+ Center as a place to be myself without judgment, to work on assignments, and to spend time with my friends. Overall, it’s a safe space.”
- “Women feel safe in WRC. Students have been victimized and assaulted…are we not able to properly provide them with care?”
- “I wouldn’t be a student here if I didn’t have specific centers to go to. I would’ve dropped out.”
- “Shared identity space is the most important part.”
- “When you mentioned about keeping foundation of house, to us it feels like the house is getting torn down.”
- “I am not going to want to go in there if it is everybody. If I can’t be myself in the space, I just won’t go.”
- “I understand you want to keep spaces where we are together but individuality is very important, like LGBTQ or WRC if they don’t want to be outted or experience domestic abuse, that can be triggering…Important to have individual spaces that are safe and close.”
- “Takes unique type of trauma as veterans. Civilians don’t understand. MAVRC gives me the space to expand my capacity with people who get it and psychologically I can just chill out. We need that space. We know that we are safe. Destabilizes our psyche.”
- “I have used the space to relax and get homework done between classes and I have also asked the staff about questions related to my VRE [Veteran Readiness Employment] program.”
- “It would be a shame to see the cozy and quiet environment of the OCRC to be changed.”
- “I want what we currently have. People who care and genuinely want to support all students. People who put effort into prioritizing needs, speaking to students, and creating community spaces and events. I want the passion and energy that we currently have to be expanded.”
- “…Spaces like the UWM Southeast Asian American Student Center and other identity centers have helped students feel seen in ways they never felt before coming to college. When prospective students visit, they deserve to see that sense of belonging still exists. If the new center can preserve that warmth, that feeling of being understood, and the quiet reassurance that someone will help you when you’re struggling, families will leave knowing their student isn’t just enrolling in a university. They’re joining a community that will care for them.”
- “RHC makes students feel welcome where they don’t in other spaces. It is important to feel safe speaking Spanish. With rise of xenophobia we are scared of being reported to ICE.”
- “[I have] issues with being across from MAVRC and I couldn’t see sharing a space with them.”
- Fear of Identity Loss, Dilution, or Erasure. Students strongly oppose the consolidation because they perceive it as erasing cultural, gendered, and community-specific identities. Many expressed worry that combining multiple identity-based centers into a single unit will dilute the unique histories, services, and forms of support each center currently offers. Students emphasized that these spaces were created in response to specific community needs and struggles, and they fear that merging them may undermine the visibility and affirmation their communities rely on. For many, the proposed consolidation signals a step backward in institutional support and recognition of their identities. Many highlighted the ongoing need for identity-specific spaces in the current moment where they feel their individual and intersectional identities are under constant attack.
Supporting Quotes:- “Combining them all is not the right choice for women and other communities that these centers offer.”
- “The individuality of each space is the whole thing that makes us feel safe.”
- “United center seems like whitewashing of stuff….”
- “Do you really think that making a general home is going to make it more inviting for people?”
- “I need to process what you are telling me. You are destroying my identity. We are all in fight or flight mode but we are asked to talk about this.”
- “What is going to be done to ensure identities are not erased?”
- “If you try to combine cultures together it can destroy sense of belonging at UWM. UWM is very attractive to students because of unique cultural centers and UWM is making a big mistake combining cultural centers.”
- “You are acting like a new center will showcase UWM’s diversity but in reality you are erasing UWM’s ethnic and cultural population.”
- “I really don’t like the sound of this at all. The timing of this is extremely strange and doesn’t pass the smell test. I appreciate you trying to unify us but the world doesn’t work that way. Have to live through boundaries every day…I don’t know all the facts or asterisks, but I’m scared because I am not going to be a student forever. I am concerned about other Latinos and RHC will not be there.”
- “This is an attempt at cultural sterilization.”
- “What really needs to be done is to have it be the way it is now: separate spaces. Each group has different needs, services, and events. One room cannot sustain this, but multiple rooms can.”
- “I’m unsure if I would even go to the new center, after seeing how there won’t be specialized care given to my needs. Perhaps in due time.”
- “You’re not gonna be able to have just one name, like, the point of diversity is there’s lots! Stop trying to smash everyone together.”
- “One new center is not needed. Keep the current centers.”
- “We don’t need a new center– why fix what isn’t broken?”
- “The ‘one big center’ feels like erasure of individuality. Notice how the spaces of minorities are getting demolished?”
- Distrust in Administration and Lack of Transparency. Students repeatedly expressed that the decision to consolidate the centers felt predetermined, rushed, and hidden. They questioned why this was happening and why students were not involved in discussions before making the decision was made. Many shared that the process has left them feeling dismissed and excluded rather than valued as key constituents. This sense of opacity has amplified existing mistrust, with some students expressing concern that their voices were being sought only after major decisions have already been finalized.
Supporting Quotes:- “You should have discussed this with the people who actually work in the centers before deciding to do this.”
- “You guys already made a decision so what is going on?”
- “Angry because when I came back to UWM, resource centers have been there for me in my trials and tribulations. To come back to school after a year off saying centers are closing is a slap in the face to those who made centers what they are today. With center email, no language asking about feelings concerning center closings.”
- “I want more clarification. What does success rate have to do with resource centers?”
- “I see exact same situation and staff getting cut even though they are trying to move along the best way they can. I don’t see security.”
- “Having this conversation is like I understand more of this decision. Felt like dropping a bomb on the first week of school. If it would’ve come from the perspective that we are asking insight on this big decision and get input vs. ripping the band aid off.”
- “Biggest thing is focusing on transparency. When you are not with the people holding the answers and they are not giving anything, it feels like void. Very uncomfortable. Frustrating like “Why are y’all not saying anything?” Even FAQ page is beating around the bush. Get to why that has to happen.”
- “I understand not being able to say some things and not having plan fully fleshed out. Without transparency, it is easy for us to catastrophize and think about the worst outcome.”
- “UWM website never explicitly states why this is happening. If there is no specific reason financially, etc. that this is happening, why does it seem inevitable and that a different decision can’t be made? Causing a lot of stress in people without justification of why this is happening.”
- “I don’t know what the future holds but I really want this to be known that we are all against this and you are taking a piece of the heart of UWM.”
- “I’ve heard multiple tours when working at RHC that centers are moving or closing, etc. Is it that MSC’s will not exist anymore or we have our own corners in the Union? We feel flustered because we want to know what the truth is and how we can maintain these spaces.”
- “We have multipurpose rooms. Not enough space for 8 centers. Each center is unique and that is what drives diversity at UWM. Selling point. I saw nothing but tours in Union and Centers. Selling me hope and dreams and false promises and there is nothing. You are telling us you hear us, but y’all have not given us a visualization of what this will look like. Trust is not there because you haven’t given us anything to go off of.”
- “Related to OCRC, I know they house the free store and renting info. Will free store need to downsize? If this happens, how will students receive free and accessible household goods while paying for school? There are very few positives I see from this change and struggling to understand how decision was made.”
- “You guys made that decision. Asking how do we feel? You guys don’t understand. You are having these meetings with us but I don’t think you really do. I’m hearing you don’t have the budget. You threatened to close the center in 2018 and it was fought for. I’m pissed. I don’t understand. A lot of our Latino students are being discriminated against and hated and they ask what is in place you don’t care about us.”
- “The plan is to combine all these centers and obviously these design meetings is to try to incorporate something from all centers. Question is, do you genuinely think that we will be able to effectively keep not only the culture but sense of belonging that centers gave into one center? Reason I ask is because if you are for us then you would genuinely understand it is impossible to do that with CASE and cultural centers… This wasn’t consulted with the students but after the fact. You didn’t consider what we thought at all. Can’t say you are for us when that is just not the case. This new center you are trying to construct is like a glorified student union.”
- “If there is an issue of foot traffic—start there. I cannot tell you how many times I sit in BSCC and hear them [tour guides] walking past, and they just say “These are just some centers if you’re black or Hispanic…” That is how it feels. A bigger question needs to be posed about how you guys go about doing tours at the University.”
- “Why didn’t you hold meetings before sending out a mass email? I read email and felt the same way I did when Trump became president. Felt hopeless and fear of not knowing. Everything I knew will be gone or in weird state of unknown. Don’t feel comfortable here…whoever is bowing down to administration…I don’t feel comfortable here.”
- “What is the point of a new center? It doesn’t seem needed when the other student centers are doing their job. If anything, it seems like a way to cut down on funding that goes towards the students, without being outright about it.”
- “I do not want a new center and I do not think it should be made. I think the creation of a new center is dismissive of the individual wants and needs of the students. As someone who wanted to go to a diverse university, I chose to go to UWM in 2017 because of the centers I saw in Bolton Hall. I chose to stay in Milwaukee because of the love I have for the school and city and now I have come back to grad school here because I believe that UWM’s campus, community, and administration hold the same values that I do. With this change I no longer know if that still holds true.”
- Critical Role in Retention, Academic Success & Student Persistence. Students credit the centers with their continued enrollment, graduation progress, and mental health stability. Many shared that without the academic guidance, advocacy, and emotional support offered by center staff, they might have stopped out or struggled to remain on track. The centers also serve as key connectors to campus resources, mentorship, and culturally responsive support systems that directly influence students’ ability to persist. As a result, students view these spaces as essential components of their overall academic journey and long-term success.
Supporting Quotes:- “I use MEBO [Military Education Benefits Office] that helps get your financial stuff. If I didn’t have that there, I don’t think I could figure things out myself.”
- “Success coaches have helped me in BSCC and RHC.”
- “Everyone knows UWM has always been a predominantly white space. Historically, Latinos didn’t feel they had a space and had to fight for this. Other groups too. They (white students) will always feel welcome. I feel like you guys don’t care. Retention has always been an issue for people of color. I get help from these spaces. Administration makes it difficult and accommodations make it difficult. Leadership needs to work together to care and fight for the students.”
- “…I have financial limitations and mixed status in US. The First Gen Center is the first place because they have more options and info than regular financial aid person would have. Many people in my case come to UWM and they are not born in the US. They are being charged as international students… Someone from First Gen will tell you to check your financials. You would have to do your own research to get that information. People at financial offices don’t care about your personal situation.”
- “There is research that has been done to prove that centers have impacted a lot of students. That has to be valid.”
- “I used to be a commuter from South side with Latino community. Outside of that community I had a lot of fear, even about coming to school here. I used to go to class and go straight home. Always looking down because I couldn’t express the language. I was not comfortable going to offices. RHC is the main door for every single student to come the way you are. Because of RHC I overcame language challenges. I wouldn’t be here without them. Being myself. This center made it possible for me not to drop out of school.”
- “I attended many events here at UWM and what stood out to me was Casa Abierta and Bienvenida. Supported my family and journey being first generation.”
- “Since most of the campus community is commuters (80%), how exactly do we make sure that if consolidation happens that students receive the resources they need? We are not going to have this brand new center on September 1, so someone who is currently in need who needs help from OCRC…how do we make sure in interim stages that that is available to student?”
- “I visited most of the CASE offices down the hallway and it is the best place to come during the school day. Quiet space to study, music playing, dark. Lots of spaces on higher floors where you have space to sit by yourself but there is no space that is quiet.”
- “OCRC is a safe refuge. Many people don’t live on campus and don’t have same resources. Combining this into one center is making it harder for students to get resources they need to thrive and especially those not living on campus and without access to resources like housing, food, etc.”
- “Very easy to fall into UWM from MATC as a transfer student. I was in touch with MAVRC instantly to get my GI bill and planning my courses. Whenever I need a space to do my homework in peace and quiet I go to MAVRC.” (student)
- Perceived Mismatch Between Student Needs and Proposed Reorganization. Students argued that specialized support cannot be effectively “streamlined.” They want to see evidence that a consolidated center will increase student success. Many worry that merging multiple identity based services will result in generalized programming that no longer meets the specific needs of their communities. Students raised the importance of having staff in the centers who shared their identities. They questioned whether staff would have the capacity— or the cultural expertise—to serve such a broad range of populations within one unified structure. Even with the proposed cross-training discussed by moderators of the design input sessions, participants expressed concerns about the expectation that one individual would be skilled enough and sensitive enough to serve people across multiple and varied identities. Finally, students questioned the financial resources that would be needed to consolidate the centers into one and asked for those resources to be reinvested into staffing and programming in the centers.
Supporting Quotes:- “Jack of all trades, master of none…downsizing centers and their reach by combining 9 different centers into one.”
- “Some in WRC are only equipped to handle women’s issues…may not be trained to handle MAVRC students.”
- “What part of my identity can be streamlined?”
- “For the people of these centers, if they are all under one hierarchy, how are students and professional staff expected to be experts on everything?”
- “The resource centers were spaces created for people who know what it is like to be in the US and not fit into their community. Comes at the cost of people of color. I go to commuter lounge often. Parking is not cheap and parking on the street is a risk. People who don’t live on campus or are going to college for the first time bear the cost. For it to be inclusive, it has to come at the cost of people who are already struggling.”
- “It will be hard to reach staff and will not feel as confidential because everyone is going to be there. Won’t be community anymore.”
- “Not every space is for everyone. Especially spaces like this for minority students. When you shove people together who don’t have same experiences it makes it feel unsafe for those people the space was originally designed for.”
- Importance of Physical Space, Layout, and Privacy. Students expressed concern that combining the centers into a single large “hub” would create a chaotic and less accessible environment. They noted that the proposed space already feels “cramped” with existing offices, and adding three more could lead to confusion and reduce the privacy that individual centers currently provide—particularly when students are seeking support for sensitive issues.
Supporting Quotes:- “Having all centers together in area nearby is the only thing I can see as a compromise.”
- “May not be one big welcome party. People who don’t feel welcome coming into spaces as they may not feel comfortable coming into new space.”
- “With this new cultural center, are you even going to be allowed to show signs of different cultures, etc. like LGBTQ? Is that going to be allowed or considered not inclusive? Centers feel a lot more welcoming and in LGBTQ+ and other centers like WRC there is imagery from different identities or countries. Will new center allow this?”
- “I frequent MAVRC and LGBTQ+ Resource Centers. I think it is still important to have separate spaces. I have friends in LGBTQ+ Resource center who haven’t come out of the closet. How can we have separate areas for 8 or more groups? Ground floor of the Union? There are currently five centers there and it is a little bit cramped. How will we fit eight centers?”
- “With recent renovation it took a long time to get our office together. We have an opportunity to create dynamic community with reimagined space with three distinct spaces: A gathering place with study center, workshop/community room that serves different purposes…large kitchen, study zones with dim lights or another brighter space with collab spaces and another room for connecting other students (e.g. TV for movie nights or identity things for BHM with black movies, etc.) Second is space for connection and are smaller and designed to provide another layer of privacy. Number one fear is loss of safe space but I know the loss of one doesn’t mean loss of all.”
- “… I love how the current centers work together with each other, pooling experience and resources and creating areas of safety and calm for students in an overwhelming world. Giving current centers more support to expand services to students would be ideal.”
- “What I feel like I am holding onto is the space. Within that space is shared experience and community. Not to minimize other shared experience but as a little black girl my experience is different than a trans man. Just because we will have the same staff and people we won’t have sacred space. You ask us to design something but how much space will we have? If you are genuine then give us what we need. If it is just a room, it is not going to work. It feels like you are tucking your tails to the administration at our expense.”
- Community Engagement and Recruiting Impact. Students pointed out that the centers serve as critical cultural ambassadors to Milwaukee communities, families, and prospective students. Because these centers play an important role in recruitment, students expressed concern that UWM risks making false promises to prospective students and families by implying that services currently offered by existing centers will remain available. They also emphasized that several centers have longstanding relationships community partners, and that the presence of these centers has been a significant “selling point” for encouraging students from those communities to enroll at UWM.
Supporting Quotes:- “Our graduates bring incoming students back—happens with RHC and other centers.”
- “This is a selling point of the university.”
- “In this political climate UWM is trying to erase its cultural identity. The first place I go to is RHC and I grew up knowing about the center. Uncle helped create RHC. I wouldn’t do him justice if I didn’t share. I would go to academic counselors when I first started and thought it would be helpful but it wasn’t. RHC was helpful and safe space where I belong. Students from all centers can thrive. RHC generally integrating in communities. Impact beyond campuses grounds. Grateful for RHC. Grouping all the centers really erases individuality of centers overall. Every center has different needs and addresses them in different ways. Important to maintain identity within and outside campus. Helps our institution be a welcoming place.”
- “Merging offices together is not going to encourage people of color to come here anymore. We need support systems throughout college.”
- “Do incoming students know that changes are happening? Unfair to promote RHC and other MSC’s to high schoolers and none of these resources will be here for them next semester. I came here because RHC was available to me. Unfair for other students.”
- “Concern about centers because I chose UWM and a big part in making that decision is because the centers were so accessible, visible and easier to find, even before I moved into the dorms.”
- “When I was in high school, I thought this university was trash. I was so ashamed I got an acceptance letter to UWM and so upset thinking I was not smart enough. I got acceptance letter from USC and thought “Maybe I am smart enough.” I came to this school because Derrick Langston was at a table and he said the experience at USC is not the experience you will have here because you have BSCC.”
- “Should consolidation move forward or they have their own space, keeping that welcoming part is important to engage in community.”
- Preservation of History, Legacy, and Cultural Memory. Students emphasized that each center holds decades of history, artifacts, and generational significance. They want to see concrete plans for how these elements will be preserved. Many noted that these centers are not simply physical spaces—they are archives of student activism, cultural milestones, and community achievements that have shaped the university over time. Students expressed concern that without intentional preservation efforts, these histories could be lost or overshadowed in a consolidated center.
Supporting Quotes:- “Our center is covered in memories and movements and transformation. My worst fear would be walls getting torn down and cubicle spaces. This decision was made without student input and by people who have never sat in the Center and read a book or talked to a staff member. When we found out about this, we have a month. Difficult to think about a different space and center.”
- “Just celebrated 55 years of legacy of servingness.”
- “All these centers have been filled with care and love and time. It is unrealistic to create centers in six months. I don’t think we can properly create this center and do justice to individual centers.”
- “Can’t combine eight separate things into one and maintain the beauty of each.”
- Intersectionality and Complexity of Student Identities. Students rely on multiple centers to meet intersecting cultural, gendered, academic, and social needs. Many noted that their identities do not fit neatly within a single category, and therefore they turn to different centers for different types of support. They emphasized that these layered identities require nuanced, specialized resources that cannot be easily combined into a one size fits all model. Students worry that consolidation may oversimplify or overlook the complexity of their lived experiences.
Supporting Quotes:- “Explain intersectionality and how we depend on multiple centers.”
- “Lot of intersectional traffic between centers. I wouldn’t be a student here if I didn’t have someone to talk to. Relied on centers more than academic advisors.”
- “Through my own trials and tribulations I joined national guard and started speaking with MAVRC center. First people I spoke to after submitting application was RHC because I heard of them before. Also MAVRC and academic advisor after the fact. I chose RHC because I knew them beforehand. Summer beforehand they welcomed me with open arms and gave me tools to succeed.”
- Student Voice and the Call for Real Participation. Students feel excluded from the decision to consolidate the centers. They stressed that because pay for these services— particularly those funded through segregated fees—they expect to have meaningful involvement in the decision-making process.
Supporting Quotes:- “Students built this so important that students build next phase.”
- “We are not there yet. Can’t make a solution for a problem we didn’t create with three months. We are trying to tell you don’t change much and add back stuff y’all took away…Very hard not to be upset. We are ranting to you and telling you how we feel…It is disheartening.”
- “Why weren’t we given a full year to have these conversations?”
- Emotional Impact & Community Bonds. The centers are described not as services, but as lifelines—home, family, and sites of personal transformation. Students emphasized that these spaces have supported them through academic challenges, identity development, and moments of crisis. Many shared that the relationships formed within the centers are central to their sense of belonging on campus and are often the reason they remain connected to the university. These bonds, built over years of shared experience and mutual support, are seen as irreplaceable.
Supporting Quotes:- “Without this community, my identity wouldn’t exist.”
- “Our center is covered in memories and movements and transformation.”
- “For once we have a label we can feel safe with.”
- “I don’t think the new center would be good for community outreach.”
- “We don’t have to be in community. We need slow landing pad. Shoving us all into a room you might drive us all out of that room.”
Faculty and Staff Perspectives
Faculty and staff emphasized that students need space to openly express their grief before being asked to contribute design ideas, along with recognition of the pain and lived experiences they carry into these conversations. They also need a clearer explanation of the purpose and reasoning behind the proposed changes so they can better understand how decisions are being made. Above all, students seek assurance that their identity-affirming spaces will remain protected and will not be erased as part of any redesign or transition. Some expressed that they understood the current challenges posed by external factors and hope that campus leaders make decisions in the best interest of students and employees.
Staff who work in the eight centers outlined several key priorities. They would like trauma-informed facilitation that acknowledges the weight of the moment, along with predictable communication and transparent context to help them navigate ongoing changes with clarity. They are also asking for clear guidance on what to say—or what to avoid saying—to students and families so they can respond confidently and consistently. To sustain their capacity, staff need a realistic workload and explicit permission to pause when needed, supported by visible participation from senior leadership. Above all, they want reassurance that their identity-centered work and expertise will be protected, valued, and not diminished in the process.
- Preserve Identity-Specific Safe Spaces and the Importance of Place and Expertise. Faculty and staff participants insist that distinct, identity-affirming physical spaces matter for safety, belonging, and access to culturally competent support. Many comments reflect deep attachment to the centers and fear that consolidation will erase identity-specific work, spaces and relationships.
Supporting Quotes:- “Each center has a distinct history, sometimes going back 50+ years. Previous students and community members fought for these centers to provide tailored services and resources for their specific communities. Erasing that effort by combining the centers is a disgrace and tells the Milwaukee communities that UWM does not care about them.” (staff)
- “This is my existence… erasure from rest of campus like we are no longer here.” (staff)
- “Letting go of safe spaces… places matter… spaces are important… It’s not just about being historical, it’s just being human.” (faculty member)
- “It is hard for somebody… who’s coming out to walk into some mass gigantic office and feel like everybody’s staring at them instead of a particular space where they feel safe.” (faculty member)
- “Integrate centers into academics (guest lectures, course linkages, etc…) to boost awareness and belonging.” (faculty)
- “We will still be running the new space… that is the only thing that will bring me peace.” (staff)
- “I know what it feels like to show up and not see anyone like me.” (staff)
- “We built [MAVRC]… legacy since 1955… I don’t see how we can override it.” (faculty)
- “I want to echo how important it is for our students to actually have these physical spaces. I feel that we’re living in a time where for the majority of the demographic here in the US, we have a lack of third spaces. And so I feel like for a student to have that it’s very impactful…I would agree more to maybe a more unified, maybe mission and vision among our different centers, but I think that them physically existing and in the spaces that they’re currently at is the core of what I would like to see. I also feel that these centers have a lot of historical value. I mean, we just saw not too long ago that the RHC was featured in a PBS short.” (staff)
- “Spaces and like actual physical spaces for our students to be able to go to. There’s so many stories that I’ve heard from our own students in my program, from other students on campus about the sense of belonging that they have had on campus by being able to physically go into these spaces and the safety that it brings them that sometimes they do not have in other areas. I also just want to say for my program in particular, I know besides telling our students and having our students engage with these centers, we’ve also, from an academic perspective, invited different people from these centers to actually talk to our students as experts for some of these areas to help teach our students about how to interact with different people from different cultures, from different backgrounds for once they get into the workforce and that is something that is extremely valuable and important for our students to be able to know.” (staff)
- “There should continue to be an LGBTQ+ Resource Center. Ending these centers would do a great disservice to students, and send a very negative message about our values.” (faculty)
- “There are many other identity specific spaces on campus that are continuing to exist like the ARC Sensory hub that has a neurodiversity student center space, the EQI American Indian Student Center, Student Athlete centers. Are they all going to be consolidated? If not, then why are the CASE and multicultural centers the only ones targeted for consolidation? This feels like an attack on centers that serve identities who are under serious attack nationwide.” (faculty)
- “These centers are essential for minority student retention. Merging them makes them hard to find and hard to use. This is a huge mistake.” (faculty)
- “Keep them where they are, or at least intact as individual centers. Don’t combine them. I don’t know how the histories will be preserved and honored if these centers are moving and being renamed. In fact, it feels quite the opposite: that these centers are NOT being preserved and honored; in fact, these centers are being lumped together with others which is a kind of whitewashing of history and a removal of the advocacy that created and sustained these centers over decades. It feels as though students’ advocacy and agency on this campus is being minimized if not erased altogether.” (staff)
- “What we need is to have separate, non-adjoining areas for students who have experienced various types of trauma to connect with others with similar experiences, and get resources and support. I do not want to see men, especially men whose identities revolve around aggression and violence, in what should be a safe space for victims of men’s sexually harassment or worse.” (faculty)
- “We already have a student-centered space that is inclusive of all identities and needs – it is called the Student Union. What we need is safe spaces for specific groupings of special needs.” (staff)
- “If any students don’t feel there is a Center for them, then we need more centers, not fewer.” (staff)
- Trust and Transparency Gap. Participants perceive decisions as advanced before input and ask for clarity on what is fixed vs. open to revision and change. Staff expressed that ambiguity is harming morale and limiting their ability to plan effectively. Several participants noted that unclear communication has led to mixed messages circulating among students and employees, further deepening confusion. Both students and staff emphasized that transparent timelines, decision points, and rationales are essential to rebuilding trust in the process.
Supporting Quotes:- “It sounds like you’re already in the hiring process… how is this iterative?” (faculty)
- “Students feel like there is a breach of trust… As much transparency as humanly possible… who is hearing these comments and where are they going?” (staff)
- “Feels insulting that just learned about this decision. No transparency on how this will benefit students.” (faculty)
- “Students don’t have enough to go by… they have that right because they don’t have enough information.” (staff)
- “I would like to know that outside community voices were and are actually consulted and honored in this process. The fait accompli nature of the announcement, which doesn’t seem to have involved true consultation with the staff of centers or the students served, leads me to doubt this.” (faculty)
- Emotional Distress, Grief, and Need for Trauma-Informed Process. Staff of the impacted centers reported that recent design input sessions—especially with students—were emotionally intense, exposing grief, anger, exhaustion, and fear of loss. They emphasized the need for a more humane, trauma-informed process. Staff described feeling overstretched, overwhelmed, and uncertain about how to prioritize their ongoing responsibilities during the transition. Some highlighted that the emotional labor fell primarily on staff and were frustrated that few in upper administration were present in the sessions.
Supporting Quotes:- “Should be a kind of funeral… give people time to express how they feel… We need to put more humanity in this whole process.” (staff)
- “No one is caring that we are going through all this mess.” (staff)
- “We are still doing this semester’s job, but it feels like double duty… I am in three layers of work.” (staff)
- “Emotional labor is falling on us and our student workers.” (staff)
- “Chancellor can’t come to everything but… I like when he comes… I saw the pain.” (staff)
- Marketing, Messaging, and Campus Tours. Tours and recruiting claims must align with reality; several flagged “false advertising” worries. A recurring theme was that staff feel conflicted about representing services that may change.
Supporting Quotes:- “Student leaders… were advised by the university to continue saying that these centers exist… that’s false advertisement.” (Faculty)
- “Coach our campus tour guides to not say that we’re the most diverse… if this is the case.” (staff)
- “Is this something that is a foregone conclusion? Is there any turning back the clock…?” (staff)
- “I don’t feel good saying this will be your home when it will look different.” (staff)
- “I don’t feel comfortable hosting table… what do we say to them, that our office will not be here next Fall?” (staff)
- “Clear ways of how this will benefit them… clear ways to discuss process… clear ways to relay that this is not a response to federal or state pressures.” (staff)
- “Not having a lot of details… difficult… uncomfortable for student staff getting brunt of it.” (staff)
- “I don’t feel comfortable lying to them… don’t want to promise something.” (staff)
- “If the center is not going to exist in the Fall, what is the point?” (staff)
- Retention and Student Success Narrative Needs Evidence. Participants want the specific data behind the change, including retention/graduation by subgroup and clear mechanisms linking reorganization to improved outcomes. Many expressed that without transparent data, it is difficult to understand how the proposed consolidation addresses the documented challenges faced by historically marginalized student populations. Participants also questioned whether alternative strategies were considered and how different options were evaluated. They emphasized that evidence-based reasoning is essential for building confidence in the proposed restructuring and ensuring that decisions genuinely support student success.
Supporting Quotes:- “What does the data paint for us? What is missing and how will this merger fill those gaps?” (staff/alum)
- “In the college systems across the state show UWM has the highest percentage of LGBTQ plus students in the UW system and in the state. So this is a particular place where that’s been very important that we have programming for students particularly because our student population of LGBTQ plus students here is very strongly multiply marginalized and at particular risk of non-retention and I know from my experiences at the center is super important.” (faculty)
- Staffing, Leadership and Future-Proofing Specialized Expertise. There is cautious support for a coordinating leader, alongside concerns about growth of administration, budget neutrality, and preserving specialized roles over time.
Supporting Quotes:- “Is this… going to get us yet another administrator who draws more than $100,000… while we could disperse this to front desk…?” (faculty)
- “What happens a couple years down the road… will that line still exist…?”
Alumni/Community Partners Perspectives
Alumni and community members expressed a unified message: halt consolidation efforts and protect identity-specific physical spaces while honoring the historical, cultural, and veteran legacies they represent. Some emphasized the emotional harm already caused and urged leadership to safeguard and support these spaces and affiliated students.
- Fear of Losing Identity-Specific Spaces. Community members and alumni do not support the idea of merging the centers, emphasizing that identity-specific spaces are essential for belonging, safety, and cultural affirmation. They stressed that identify centers function as mental-health supports, “home away from home,” and safety nets.
Supporting Quotes:- “This takes away that from everyone. It is dehumanizing and shameful.” (community member)
- “This feels like forced assimilation and forcing of melting pot… People don’t want to melt together.” (alum)
- “This is a blow to students.” (alum)
- “Centers impact our health… I would not be standing here today…” (alum)
- “I am hoping administration will reconsider major changes. There doesn’t seem to be one main plan and we need that so that we can be supportive one way or another.” (alum)
- “The MAVRC was a place to unwind and study or just converse and commiserate with other veterans on the unique experience of being a student veteran.” (alum)
- “A unified space does not offer belonging when each of the centers provides and knows the needs of their population. If this new space was in addition to those already existing, then it would be a benefit especially if some students don’t fit into any of the already existing centers.” (community member)
- Emotional Distress, Hurt, and Betrayal. Participants described profound grief, anger, and a sense of abandonment by the institution. Many shared that the announcement triggered feelings similar to losing a community or family, especially for those who relied on the centers for affirmation and support. Several expressed that the process not only disrupted their sense of safety but also damaged their trust in the university’s commitment to marginalized students. These emotions were described as lingering and pervasive, affecting students’ well-being, academic focus, and overall connection to the campus community.
Supporting Quotes:- “I feel disappointed… this was a shock.” (alum)
- “What will you do with the culture of mistrust… and the wound you have opened up?” (alum)
- “I am mortified as an alum to see people crying.” (alum)
- “We are losing humanity’s compassion… Don’t lose your passion just because you need money.” (community member)
- Lack of Transparency and Timeline Confusion. Community members and alumni stated that they felt the process was unclear and poorly communicated. There is concern that alumni were not informed about the proposed changes. Several participants noted that alumni have historically played a key role in mentoring students, contributing resources, and sustaining cultural traditions—making their exclusion particularly troubling. Others expressed that the absence of a clear timeline has created uncertainty about when decisions were made, who was consulted, and what opportunities remain for meaningful input. Participants emphasized that proactive communication with alumni and community partners is essential for maintaining trust and strengthening long-standing relationships with the university.
Supporting Quotes:- “As we look around the room and we can see the deep pain of people in the room, what will you do with the culture of mistrust without consulting community members and wound you have opened up? I am mortified as an alum to see people crying. This falls on you. What are you all going to do? If you haven’t thought about that, take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of students and alumni. We are hurting. Students come through these spaces and they only make it because of these spaces. That is my story at UWM.” (alum)
- “Strongly encouraging transparency, monthly updates… a dedicated person and online presence… data needs to be accessible.” (alum)
- Fear of Donor Loss and Impact on Funding. Several donors and alumni explicitly stated that they would withdraw financial support if centers were consolidated. Participants emphasized that donor relationships have been built over decades through trust, shared values, and long-term commitments to specific communities. They expressed concern that restructuring could jeopardize scholarships, programming funds, and ongoing partnerships that depend on these donor relationships. Some also noted that a loss of donor support could disproportionately affect the very students the consolidation aims to serve, further undermining institutional goals around equity and student success.
Supporting Quotes:- “I want to be here to support RHC and have been donating for years. If the center changes in any way, my donation will have to stop.” (alum)
- “How many of these centers will lose funding if you name it something else? Heard from one donor who said they won’t donate.” (alum)
- “How many of these centers will lose funding if you name it something else? Heard from one donor who said they won’t donate and MAVRC will lose funding.” (community member)
- Legacies of Centers Being Disregarded. Participants emphasized decades of work building these centers and felt consolidation erases history. Several noted that the centers were established through student activism, community advocacy, and institutional commitments that evolved over generations. They expressed concern that a merger could obscure the unique identities, accomplishments, and cultural contributions that each center represents. Several participants also stressed that the legacy of these spaces is deeply tied to community pride and belonging, making their perceived loss especially significant.
Supporting Quotes:- “Legacy alone is really important.” (alum)
- “All our ancestors did not leave us or go away just for us to say we will assimilate in this moment. We won’t. I won’t. You need to live in a society where you are not afraid to say or feel something. With all my heart, I hope UWM listens and doesn’t just put us in a box to go in a warehouse. We are a community and we are a loving one.” (alum)
- Importance of Sustaining Impactful Programming and Partnerships. Community partners with long-standing relationships with the Roberto Hernandez Center highlighted the importance of ensuring signature events such as Bienvenida, Casa Abierta, and PALM graduation continue. The community engagement RHC has with Mexican Fiesta, College Possible, Carmen High School, and Froedtert ThedaCare have had significant impact on UWM’s recruitment and retention efforts.
Supporting Quotes:- “Froedtert has been a partner with RHC and UWM for years. Our participation in PALM helps with scholarship for students and job opportunities for UWM students at Froedtert. RHC is so critical to the Latino community. In fact, I have a son who will be attending UWM in the fall. We came for a tour and Alberto gave us a personal tour. I have another son who plans to enroll at UWM after he finishes at WCTC.” (community member)
- “I’ve spent more than 18 years working in higher education, most recently as the Director of the Multicultural Resource Center at Waukesha County Technical College and previously as Director of the Future Teacher Program at UW–Whitewater…I have worked with the RHC and I know how important it is for staff to be visible and participating consistently with partners in the greater community.” (community member/alum)
Comments on Physical Space and Branding
With respect to physical space, participants in the design input sessions, as well as the majority of survey respondents, overwhelmingly opposed merging the existing centers into one. Many participants emphasized the importance of maintaining multiple locations to preserve accessibility, community identity, and program diversity
Supporting Quotes:
- “You can’t preserve or honor the history and impact of these centers by merging them.” (staff)
- “I believe all the centers should continue to be maintained in their current forms and existing in the current spaces. They need to continue to deliver their current services. Their work should be expanded to providing cultural training workshops, presentations and resources so that faculty and instructors are better able to teach diverse students. The students’ issues with success and retention should not be solely the responsibility of the centers. The majority of the responsibility lies with the faculty and instructors who are insensitive, racists, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and the list goes on. What is being done to address the 90% of the responsibility for poor retention and success rates which lies with the instructional staff? You are breaking spaces that are responsible for retaining and graduating students who would have left UWM.” (faculty)
- “Leave the CASE hallway the same. It would be dumb to move those spaces. The cost of new signage, updating websites, new marketing materials, moving spaces and possibly renovating them is just ridiculous. It makes sense, if there’s space, to move the Bolton centers to the Union because then they’d all be nearer one another. However, that again is a big cost. Who is paying for that?” (staff)
Several survey respondents advocated for preserving the uniqueness of the center(s) with which they are affiliated. Examples included comments such as “Remove MAVRC from the consolidation” (community member). These respondents emphasized that certain centers fulfill highly specialized roles and should remain independent to maintain their effectiveness and integrity. Several expressed the importance of separate and shared spaces that honors the history of each center and what would make them feel welcome.
Supporting Quotes:
- “There should be both combined and separate spaces based on identities/ culture.” (staff)
- “Recognizing that challenges for supporting our identity and multicultural centers are multifaceted and ongoing, I would again advocate for creating an overarching environment that allows the unique centers to share their respective greatest assets while maintaining their unique populations services and spaces.” (staff)
- “The centers each continuing to have their own space is vital. There could be a shared space for support activities that are not culturally specific, where students of all backgrounds can lounge between those support events. But please, please retain the centers that generations of students fought for, and generations of students have benefitted from!” (faculty)
- “The history and impact of the center can be preserved and honored by making sure its story continues to be shared as the new center takes shape. One way to do this is with a dedicated space, like a wall, display, or digital archive, that highlights the programs, events, and people who made the original center so meaningful. Photos, student stories, and memorabilia from past initiatives can show how the center shaped student experiences over time.” (student)
- “To feel welcomed and supported in a physical space, I need to see and feel elements that reflect my culture and lived experience—and people who can relate to me and understand where I’m coming from. Representation matters, not just in décor or artwork, but in the overall energy of the space and the presence of staff who genuinely care and connect. The space should feel safe—both emotionally and physically. It should be a place I can go on tough or overwhelming days, knowing I’ll be met with understanding and support, but also a place I can visit on good days simply to see my people, reconnect, and recharge. Having a consistent, reliable space like this builds trust and creates comfort.” (community member)
If reorganization is inevitable, several students in the in-person sessions identified key elements that would be required in the new center. Inclusion of both private, individual spaces and large gathering areas is essential as well as development of a clear mission and vision. In a couple of sessions, participants provided suggestions of names for the new center: The HUB, the SPOT, the Panther SPOT, Panther Paws, and SPAWT (Student People Around the World Together).
Supporting Quotes:
- “I like three phases. Like nesting dolls where you have larger space where anyone can go and you can be anyone and find other people who are like you and others that you may not have connected with. Broader space with kitchen…fluid space where events from different centers are held and offices can have events. Then the smaller spaces can serve to help students collaborate with other people but maybe where it is quiet and can connect with people who identify the same as you are.” (student)
- “A central hub branching off into separate safe spaces for each group, each having AT MINIMUM the amount of space they currently do. They should only grow, never shrink.” (student)
- “Consider idea of student task force or summer interns. Students built this so important that students build next phase of journey.” (student)
- “…have big umbrella and have names retained in area where CASE is. A lot of things to accomplish by fall semester. Smarter thing to do is to have one umbrella and keep center names.” (student)
- “Creating something new seems rushed, vs. adding to what we have. Fall deadline seems very rushed. From my background I like planning and organizing. Giving more realistic timeline…if you want to create something new.” (student)
- “Having that enclosed, private, individual space to be away from crowds for health reasons is very important to people who often use the center. Wondering if that is a possibility if it’s going to be a big student hub.” (student)
- “Smart to have a big open space for students to talk. Big tables and chairs to interact, but rooms to close the door and be by yourself and study. If you just need a break. Don’t like open areas. I sit in the front and know where every exit is at. No cubicles because it is too small and large space is too big.” (student)
- “Open lounges that had some fluffy names. I stayed in library and did not attend these spaces. If I see pink, flowers, or fluffy name, I am not there. Kind of like the CARE idea but it felt like hospital type of thing.” (student)
Recommendations
Participants in both in-person and virtual sessions overwhelmingly noted that the proposed timeline, with implementation targeted for the fall 2026 semester, feels rushed. More importantly, feedback indicated that students, faculty, staff, and community partners do not want the reorganization of the centers into one comprehensive center to move forward—particularly without a thoughtful and inclusive process. Participants expressed a strong desire for the release of retention, enrollment, and impact data, along with more transparent communication, including additional meetings with the Chancellor. Below are recommendations for next steps.
- Adjust the implementation timeline to allow for additional stakeholder input and to ensure continuity of current services.
- Finalize the establishment of the Assistant Vice Chancellor role to provide sustained leadership, strategic oversight, and coordinated sharing of knowledge, resources, and best practices across centers.
- Ensure appropriate support for center staff during the transition, including dedicated time for strategic planning, alignment, and reflection.
- Establish a student advisory task force to inform and support future planning and decision-making.