Policy Matters
Blog Home All Blogs
Administered by the Blog Committee, Policy Matters posts are written by members on a variety of topics. From think pieces to how-to's, editorials to news round-ups, there is something for every policy administrator. Interested in contributing a post? Let us know by emailing admin@acupa.org.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: policy  policy development  Policy Administration  Jessica Teets  policy process  collaboration  Deborah Bartlett  pandemic  accessibility  COVID-19  Jennifer Gallagher  Gina Kennedy  writing  ACUPA  data  equity  IT  Productivity  remote work  How-to  Lisa Biagas  news  resources  Sara Gigeroff  students  AI  change  compliance  culture  free speech 

A Policy Office and Office of General Counsel Partnership

Posted By Cara O'Sullivan, Utah Valley University, Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Updated: Monday, August 18, 2025

Forging Accessible and Legally Sound Policy Language

As a regional teaching institution with an open admissions model, Utah Valley University (UVU) is committed to making education accessible to all in its service region. To support this commitment, the UVU Policy Office strives to make university policy accessible to the university community. We are uniquely positioned to do this: our two-member team consists of two trained and experienced editors, and we are housed within the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Our senior editor, Miranda Christensen (who you may recall from an ACUPA online seminar she conducted) brings experience with Plain English from a previous position at an education company. Our attorneys, with their varied backgrounds and expertise, often participate not only in the legal review of drafts, but also as integral members of drafting committees.

Since the Policy Office became part of OGC two years ago, we have developed a partnership with OGC attorneys to craft policy language that balances legal accuracy with clarity for their intended audience. In this article, we’ll explain how the UVU Policy Office editors and OGC attorneys collaborate by sharing their editorial and legal expertise and by using MS Teams and AI tools.

The Quest for Accessible Language

Step 1

Our drafting committees are chaired by a policy steward tasked with drafting policy and leading the draft through our process. The Policy Office editor assigned to a policy provides ongoing editorial support and guides the policy steward throughout all phases. Once a drafting committee finalizes its draft, it submits it to the Policy Office for a comprehensive editorial review.

Step 2

In addition to typical editing tasks, the Policy Office editor conducts readability tests. The one we rely on the most is the Flesch-Kincaid test. These readability tests help us determine whether the draft is at a reading level that is appropriate for its intended audience. For example, for policies intended for students, we try to keep the reading level at Grade 10 to 14. For policies intended for faculty and graduate students, a higher reading level is appropriate. (We have not yet established a concrete Plain English rubric with formalized recommendations for reading levels and audiences—we hope to return later with another blog post about that.)

Step 3

If the editor determines that a lower reading level would be appropriate, they discuss this with the policy steward and the assigned attorney and begin their work. We have experimented with using AI (CoPilot or ChatGPT) as a tool to help us simplify complex passages. We may use prompts similar to this:

Simplify this paragraph into plainer English:

{Text inserted}


“Recast this text into reading level 12.”

{Text inserted}

Step 5

Once AI provides the revised paragraph, the editor reviews it to determine if it is sufficiently recast and if it fits the tone and context of the policy. Often, the editor makes further revisions. When the editor completes making the revision, they tag it with a comment. In this comment, the editor indicates they used AI to help simplify the text. They also use the comment to ask the assigned attorney to review the proposed revision. The prevailing concern for the editor is to ensure their revision didn’t lose any intended legal meaning.

Collaborating with our Attorneys

The assigned attorney conducts their legal review to ensure the policy content is legally sound and meets compliance requirements with Utah Board of Higher Education policy, state laws, and federal laws and regulations. The attorney is also tasked with ensuring the policy language itself communicates clearly any required legal meaning.

Because we use MS Teams to collaborate during the review process, the editor, the attorney, and the policy steward can chat or comment back and forth within the document. Once the attorney completes their review, the editor, attorney, and policy steward meet to review all revisions and resolve outstanding issues or questions.

This collaboration requires diplomacy and compromise. As the Policy Office editors, we do our best to advocate for clear, accessible language, while the attorneys focus on ensuring legal soundness to protect the institution and its community. There are situations where established legal language must prevail, and others where plain language is sufficient. The editors and attorneys, along with the policy stewards, can prioritize these needs through collaboration. The result of this collaboration is a policy that has benefited from those with editorial skills, subject matter expertise, and legal expertise.

One of our attorneys, Greg Jones, said this about his experience with the collaboration between editors, attorneys, and policy stewards:

“This was an ensemble project; team members respected each other’s proposed edits, even the ones that were ultimately rejected. We learned how to work with each other through the process of back-and-forth. Toward the end, a moment came when I thought everything was coming together, but I could see we had some legal problems with the draft. I saw a way to both fix those problems and significantly simplify the policy, but my solution would trample past edits of team members, and for all I knew it might break something. The team let me take a shot at it. The next day, we started our meeting, and to my surprise, they not only accepted my edits but liked them. This turned out to be a collaborative effort in which everyone enhanced the effectiveness of the others, focused on our objective, and we achieved success. In the end I did not feel like an attorney advising the drafting committee but simply felt like another member of the team.”

What our Attorneys Contribute

Policy Officer editors have discovered the following about what their attorney colleagues contribute to crafting policy language:

  • They do indeed wish to use clear, Plain English as much as possible; they are willing to work with the editors and compromise on language. The exception is where specific language has been established in case law and is imbued with specific legal meaning.
  • They are aware of the subtle legal meaning that certain words or phrases have—this is training most editors do not have. They work with us to determine whether we can use simpler phrasing if we have to use the legal term or language.
  • They have excellent editorial instincts and provide suggestions on the logical order of ideas and consistent use of terms, and which terms are appropriate.
  • They can see how language and legal meaning have a very subtle interplay and how even seemingly small revisions can have an impact on the legal meaning and standing of policy text.

Ongoing Benefits of this Collaboration

We have found it powerful and enlightening to see how beneficial this interaction between editors, attorneys, and policy owners can be. In the UVU Policy Office, we find ourselves amazed at how much we learn from our attorneys about the complex legal landscape of higher education. The Policy Office believes that this partnership results in well-crafted, effective policy.

A metaphor for how this relationship works came from a recent team event: UVU OGC held its annual goal-setting retreat at a lovely cabin in the mountains of Utah. Afterwards, we went on a hike by taking a ski lift to the top of the local ski resort. We then hiked down to a beautiful, well-known waterfall.

Although the hike was a descent, it was challenging for me. I had recently spent 6 weeks limping around with a cane due to a rogue knee. Having just started physical therapy and exercise to regain stability and function, I really wanted to go on this hike but had serious hesitations. The team encouraged me to go.

Within a few minutes of stepping off the ski lift, a teammate stayed behind with me to make sure I made the descent safely. His companionship and care motivated me to not turn back, but to keep going. The group ahead stopped often to make sure we could catch up. Team members took turns asking me how I was doing, whether I needed water or a break, and if I needed assistance crossing the stream at the base of the waterfall. Then our manager and another coworker left the group early to retrieve his SUV and drive up the mountain as far as he could to shorten the distance from the waterfall back to the resort. Three coworkers walked me to the point where our manager picked us up, while the rest of the group took the regular trail down.

Our team collaborated to make this hike enjoyable not only for me, but for all of us. Each person seemed to know instinctively what I, or any of us, needed in the moment. At one point, the team cheered on one of our teammates who has a fear of heights but took the lift up the mountain. Each teammate took turns taking care of each other. This is the core of any work we do in higher education—drawing upon the expertise of colleagues across many disciplines and collaborating to build not only solid policy, but institutions striving to fulfill their educational missions.

 

Tags:  accessibility  Cara O'Sullivan  collaboration  legal  partnership  Policy Development 

Permalink
 

From the Trenches to the Ivory Tower

Posted By Shoshana Ellis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Updated: Tuesday, February 13, 2024

A public defender’s path to policy in higher education

Shifting from a career as a courtroom lawyer to one in higher education policies can be a challenging yet rewarding experience. This blog post explores the differences between law and policy and how they relate to higher education. I also discuss the differences for those working in the legal and policy fields and some tips to keep in mind for those making the transition.

Defining law and policy

First, let’s define the terms law and policy. The law is a set of rules and regulations that govern society. Policy is a set of principles that guide decision-making within an organization.

Are law and policy really so different?

One of the key differences between law and policy is the level of detail. The law is very specific and prescriptive, while policy is more general and flexible. In a criminal context, think of the law as a checklist. If defendants meet all the conditions spelled out in the law, they are “guilty.” If one or more conditions are unmet, they are “not guilty.” Laws are generally reactionary: someone at some point in history did something that society deemed terrible, and society responded by creating a law to warn future individuals against doing the same terrible thing and to punish them if they commit the act. As there is a wealth of bad behavior in the world, the number of laws that attempt to control bad behavior have steadily grown in number.

In higher education, institutions often develop policies to address specific, recurring issues or challenges facing the institution or as pre-emptive answers for anticipated questions. For example, a policy might be developed to address improper relationships between employees and students or diversity and inclusion issues either in response to, or in anticipation of their existence. Policies are drafted to be forward-thinking to prevent unintended consequences and get everyone on the same page in terms of goals, limits, and expectations.

Bark versus bite and the enforceability problem

Another difference between law and policy is the level of enforcement. Laws and policies are only as effective as they are enforced, but the goals of those enforcing the laws and policies may vary.

Laws are written by elected officials, whether at the federal, state, or local level, but are enforced by government agencies that exist solely to enforce the laws. In theory, laws are meant to be applied equally to all individuals, but in practice this is not always the case. Punishments for breaking laws are meant to be punitive and discourage future violations. Changing a law in any way, even to prevent a future miscarriage of justice, requires the full legislative process, which naturally takes a substantial period of time.

This substantially long revision process, coupled with the fact that the “law of the day” must be applied to any illegal act, can create severe consequences and equity issues. Take for example a criminal charge for possession of a small amount of recreational marijuana. Washington state voters approved Initiative 502 to legalize possession of up to one ounce of recreational marijuana on November 6, 2012, but the law didn’t go into effect until December 6, 2012. People arrested for possession of recreational marijuana prior to November 6, 2012, were clearly intended to be found guilty of Washington’s existing possession laws. But what if they’d been arrested between November 6 and December 5, 2012? Unfortunately, the “law of the day” governs, and a person arrested on December 5 would be treated as guilty under the law, even though everyone knew that the following day the law would change, and that the charged behavior would no longer be illegal. Of course, not every prosecutor would choose to pursue cases of this nature, thus creating an obvious equity issue.

On the other hand, policies are enforced by the organization that created the policy. At UNC-Chapel Hill, policies are created and enforced by the university unit—whether a college, school, department, or office. UNC-Chapel Hill policies outline consequences for violations, but are generally not meant to be punitive. Instead, policy documents are meant to increase awareness, and consequences are intended to correct behavior and prevent reoccurrence. This means that policies can be more flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, but more difficult to enforce than laws. If a policy has unintended consequences, the university unit can immediately choose whether to enforce its policy and may amend the policy document to prevent future unintended consequences. Adjustments to existing policies can generally be done quite quickly, especially when there is a collaborative feedback process in which stakeholders can raise awareness of problems and bring potential solutions to the table for a speedy resolution.

The big transition

If you are considering a career shift from law to policies in higher education, there are several things to keep in mind. Many of the skills you have acquired practicing in the legal field will still serve you well in a career in higher education policy, but there are also additional skills you will need to develop.

  1. Focus on the big picture: As a lawyer, you are used to focusing on the details of a case. While you probably have a caseload with many cases, each case operates independently from the others. However, when working on policies in higher education, it’s important to focus on the big picture. You will need to see how different policies fit together and how they impact the entire institution to prevent duplication and conflict.
  2. Take your advocacy hat off: As an attorney, you view the laws in a light most favorable to your client. You cherry-pick legal rulings to support your position and try to refute any that don’t support your position. The position you hold for one client might be contrary to a position you hold for another. Policy is different. A good policy is built from a position of neutrality where the policy means the same thing to everyone; this includes the policy creator, the institution, and the intended audience, whether employees, staff, students, or faculty. The goal is for everyone to understand and follow the policy.
  3. Develop your analytical skills: Working in policies in higher education requires a strong analytical skill set. You will need to be able to analyze data, identify trends, and make recommendations based on your findings. This requires a different set of skills than those you use as a lawyer, where every case is a fresh start. In higher education policy, you will conduct peer institution research and use this information to improve your institution’s policy documents. You will receive feedback from units about a policy document, and you will have to consider if and how to respond to that feedback based on your analysis.
  4. Be prepared to work collaboratively: Policies in higher education are often developed collaboratively, with input from various stakeholders. You will need to work effectively with faculty, staff, students, and administrators to create policies that meet the institution's needs. Without a majority, and in some cases, unanimous support for a policy, that policy may not see the light of day. Legal settings are more adversarial even when they’re meant to be collaborative, like drug treatment courts, mental health courts, or diversion programs. In those specialty courts everyone works together until they can’t, in which case disputes are resolved the old-fashioned way with a decision made by a judge.
  5. Be adaptable: Policies in higher education are constantly evolving, and you will need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances. This may require you to be flexible in your approach and willing to try new things. If a policy creates unintended consequences, policy creators and relevant stakeholders can adjust the policy. This can frequently be done quickly, especially when there’s buy-in from fellow collaborators who recognize the problems and solutions. In contrast, lawyers must follow the law, even when a law seems unjust, until the law is changed. Unfortunately, that’s not something you can readily count on.
  6. Communicate effectively: Effective communication is critical when working on policies in higher education. You will need to be able to communicate complex ideas to various stakeholders, including faculty, staff, students, and administrators. This requires strong written and verbal communication skills you have undoubtedly acquired in your legal career. However, unlike the law, where you keep your cards close to your chest, policy-making in higher education is where all the cards are on the table. You can share your concerns and be candid about potential conflicts. Being transparent is a good way to earn and maintain trust in your relationships with stakeholders across the campus.
  7. Be patient: Developing new policies in higher education can be a slow process. It may take time to get buy-in from stakeholders and to see the impact of your work. Be patient and persistent and remember that change takes time. Not all policy creation is slow, especially when there is widespread support, but many higher education policies are designed to follow the academic calendar to avoid changing things in the middle of the semester. This creates a speed bump in the process that you are unlikely to avoid. This differs from the law, where emergency hearings, temporary restraining orders, and arrest warrants can be done on any day the court is open, which is most of the time.

Shifting from a career as a lawyer to working in policies in higher education has shown me the similarities and differences between the fields. While there are differences between law and policy, like advocating for a client and the fast pace of courtroom life, both fields require critical thinking, problem solving, and effective communication. What could be more rewarding than that?

 

Tags:  communication skills  lawyer  legal  Policy Administration  Shoshana Ellis 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Policy in the News

Posted By Deborah Bartlett, Washington State University, Monday, May 10, 2021

Articles on topics that may affect your organization’s policies

As we move into the summer semester, the Blog Committee would like to share some of the articles we’ve been reading that relate to policy administration in higher education.


Tags:  Canada  COVID-19  cybersecurity  data  employment contract  financial aid  free speech  gap  gender  hot topics  HR  information  IT  legal  minimum wage  news  pandemic  phishing  policy  policy in the news  poverty  privacy  records  remote work  sexual harassment  students  Title IX  vaccines 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Policy in the News

Posted By Megan Jones, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Articles on topics that may affect your organization’s policies

As we continue the fall semester, the Blog Committee would like to share some of the articles we’ve been reading that relate to policy administration in higher education.

Tags:  accommodation  ACTs  ADA  admissions  COVID-19  cybersecurity  data  free speech  gap  gender  hot topics  HR  information  IT  legal  news  pandemic  phishing  policy  policy in the news  poverty  remote work  research  SATs  security  sexual harassment  students  talent management 

PermalinkComments (0)