Unquestionably, the stakes are high for many people and organizations. Not collecting and using SOGI data perpetuates an environment that denies certain people full expression and participation, but mishandling this data, which should all be handled as PII, can put those individuals at risk. Higher education leaders have an obligation to understand the benefits and the risks and find a balance that allows all individuals to inhabit the world as their true selves without fear of harm if certain aspects of their identities are disclosed.

When colleges and universities collect and appropriately share SOGI data, several important benefits can accrue to LGBTQIA+ people and to the institutions as well.

Personal and Mental Health Impacts

Particularly for trans and nonbinary people, being addressed and referred to using the correct name and pronouns is a significant issue. A system that fails to provide appropriate information about a person's name and gender result in issues such as deadnaming (i.e., using someone's former name if they have changed it), misgendering (i.e., referring to someone as the wrong gender), and referring to someone using incorrect pronouns. This creates an unwelcoming environment and can cause significant harm—the use of incorrect pronouns has been linked to suicidality among young trans people—and it puts the burden on trans and nonbinary people to continually correct people. Respecting the names, pronouns, and honorifics of trans and nonbinary people is a critical part of their mental health, and providing a means for that information to be stored and shared with those who need to know it reduces harm.

Institutional Benefits

Analyzing equity gaps and determining whether interventions are effective requires a method of tracking diversity and equity. For example, efforts to ensure that LGBTQIA+ students are graduating at the same rate as non-LGBTQIA+ students depend on the ability to compare and track graduation rates. Likewise, an institution cannot determine, for example, whether Black trans women are being hired, fired, promoted, or given tenure at rates comparable to other groups without relevant data to analyze. Intangible benefits to the institution also come into play, including reputation, funding opportunities, and increased diversity of perspective.

Outing an LGBTQIA+ person (i.e., revealing their gender or sexual orientation without their consent) can expose them to many types of harms:

• Physical, emotional, and psychological violence
• Unfair bias by instructors, supervisors, or administrators
• Loss of relationships with family, friends, and colleagues
• Denial of job opportunities and promotions
• Loss of housing
• Loss of access to businesses and government services
• Discrimination by healthcare providers
• Reputational harm and stigmatization

Risks to Individuals

Physical attacks of LGBTQIA+ people occur throughout the United States, and harassment and other forms of emotional and psychological abuse of LGBTQIA+ people are even more common. LGBTQIA+ students in secondary schools face a range of discriminatory and harmful treatment. Some employers who find out that employees are LGBTQIA+ terminate them or otherwise engage in discrimination.

Gender-affirming care not only affects overall happiness and quality of life but also serves as a form of suicide prevention. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has advocated for laws that would establish certain states as "data sanctuaries," protecting trans youth by forbidding the release of data about gender-affirming care to out-of-state agencies.

Many LGBTQIA+ people live in unsafe environments, including students whose primary residence is with unsupportive parents or family members. For many, the only thing keeping them from being physically harmed by people in their home or being thrown out of their home is keeping their gender identity and/or sexual orientation secret from the people they live with. Meanwhile, parents and legal guardians may have a legal or policy right to access data related to minor children—some states now require that institutions immediately inform parents and guardians when data related to gender or sexual orientation of their children is updated. Given the rapidly changing legal landscape, FERPA cannot be relied upon to provide complete protection. As a result, it may be impossible to protect student data from people who present a clear risk to a student's health and well-being.

Legal Threats

LGBTQIA+ people face a variety of legal threats. In 2023, 510 anti-LGBTQIA+ bills were introduced across the United States; fewer than half of those bills were defeated, and 84 have passed into law. Laws have been enacted that cause a range of harms:

• Banning gender-affirming care
• Criminalizing wearing clothes that allow people to present as their gender or that don't match cultural stereotypes for their sex assigned at birth
• Criminalizing using bathrooms that match gender identity
• Making it illegal for trans people to play on sports teams that match their gender
• Making it illegal to talk about LGBTQIA+ identities in instructional settings
• Requiring schools to out students to potentially unsupportive and dangerous family members
• Requiring teachers and school employees to misgender and deadname students
• Restricting the ability of trans and nonbinary people to get identity documents, such as birth certificates and drivers' licenses, that match their gender

In some cases, elected officials and candidates for office have made clear that they intend to pursue further anti-LGBTQIA+ legislative efforts, at both state and federal levels. Some have implicitly or explicitly supported direct violence against LGBTQIA+ people, promoting false claims that LGBTQIA+ people are "groomers" and pedophiles.

International Risks

Many higher education institutions operate campuses or sponsor travel opportunities in other countries, and some students, employees, and members of the public are or may become citizens or residents of countries that criminalize LGBTQIA+ people. For example, as of 2024, fewer than 20 countries legally recognize the existence of nonbinary people; 65 countries criminalize private, consensual same-sex sexual activity, and of those, 12 impose the death penalty and dozens more impose prison sentences. Many more have other types of anti-LGBTQIA+ laws, and while someone may feel comfortable publicly identifying as LGBTQIA+ in the United States, having that information known or available in certain countries could put them at direct risk.

U.S. institutions of higher education are either public or private, and each structure carries a different set of implications for how SOGI data is handled.

• Public institutions are often primarily funded by a state government, putting them under the umbrella of laws that apply to state entities. States may have laws that contradict federal laws, as is the case with several states that have discriminatory laws against LGBTQIA+ communities. Although federal laws ultimately govern, state laws can still cause harm that cannot be undone.
• Private institutions are not solely funded by state governments but often still have close ties with elected officials and donors, which might drive decisions that create a challenging culture for LGBTQIA+ communities. Private institutions may also be guided by interests that are in direct opposition to LGBTQIA+ communities. For-profit institutions are a subcategory of private institutions and may have different regulations that impact them, but individuals at for-profit institutions should follow the overall guidance shared here. Private institutions that do not accept federal funds and faith-based institutions may fall into this category, however current regulatory policy exempts them from federal laws concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
• An international branch campus is a higher education setting in which one or more partnering institutions establish a physical presence in a non-U.S. location for the purpose of expanding global outreach and student exchange. Colleges and universities with international campuses must take into consideration not only the policies and values of their home institutions but also the regulations, laws, and social climate of the countries in which they operate.

A critical part of ensuring that learning environments are supportive of all students is implementing specific policies and procedures that support LGBTQIA+ individuals, affirming their identities, promoting safe and healthy learning environments, and advancing equity and respect for all. All U.S. institutions that accept federal funding fall under federal civil rights laws such as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which "protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance." Although revisions to Title IX regulations would protect the rights of LGBTQIA+ students, several states have challenged the authority of the Department of Education to make such revisions, and the legal landscape surrounding such discrimination will continue to evolve. In addition to laws and regulations, all institutions deal with political and fiscal pressures—which can come from students, staff, faculty, alumni, donors, parents, community members, elected officials, governing boards, or others—to conform to the local social culture.

Political polarization has become the norm and can be seen in statutory differences across states. Public institutions whose internal governance is presumed to be supportive of efforts to protect individuals and their data should not be seen as immune to various kinds of pressure. Tennessee, for example, passed a law banning gender-affirming care for minors. The Tennessee Attorney General requested medical records from Vanderbilt University Medical Center for all patients receiving transgender care, which the institution was obligated to provide. In another case, New College of Florida was considered a relatively safe place for LGBTQIA+ people until early 2023 when the governor replaced half of the college's board of trustees, resulting in concerns across the institution's LGTBQIA+ community about their safety.

A single election or political decision at the state or federal level can have profound impacts on law, government policy, or legal actions and can undo protections (or presumed protections) and put an institution's LGBTQIA+ students, employees, and community members at risk if the institution maintains data on their gender identity, sexual orientation, or other personal information. Private institutions, likewise, cannot guarantee that their policies and processes will be able to withstand adverse legislative and regulatory developments.

All institutions should have explicit policies and procedures in place to protect sensitive data. If it becomes apparent that the existence of sensitive data could put students at risk, institutions must be prepared to take immediate action—for example, if a law or other governmental action is being contemplated that could harm certain individuals, the data might need to be deleted before such actions are taken. If an institution determines that their current situation puts students at substantial risk due to the existence of sensitive data, they should consider taking immediate action. Assuming that "it can't happen here" and adopting a position that "we can cross that bridge when we come to it" could leave LGBTQIA+ people open to harm.