As a result of an anonymous tip, Inside Investigator was made aware of a formal complaint filed on April 18 by Connecticut State Community College’s VP of DEI, John Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, against CSCU. While the complaint contained a long list of grievances, most notable was Chaisson-Cardenas’ assertion that CSCU attempted to “preemptively comply” with the Trump administration’s “anti-DEI” guidance issued in February.
Although the complaint has since been withdrawn, it does give unique insight into the confusion felt by state university officials in response to the Trump administration’s Dear Colleague letter, the methods considered by state universities to come into compliance, and uncovers an uneasy relationship between Connecticut State’s DEI staff and their CSCU superiors going back over two years.
Chaisson-Cardenas accused CSCU of issuing its guidance “unilaterally and solely to presidents to knowingly bypass the DEI and Civil Rights review or question at the institutional (CT State) level.” The guidance letter was sent out to CT State presidents and offered advice on how to administer policy on a variety of university-related topics.
Chaisson-Cardenas stated his belief that enacting a “colorblind” or “anticlassification” interpretation of the Constitution “most likely already violates Connecticut state law and policy,” and would “put at risk our mission as a community college.”
Chaisson-Cardenas alleged CSCU officials of creating a “continual and illegal hostile [work] environment,” retaliating against them for prior reports of “hiring practices that were inconsistent with state and CSCU policy, civil rights policy, and EEO/AA commitments to the state,” of labeling him and his staff as “crazy and insubordinate,” and of failing to respond to previous complaints of, “policy violations by CSCU leadership.” Additionally, he claimed CSCU had “demoted or even fired” various CSCU civil rights officers, and “other relevant HR/LR staff” following complaints of policy violations by CSCU leadership, though it is unclear at this time which exact personnel Chaisson-Cardenas was referring to.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights initially issued its Dear Colleague letter on Feb. 14. The letter took a hard line against DEI practices in schools, saying that if schools did not comply, they risked losing any federal funding provided to them.
”Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race,” read the letter. “Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding.”
Connecticut’s State Board of Education promptly responded, issuing a letter that stated that the federal government cannot threaten to withhold grant funding, “as a means of mandating, directing, or controlling a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum or program of instruction.” Federal judges recently ruled in agreement with this interpretation in a suit brought by the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The guidance letter outlined in Chaisson-Cardenas’ complaint was sent out on March 5 by Cameron Liston, CSCU’s Chief Compliance Officer, to the heads of five CT State community colleges. It issued DEI-related guidance related to affinity groups, academic freedom, scholarships, sanctions and hirings, promotions and compensation.
“Institutions should review related publications and ensure that there are no web pages or other materials that inaccurately indicate that membership or participation in an affinity group, center, space, or event is limited based on any protected characteristics,” read the guidance letter.
On the topic of academic freedom, it said that classrooms, “should feel comfortable respectfully engaging in uncomfortable or controversial topics in the pursuit of knowledge.” Regarding scholarships and financial awards, it said that they must be, “contingent on personal experiences,” but not “on protected characteristics” (e.g. race, sex, religion, etc). Similar guidance was offered towards hiring, saying that colleges should, “fulfill all expectations related to state affirmative action,” without hiring based on protected characteristics.
Perhaps the piece of guidance that would most significantly impact Chaisson-Cardenas’ work for CT State, as well as the work done by DEI staff at any other university falling under the CT State or CSCU umbrella, was the guidance’s section on sanctions and discipline. It essentially said that those professionally involved in DEI-related advocacy should not be tasked with the performance of “objective compliance response work.”
“It is paramount to our response efforts that individuals tasked with performing objective compliance response work do not have any apparent or actual conflicts of interest in other work assignments,” read the guidance. “For example, individuals engaging professionally in protected characteristic-conscious advocacy, promotion, or other similar work pose substantial risk to the integrity of our processes through apparent preference for certain demographics.”
In Chaisson-Cardenas’ complaint, he accused CSCU of knowingly using its guidance letter to push through policy change, noting that he was issued a letter of correction upon telling his department staff to disregard it. Adam Joseph, CSCU’s Vice Chancellor for External Affairs, denied the allegation in an email sent to Inside Investigator.
“CSCU’s Chancellor issued guidance prepared by the Compliance Office and the General Counsel’s Office with recommendations for institution presidents to consider following the issuance of the federal ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, which did not preclude engagement of their campus leadership,” said Joseph. “Mr. Chaisson-Cardenas, without consulting his CT State Community College leadership, instructed his staff to ignore CSCU guidance resulting in the corrective letter.”
Joseph said the guidance “did not specify or mandate any action be taken” but simply “recommended that review be undertaken,” in response to the letter. Chaisson-Cardenas said that he filed a formal complaint in response to the guidance, but was “denied my due process and became the target of direct and indirect but harmful retaliation efforts from CSCU.”
Throughout the complaint, Chaisson-Cardenas claimed that Liston called him crazy, and alleged hearing from members of CT State Faculty Senate that even CSCU’s then-chancellor, Terrence Cheng, called him crazy as well. Chaisson-Cardenas took great issue with the characterization, and said it, “may be a violation of ADA policy and law.”
“I am not a radical or crazy,” said Chaisson-Cardenas. “The crazy frame used by CSCU’s compliance officer (and allegedly the Chancellor) has led several of my colleagues and other authorities to ask me (out of concern) if I need mental health services.”
Joseph denied these allegations as well, simply stating that “No specific information was provided to support the allegation.” Joseph denied all other allegations laid out in the complaint and attached an investigation report for a prior whistleblower complaint filed by Chaisson-Cardenas in April 2024.
“Mr. Chaisson-Cardenas filed a whistleblower complaint and alleged retaliation by certain individuals within CSCU leadership in 2024, including the interim head of human resources and the chief of staff,” said Joseph. “Such complaints were investigated by outside counsel and found to be unsubstantiated.”
The investigation noted that Chaisson-Cardenas, “stated that he and his staff were fearful of retaliation by CSCU leadership.” It said that Chaisson-Cardenas and Nicholas D’Agostino, CT State’s Director of Equal Employment, experienced “continued retaliatory attacks on his and his staff’s credibility, and efforts to neutralize his office’s original reports and current functions,” after filing previous complaints regarding hiring practices as far back as April 2023.
The investigation concluded by saying that investigators “could not substantiate any violation of CSCU’s policies, applicable laws or regulations.” As for Chaisson-Cardenas’ most recent complaint, an email forwarded by CSCU staff shows that he dropped it on April 28, the same day it was announced that Cheng’s chancellorship would not be renewed.
“Based on today’s announcement, and in order to support CSCU and CT State in this new environment, I withdraw my complaints,” wrote Chaisson-Cardenas. “Thank you so much to the board and our CT State president. I felt heard.”
Chaisson-Cardenas could not be reached by Inside Investigator for comment.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
