Having trouble accessing audio? Click here. Subscribe to the Knights Community Round Table podcast. 

San Diego Community College District Chancellor Greg Smith addresses questions related to the Trump administrations’ executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, impacts to funding of City College programs such as the Undocumented Resouce Center, student activism, immigration enforcement on campus, threats to withhold funding for DEI initiatives, and the Chancellors personal advice to students in light of the new administrations’s threats, in a Zoom interview with City Times Media Managing Editor Bailey Kohnen and Section Editor Keila Menjivar Zamora on Thursday, March 27, 2025. A full transcript is available below.

For past episodes of the Knights Community Round Table, visit here.

The Knights Community Round Table and CT Sound are part of City Times Media, award-winning, student-produced digital news, TV news, magazine, radio/podcast and indie film, all on one platform at San Diego City College. CTM offers hands-on experience for students using new and emerging technologies in state-of-the-art facilities. To read more, visit SDCityTimes.com.

Transcript:

Vince Outlaw 0:00
City Times Sound presents the Knights Community Round Table. In this interview based program, students engage with community members college staff and fellow students to discuss topics that matter to us all.

Vince Outlaw 0:01
Welcome to the Knights Community Roundtable on City Times sound, where your voice is heard. I’m your host, Vince Outlaw. On Thursday, March 27 City Times Media managing editor Bailey Kohnen and section editor Kayla Menjavar Zamora conducted a zoom interview with San Diego Community College District Chancellor Greg Smith. Smith addressed questions related to the Trump administration’s Executive Order to dismantle the Department of Education impacts to funding of city college programs such as the undocumented Resource Center, student activism, immigration enforcement on campus, threats to withhold funding for dei initiatives and the Chancellor’s personal advice to students in light of the new administration’s threats, managing editor Kohnen begins the interview.

Bailey Kohnen 0:01
There’s a lot of news coming out of the new administration. We had the executive order the other day just calling to dismantle the Department of Education. I guess our first question is, is how, how vulnerable is SD, CD, to disruptions, you know, coming from the federal government. And what are the Are there any potential issues you see coming down as a result of this executive order? And wh at, what could the district do to sort of mitigate that?

Greg Smith 1:38
So relative to other four year colleges and universities and to the K 12 systems were more insulated the Department of Education, we have fewer touch points with them, and so the primary concern we have would be around programs that we do get funding from the federal government that are funneled through Department of education. So something like our Hispanic Serving Institution grants that each of our credit colleges, city, Mesa and Miramar harvest see our Asian American, Native American, Pacific Islander Serving Institution grants that those institutions receive. The Department of Education administers that there’s two level of two levels of concern. One would be that the administration decides not to process those payments and provide those funds, independent of whether or not they have the legal authority to do that, they decide not to do it, and now we have to pursue legal action to determine if that was an appropriate use of power and if we are entitled to those funds, and then what timeline would we receive them? The second level concern would be that Congress actually takes action to amend the Higher Education Act and eliminate those programs, and so Title Three under which established those designations and the funding and what the funding is used for, if Congress were to actually take action eliminate those then we would either have to be able to find alternative funding to continue to run programs, for example, specifically doing work to increase the number of students that identify as Hispanic or Latina participating in STEM programs, persisting through those programs and successfully completing their degree, transferring on. We don’t want to cut those services. Those programs have been very effective, and the outcomes show that they are succeeding. And so we it would strain us to find other resources to be able to backfill that. Some of that is advocacy with the state. Some of that is our internal budgeting. So we actually started looking at this back in the fall. We received, I think, some very good advice that we should start to prepare in the event that Donald Trump won the election and he followed through on some of the campaign promises. How would we be able to manage through that? And so we went back and looked at all the federal funding we’re receiving, which programs would appear to be under threat, and then making plans for how do we continue those through the end of this current fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2025 how could we plan for the ability to sustain them in the next fiscal year through 2026 you know? And so on out into the future? The other thing I would say is that a lot is going to depend on how they move things that are currently being done by the Department of Education to other agencies, and so there may be some temporary disruptions as we figure out how those other agencies operate compared to the way Department of Education did. One of the most impactful will be the Office of Civil Rights, so students or community members that file a complaint that we’re not providing appropriate services to students with disabilities or complaints based on race, gender, ethnicity or other protected statuses, the expectation is that would move to the Department of Justice. That would be a very different kind of interaction I would expect than what we’ve had with Department of Education, which has been more focused on helping institutions achieve compliance. Department. Justice typically takes a more a more punitive approach of identifying failure to comply or wrongdoing and enacting punishment for that, rather than assisting agencies with coming into compliance. But all of that is speculative. We really need to wait and see where they move, different functions the federal government would continue, and then what they move to completely eliminate, the federal government will no longer have a role in this.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 5:33
Thank you. So at the spring convocation, early this semester, President Ricky Shabazz said that the undocumented Resource Center is institutionalized. But then at the town hall that recently occurred, we learned that, I think there was, you know, we know that budget cuts are potentially coming. So my question is, how can we ensure or like are considering if the Resource Center is already short staffed. Are there any like, how can how is the district going to ensure that it continues to operate sustainably for both the staff and also so that students can receive the services that they need?

Greg Smith 6:15
Yeah, I appreciate the question. So the good news is, the funding we receive specifically for undocumented student supports, comes from the state of California, not from the federal government. And continuing the present levels of funding is in the January budget proposal from the governor. I have not heard any conversation that anyone is advocating to remove that funding. So we have every expectation that when the governor’s May revision to his budget proposal comes out, it will continue to show that funding, and when a final budget is adopted, it will be in there. We have separately been advocating with our assembly members and our senators to include a flexible block grant in the state budget that would give districts the ability to backfill any lost federal funding respond to damage from natural disasters, such as the districts in LA dealing with the aftermath of the fires, and to be able to expand services in key areas. So both undocumented student centers and pride centers are a target with this administration and areas where we expect to the point of your question, more students will be looking for services than what we’ve seen in the past. And so it’s not just establishing and maintaining present levels, it’s being able to expand the services. So I think between having security and the current funding we’re receiving, the way that our message has been received by lawmakers in the state around that flexible block grant the state revenues right now continue to come in strong. They’re largely one time revenues driven by capital gains taxes, and so it’s a one time expense that’s that’s appropriate for one time revenue, and that’s been positively received. If that doesn’t happen, though, if the state does not include flexible block grants. This is where I’ve worked with our Board of Trustees over the last couple of years to increase our general fund reserve, to have additional funds on hand, so if we do need to expand services and we don’t have separate funding for it, we can evaluate that and go back to the board and request authority to increase expenses above our revenue temporarily and use some of that reserve to continue these services. We are committed to making sure that our immigrant, asylum seeking and refugee communities are fully supp orted and ready to take that measure, if that’s what it takes.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 8:36
So to be clear, right now, they have one full time coordinator, Project Assistant, I believe, and then two part time counselors. Is that likely to stay the same or even include a full time counselor at any point?

Greg Smith 8:50
Yeah, so I off top my head. I don’t know the exact staffing right now. I’d have to go back and look at that. But yes, we will absolutely continue the current level of service, and if the demand is there, look at how there are options to be able to expand the services.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 9:06
Thank you.

Bailey Kohnen 9:10
So, yeah, shifting shifting gears again, City College, we have a have a long history of activism here. It’s something the campus takes a lot of pride in. And, you know, over the last couple of years, as you know, the the war in Gaza has been particularly activating for for students. We’ve had a lot of students participating in demonstrations and stuff on that, on that issue, lately, we’ve seen a lot of colleges come under under pressure to discipline or shut down, crack down on protesters or punish students for past protest. How? How would you respond if. You know, how would you respond to outside pressure to to crack down on on students for their their prior activism or ongoing activism on campus?

Greg Smith 10:16
We will not punish discipline or otherwise take any negative action against somebody who is expressing their free speech rights in an appropriate way within district policy and regardless of what the federal administration, state lawmakers, local officials, community members feel about the expression of speech. We value free speech. We protect free speech, including the academic freedom of our faculty. So as long as that’s done within the law and within district policy, we will not take any negative action against anyone expressing those viewpoints.

Bailey Kohnen 10:55
Thank you.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 10:59
So kind of this is, I guess we’re shifting gears again. But so we know that we have AC, 3415, right, which has been incredibly well received, which students interaction with immigration enforcement, that’s for anyone that’s not you, essentially, or your general counselor, a council. But we know, we also know that there are reporting requirements for students that are on f1 visas. So could you speak a little bit about the scope of the those reporting requirements and the extent of the relationship between ice and and then the admin, SD, CD as a as a result of that, of the that reporting?

Greg Smith 11:41
Maybe go back and look more into this, because I’m not immediately recognizing what you’re referring to. So let me go back and find out more information about where we would be reporting and what and to whom, and then maybe we can follow up in writing on that.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 11:55
Yeah, that’d be great. So this is specifically coming from so I’ve been trying to learn more about this with our with our administrators and so initially, so you know, based off my, my research, which this is on the DHS website, I know that schools that have students on f1 visas fall under this program called SDP Student Exchange Visitor Program, and that there are and you know, this, this is likely going to be something that we come back to, but I’m just kind of sharing where this question is coming from. So I asked the school, you know, I want to learn a little bit more about the extent of this reporting, and it’s kind of been like either deflecting or crickets and so, especially in light of recent events with students engaging in in free speech activities, just yesterday, there was a student who from Tufts University who was on f1 visa that wasn’t even an activist from, from what I understand, and just wrote an opinion piece for her school paper. So this is the the kind of curiosity for the extent of this reporting is really coming from a curiosity of our students on f1 visa safe to engage in in in freedom of speech as well. I mean, I don’t know what you have to say right off the bat. You know, it’s kind of like a nebulous question at this point, because it’s, you know, something that you don’t have too much context of, but because we are kind of in this really activating, activated time, I would as a student and as a student reporter, we want to make sure that students who are not like that, or here on these visas, are safe to engage in these in their political activism. So what do you have to say to that? Would you say that they’re safe? You know, like that the district is like they want to understand what their positionality is as they themselves engage in political activism.

Greg Smith 13:49
So that is a very concerning development. I mean, what appears to be happening is the federal administration trying to leverage immigration law to be able to restrict free speech rights, and so fundamentally, we are opposed to that concept, whether or not they have the legal authority to do that. I think it’s going to play out in court cases and will likely become an issue that the Supreme Court is going to need to weigh on so we have clarity where this would intersect with our administrative procedure. 3415 in our district, stance would be that any attempt to enforce immigration, regardless of the source, but if we do have students on an f1 visa that have expressed, using their free speech rights, their opinion on any matter, but let’s say specifically, Israel’s war in Gaza, in this case, and the federal government attempted to come and apprehend that individual, to deport that individual while they’re on our campus. We’re not going to comply with them unless they have a court order that binds and requires us, and even then, there are options. We have to explain to the court why we oppose that enforcement on our campus. We’ll take every. The legal avenue we have to deny that. So I think in broad strokes, I can say that, that we would not willingly turn over someone because somebody from the government came and said, we have the authority to do this,

Keila Menjivar Zamora 15:14
and to be clear, as long as they are on campus, right? So off campus, you can’t really speak for that

Greg Smith 15:20
Correct. I can’t protect someone, or I can’t interfere in enforcement activities outside of our institution. I have no legal standing so, but I can when it’s in our campus, in our programs. Yeah.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 15:37
Thank you. And if you could at some point get back to me about one reporting. I would really appreciate that.

Greg Smith 15:43
Yeah, I absolutely would go digging down and find out is that the situation that we actually have, and we’re doing something on and what it is, because I’ve not been apprised of that to this point.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 15:54
Thank you.

Bailey Kohnen 15:57
So yeah, kind of back to the Department of Education, sort of, we had this Dear Colleague letter come out a couple of, I’m guess, a little over a month ago, which said the department of education would be withholding funds from from schools that continue with dei programs. And they listed a lot of things specifically, like affinity, graduations and other programs like that, some of which we, you know we have here. How would you assuming the department of education continues to exist? How would you how would you handle a situation where, where you are put in the position of choosing between continuing to operate these the you know, continuing to hold an affinity graduation and losing federal resources or participation in federal programs. Yeah, how would you? How would you handle something like that?

Greg Smith 17:07
So I think it’s important to set the context for what that conflict would be. The executive order makes this really broad statement that programs like affinity graduations violate federal non discrimination law, the assumption underlining that claim is that those events are only accessible to or available to certain people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, other legally protected statuses. So that fundamental assumption is wrong. All of those events are open to any member of our community that wants to participate, that we do very clearly celebrate the success of specific student communities with those events, but we do not restrict who can participate, and then who can be part of that. So we would immediately challenge any assertion, whether that’s a legal assertion, or just in the public, that those events are discriminatory. And I would expect that if brought to a court, we would be able to bring the facts and have a court say this is not discriminatory. The federal government does not have the standing to withhold the funds. We are fortunate that the level of federal funding we receive would not fundamentally alter our ability to provide our educational programs and services the way that some other institutions may be impacted. So if we were forced into that decision point that you laid out, my advice to the board would be, we continue every program we’re currently doing, and we figure out how to manage the loss of those funds, whether it’s temporary or permanent. But I think it’s very important for all of our communities to know that we’re not going to change our values under the threat of loss of funding or some other type of negative action of the federal government. Our values are our values. We’re here to serve our communities, and that’s not subject to change just because there are some people who don’t like it.

Bailey Kohnen 19:06
Anything else? So yeah, and then I just wanted to ask how you personally are navigating this situation. You you’re someone who’s been fairly upfront about your your values and your your beliefs. Obviously, you did the minimum wage increase right when you got in. I saw you speak at the progressive labor summit last year. So you’re you’re not exactly shy about about, yeah, advocating for what you think is right. How do you handle this situation where, where the environment is is not particularly friendly to your style of leadership?

Greg Smith 19:52
Well, first, I feel incredibly fortunate to have this position. I feel like so many people right now are feeling a lot of anxiety and from. Concern, and they don’t have a productive place to put that I do, but I can put it into my work. And I’m also incredibly fortunate to have a board of trustees that support the approach that I’m taking and the actions that I’m looking to implement. So it’d be a very different situation if that was not true, I’m sure. But I enjoy that support. So it really is about for me, continuing to make progress. I heard council member Shawnee Rivera at a event that we held at the College of Continuing Education back at the start of the semester, say, I don’t want to spend the next four years playing defense. We need to continue to make progress on the improvements in our society and community that we’re that we strive to make, and I’ve taken that to heart. This is not a time to be reactive. It’s a time to be proactive, and so that that really guides how I act in this situation. And I have said in many different forums, one of the best pieces of leadership guidance I ever received is that if you’re going to take on a leadership role. You need to take on the responsibility of making the hard but right decision, even if it’s going to cost you personally. And I’m willing to live that value, I would rather lose my job doing the right thing than keep my job and being disingenuous to who I am, what I believe in and what the values of the institution are. So if it comes to it, I am prepared to lose my job doing the right thing rather than keep it doing what I think is the wrong thing.

Keila Menjivar Zamora 21:29
Thank you. I think a follow up on that question is, what advice do you have for students who are feeling, you know, a lot of angst and anxiety considering everything that’s happening, you know, you know, you just mentioned like I have the fortune of being able to challenge my job. So what advice would you have to students for how to navigate this political climate, or probably feeling very activated as well?

Greg Smith 21:50
What I would suggest, and I have said this in a couple of my forums, to others throughout the district who might feel like within their role, they’re not actually directly impacting kind of what’s happening at a broader level, I would say you are every day that you show up and continue to persist in your education, that in itself, can become an act of defiance. If there are people who want to restrict your ability to get an education, to have living wage employment, to have upward socioeconomic mobility, you refusing to give up and you continuing to show up is an act of defiance, and so I would encourage people to continue to pursue whatever it was that brought them to us in the first place. Succeed. Your success will demonstrate the falseness of many of these narratives. It will ensure that you don’t lose years of your life. So if you wait and come back in 2028 or in 2032 or whenever, all that’s happened is you’ve denied yourself the progress you could have made during those years. And I would, I would encourage everyone, do not allow someone else to dictate the course of your daily life. There’s a lot of negative rhetoric, but most of it is just that. It’s noise, it’s words. There’s not real substance to it. And so showing up as an act of defiance, and I would say, do that with your full enthusiasm every single day.

Vince Outlaw 23:09
You’ve been listening to a zoom interview with San Diego Community College District Chancellor Greg Smith, conducted by City Times Media managing editor Bailey Cohen and section editor Kayla Menjivar Zamora, on Thursday, March 27. Their reporting appears on SDCityTimes.com. Stay tuned for more stories, voices and perspectives from San Diego, City College and beyond. The Knights Community Roundtable is brought to you by the students of City Times sound, a partner of City Times media. CTM is award winning student produced TV and digital news programming, magazine, radio, podcast and indie film all on one platform at San Diego City College, City Times media offers hands on experience for students using new and emerging technologies in state of the art facilities to learn more. Visit SDCityTimes.com