Abstract
Names occupy a unique space, being both private and public. Names are deeply personal, often reflecting one's sense of self, family background, and gender identity. Yet names are very public and are usually the first piece of information we share about ourselves. This represents a challenge when individuals use names that differ from their documented legal name. People use chosen names for many reasons, including stage names, Americanized names, or nicknames. Names may change as a reflection of gender identity or to signify marriage, divorce, or adoption.
People use chosen names for many reasons, including stage names, Americanized names, or nicknames.
Transgender students, staff, and faculty generally report a much more negative campus experience—lower levels of belonging and psychological safety and a greater likelihood of leaving—than their cisgender peers because of the chilling effects of bullying, harassment, and structural barriers, as the Williams Institute (2018) reports. There are many ways to improve this campus experience, including adopting non-discrimination policies that include gender identity and expression, providing education on gender diversity, covering gender-affirming health care, and creating peer support networks. One additional step is the systemic use and display of chosen names. As Abbie Goldberg and coauthors (2018) report in the Recognition of chosen names is a concrete way for educational institutions to remove structural barriers, reduce harm, and build an inclusive campus community.
Our Experiences at Johns Hopkins University
In 2021, Johns Hopkins University (JHU) adopted a statement of principles affirming a commitment to “dismantling persistent systemic barriers to individual and communal success.” Our chosen name endeavor is a continuation of these principles. JHU is a large, decentralized private research university with nine academic divisions. Over 5,600 undergraduates and 23,750 graduate students study at campuses in Baltimore, Washington D.C., Italy, China, and remotely. Approximately 5,400 faculty and 13,500 staff are employed by JHU, along with hundreds of medical residents, postdoctoral scholars, and fellows. Additionally, while Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM) is a separate organization, the two entities share resources, employees, learners, and operation of the School of Medicine. This complexity brings an array of organizational structures, operational approaches, individual decision-makers, and hundreds of computer platforms recording student, staff, and/or faculty data.
Imagine navigating this complex system as a student whose legal name would out them as trans. Or as anyone whose legal name doesn’t feel like a true representation of themselves. They might give up and accept being repeatedly misnamed. Or they might send a series of emails to individual faculty members and advisors, repeatedly explaining their situation. When it comes time to graduate, the student would walk across the stage and hear a name that is not theirs, receiving a diploma with a name they do not recognize. The roots of this project began in 2013, with a student leader who faced these barriers. While there certainly had been others who experienced this situation, this student had the institutional knowledge to bring the issues to two staff members who were able to act.
The initiative began slowly, with sporadic committee meetings as staff members identified decision-makers and subject matter experts. Information system structures are frequently configured to simplify mandatory reporting efforts, limiting customizability and, as Genny Beemyn and Dot Brauer (2015) explain in
Over the next two years, we created a chosen first name field in priority systems, such as student information and human resources systems. This was in addition to existing legal name fields, which were not altered as they remain necessary for financial aid and background checks. We focused on the most public systems, including student rosters, information directories, and email display names. In subsequent years, students helped us identify other key systems, including those used by the health center and residential facilities. A major step forward came when chosen first names became available on university identification cards for all users. Another advance occurred when we pre-populated the chosen name field with the user's legal name, so it could be edited by the user and would not otherwise be blank, allowing chosen name to be the default name field visible across most institutional systems. When we met resistance, we found it was particularly compelling to share the anonymized stories of individual students to illustrate barriers created by our systems.
In 2021, our efforts were further galvanized (as institutional changes often are) by a student-led petition and rally in support of trans inclusion. Through ongoing meetings with these students, we strengthened our understanding of problem systems and their impacts. Students demanded support for chosen last name, something we had not considered in the initial scope. As we learned in meetings with these students, chosen last names may be affirming for people who use stage names, reside in countries where legal last name changes are not possible, or maintain a professional last name while changing their legal last name due to marriage or divorce.
This period was marked by multiple system improvements, including adding chosen middle and last name fields in relevant systems and receiving approval to use chosen names on diplomas. Here, again, students spurred the change. Indigenous students sought diplomas to reflect Indigenous names not aligned with their legal names. While diplomas may seem to necessitate a legal name, in practice they are symbolic documents rarely invoked as official forms of identification. Through peer benchmarking and consultations with campus experts, we determined that official transcripts are used for graduation verification while diplomas generally serve as mementos. As system changes solidified, we partnered with our legal counsel to create an institutional policy to provide guidance for the future. Approved in 2022, the policy ensures continuity of efforts, guides future decisions, and demonstrates institutional support for chosen names.
While we have by no means completed our efforts, chosen name is now an expected part of our data management. When affiliates raise technical issues, we can troubleshoot and provide remedies. Problems generally fall into one of two categories. First, there may be a technological problem, possibly a system error or a system new to our team. We partner with Information Technology and system owners to make changes in how data is shared. The second category of problem comes from a data consumer; for example, a staff member printing recognition certificates or sending a mail-merge. In these cases, we identify who initially accessed the data and provide education on using chosen name for future efforts. Throughout, we rely on users to share the barriers they encounter.
As of November 2024, 30,149 of the 141,789 JH system users have provided data in at least one of the chosen name fields, representing about 21% of our campus community. Users of the chosen name field have shared their appreciation. As quoted by Helen Lacey (2022) in JHU’s student newspaper, one student said, “[These changes] are an important step forward for inclusion at the university. … The previous approach, where chosen names were only allowed in certain systems, resulted in an inconsistent patchwork where it was difficult to predict what name you would be addressed by.” In our 2023 university-wide climate study, one staff member wrote, “Honestly the way things are handled from an IT standpoint … has been ideal. I think I've only run into one or two scenarios where my preferred name didn't pass through.” We are grateful to have established this level of trust, although we continue to make improvements. Throughout, we rely on users to share the barriers they encounter.
Suggestions for Practice
While every institution is different, the following suggestions for practice can help address systemic challenges using a change management approach. While setbacks are inevitable, by prioritizing and centralizing, a small group can make a difference. This change can be sustained by continuing to build trust and by formalizing changes through policy. The principles below can support a chosen name process or could be used for other institution-wide changes such as expanding demographic data collection. As quoted by Helen Lacey in JHU’s student newspaper, one student said, “[These changes] are an important step forward for inclusion at the university.
Prioritize
Our efforts identified nearly 200 campus information systems that made use of names. Some are niche systems accessed by a relative few; others, such as email and directory services, are used by every member of the JH community. We first focused on systems with larger user bases to maximize our efforts, then on systems where an individual's name had greater visibility, such as course discussion boards, class rosters, and identification cards. Finally, we prioritized internally designed systems where we had more control, while continuing to seek support from external vendors.
Centralize
Johns Hopkins is a massive organization with discrete divisions operating with a high degree of independence. Organizational-level change required centralization. First, we created a webpage to communicate the status of relevant computer systems. Second, we streamlined the technological pathway. JH affiliates share their chosen name once and it propagates through various computer systems, rather than changing their name in each individual system. Finally, we created a central email address where users can direct inquiries. Responding involves multiple campus collaborators, but the user experience is simplified. Moreover, this email address allows us to communicate with users to uncover new systems. In our 2023 university-wide climate study, one staff member wrote, “Honestly the way things are handled from an IT standpoint … has been ideal.
Build and Maintain Trust
The website and email address have proved an important part of building and maintaining community trust. As Olivia Copeland and Steven Feldman (2025) state in the
Create a Policy
Once the practices underpinning our chosen name approach were in place, the team created an institutional policy to codify the approach and guide future choices. The policy completed an established review process for approval by leadership. Here, we defined terminology, such as the use of “chosen name” instead of “preferred name.” Policy helps ensure that future decisions like software purchases and upgrades will continue to include chosen name and the institutional practices will continue to function, even as individuals change roles.
Looking Ahead
Although our chosen name efforts were prompted by the needs of trans people, these changes will be embedded in the organization only if they meet a range of needs and support measurable outcomes like psychological safety and belonging. Sustaining inclusive environments requires more than one-time trainings, single-day celebrations, or platitudes. A change management approach to improving systems creates impact at scale and, as Lily Zheng (2025) suggests in While setbacks are inevitable, by prioritizing and centralizing, a small group can make a difference.
We know this is an iterative process. Users continually help us surface new challenges such as a lack of support for letters with diacritical marks outside of the standard character set, including ş (from Turkish) and ọ (from Vietnamese). We submit this article for publication while equity and inclusion efforts are under attack by federal and various state governments. In this climate, we nevertheless believe that an evidence-based systems approach will be sustainable. By continuing to enhance our institutional systems, we continue to fulfill JHU’s commitment to dismantling barriers to success.
