If there is any facet of campus life at Syracuse University that should be confronted ambitiously, it is that of diversity and inclusion structural frameworks.

The Chancellor’s Workgroup on Diversity and Inclusion released a report Monday outlining 33 recommendations to help “sustain an inclusive, accessible campus of opportunity for a richly diverse student body” at SU. Hiring a chief diversity officer, establishing a diversity and inclusion council and expanding the choice of identification options — including gender pronouns and preferred names — on university platforms were among the proposals laid out in the report.

But the suggestions should not be minimized as niche and disregarded as too idealistic by both administrative members who assess the report and students who are constituents under it. The specifics of each proposal are certainly opportunities for discussion, but there should be a holistic understanding that the recommendations were composed on the basis that not each suggestion will be implemented.

The perception of the report as an unrealistic approach may stem from privileged standpoints. Based on personal factors, some students that may not be able to immediately empathize with the fact that even one proposal and the greater consideration behind it have transformative potential for the campus experiences of their peers who have more marginalized identities. And these measures are not all that far-reaching when small-scale actions — like preferred name change opportunities — have the ability to make a tangible difference in the lives of these students.

It is this rightfully in-depth and upfront nature of the demands that perfectly positions the administration to make the next move. Paired with the report’s acknowledgment that similar proposals have failed at other institutions, thoughtfully evaluating the feasibility of these suggestions at SU should be clearly communicated to keep the campus community informed of their status.

Not each one of the recommendations will prove to be applicable to the majority of the campus community. But all of them should be thoroughly assessed rather than disregarded as naïve when there is opportunity for progress within the scope of the SU campus.