Fall 2004
Research in Brief:
by Diane Dorney, Michael Steele, & Stacie Morgan
Perspectives:
by Kevin Kerr & Tyler Page
by J. A. McArthur
by Robert Stevenson
Book Reviews:
Reviewed by Cathy Stevens
Writing Award:
by Bob Hanley
Perspectives of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Populations
on Student Support Services at One Institution
Diane Dorney
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
Michael Steele
Roanoke College
Stacie Morgan
Darton College
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) concerns have recently been topics of discussion at Clemson University. There is a lack of inclusive rhetoric in university policies, which initiated an investigation by a group of graduate students of the existence and success of programs and departmental services for this specific population. In addition, there are numerous articles and books addressing LGBT student concerns, which reinforced the need for improvements in areas of acceptance and understanding by their peers and/or faculty and staff. If the higher education system includes student services and support as an institutional responsibility, attempts to respond to the needs of the LGBT student population are valid. Considering that LGBT students require specific support and services, much like other minority students, this research aimed to analyze specific university support and services through LGBT college students’ perspectives.
Definitions and History of Homosexuality
Homosexuality is “characterized by sexual desire for those of the same sex as oneself” (Neufelt & Guralink, 1997, p. 333). The word “gay,” used to signify homosexual, took on that meaning over the past 30 years as part of the gay-rights movement. Gay refers to males and sometimes females, whereas lesbian is reserved exclusively for females (Bullough, 1997).
The origin of homosexual behavior is unknown. The earliest accounts of homosexual behavior seem to be found in ancient practices. Ancient Greek culture is often promoted as the most accepting of homosexuality. For example, homosexual relations were thought to bring a deeper sense of comradeship and increased loyalty among units of the Greek military (Bullough, 1997).
Modern Attitudes, Perceptions, and Issues Related to Homosexuality
In recent history, homosexuals have experienced abuse and stigmatization. Current research and literature indicates that homosexual rights are not a major concern for many Americans. Although many women have attitudes that are more liberal on gay issues, a large proportion of Americans remain not accepting of gay and lesbian people and their rights (Malaney, Williams & Geller, 1997). Verbal and physical harassment continues to be a concern for the gay population (Malaney, Williams & Geller, 1997).
The research of Maleney, Williams, and Galler (1997) indicated that approximately sixty-five percent of Americans thought that “homosexual rights were being paid too much attention” and approximately sixty-four percent of respondents believed that homosexual marriages should not be recognized (Malaney, Williams, & Geller, 1997, p. 370). The negative attitudes of straight individuals towards homosexuals can lead to low self-esteem, mental health problems, violence, and even death (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001). Current statistics suggest that 68% of gay men and 83% of lesbian women report using alcohol and drugs regularly (Edwards, 1997).
Considering that more and more young people are “coming out” at younger ages, many high schools have welcomed homosexual organizations such as Gay Straight Alliances (GSA) despite the continued struggle with gay issues (Lee, 2002). Concerned that LGBT students do not receive the same educational opportunities as their straight counterparts, GSA aims to contribute to the development of LGBT students by providing “safe places” where the students can develop relationships with peers and faculty members. In addition, GSA targets educating straight students about homosexual issues. Lee reported that members of GSA indicated improved academic performance and improved relationships with faculty, staff, and peers and that school-based support groups can help lessen the negative statistics related to LGBT students (Lee, 2002).
College Campuses: Reflections of Greater American Society
Many feel that college campuses are reflections of the greater society. Therefore, higher education is not excluded from similar debates or issues related to homosexuality, which makes the inclusion of this subgroup a relevant concern. Similar to the concerns discussed by Americans regarding gay issues, many college students are not aware of or interested in the concerns, history, and culture of homosexuals (Malaney, et al., 1997). The lack of knowledge by society may explain why many LGBT students are surprised at the ignorance regarding sexual identity and stereotypes they face in the environment of higher education (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997).
As in American society, LGBT students frequently report verbal and physical abuse and consequently express fear for their safety and well-being. In addition, they may feel alienated by their peers in residence halls and academic programs (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997). For example, many ROTC programs on college campuses still discriminate against homosexuals (Malaney, Williams, & Geller, 1997). Furthermore, some professors consider homosexuality to be wrong, which may negatively impact homosexual students’ growth and learning (Malaney, Williams, & Geller, 1997).
Despite these previously mentioned negative issues, there are strides being made within higher education concerning homosexuality. As some primary and secondary schools are confronting bigotry by providing “safe places” and embracing GSA clubs for homosexual students, higher education is making similar strides through policy (Edwards, 1997). Federal courts have ruled that public institutions and schools with religious affiliations who receive federal funding cannot withhold support for the recognition and establishment of LGBT organizations (McRee & Cooper, 1998). In response, many schools have developed support services to assist this specific population (McRee & Cooper, 1998).
Perceptions of LGBT Students and the Desire to be Included
The perception among college students regarding gays and lesbians is improving. In the early 1990’s nearly fifty percent of students, faculty, and staff held negative and/or homophobic attitudes toward homosexuals; however, today’s students are described as having a more positive attitude toward gays and lesbians (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001). Despite the improvement in perceptions among straight individuals, concerns remain. As of 1998, the perception of gay and lesbian students indicates that college campuses were still less accepting of LGBT students than heterosexual students (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001).
Current LGBT students appear to be more vocal about their lifestyles and discrimination they face for their choices. Their protests and expressions may contribute to the improving perception among straight students, faculty, and staff regarding their LGBT peers (Rhoads, 1998). Students committed to LGBT issues are helping to shape campus infrastructure and community perceptions (Malaney, Williams, & Geller, 1997).
All college students face significant growth in their personal identity and interpersonal attitude during the college years (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001). LGBT students face the additional challenges of finding their sexual identity and place in a somewhat alienating culture. Renn suggests that including the voice of LGBT students into rhetoric and course materials may help to lessen some of the anxiety that these students face (1999).
Lack of expression or negative attitudes by professors regarding homosexuality can negatively impact the learning environment for all students. Professors who introduce sexual orientation topics in a welcoming manner create an environment of inclusion (Renn, 1999). Professors can improve the campus climate for LGBT students through teaching, service, and scholarship. In addition, campuses that support openly gay and lesbian faculty create atmospheres of acceptance and provide students with LGBT role models (Renn, 1999).
LGBT students feel the more open they are about their lifestyle the more they encounter anti-gay attitudes (Renn, 1999). For example, to avoid anti-gay harassment and discrimination, fifty-three percent of homosexual students censored their academic speech, writing and actions (Renn, 1999). Due to the resistance LGBT students have about being openly homosexual, they may seek support from other LGBT students rather than from heterosexual students. This lack of support and cooperation between heterosexuals and homosexuals creates a separation between the groups. Research indicates that close cooperative contact among heterosexual and homosexual students is effective in reducing prejudice (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001).
Although there are improvements in the perceptions and policies regarding LGBT students, evidence exists that LGBT students perceive their environment as less tolerant than heterosexual students. LGBT students are concerned with being open about their lifestyle in the academic setting for fear of prejudice and anti-gay discrimination. To better access the perceptions of LGBT students at Clemson University, this literature will be used to create an inquiry targeting the effectiveness of higher education services for LGBT students at this educational establishment.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to analyze the specific support and services in terms of issues related to LGBT college students at Clemson University. LGBT students require specific support, services and acceptance in order to promote student growth and development. Recognizing the excellence in Clemson University’s ideals to promote a familial sense within the faculty, staff, and student populations, this research aims to evaluate perceptions of inclusion of LGBT students in terms of specific campus support and services.
Method
Subjects
The subjects consisted of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender undergraduate and graduate Clemson University students over the age of 18 years. Subject participation was voluntary. Issues of confidentiality were addressed during the recruitment process. Information on the demographics of the sample was solicited on an optional basis due to sensitive confidentiality issues in working with the LGBT population. Participants who were not comfortable answering questions regarding their personal identity were still invited to participate in the inquiry section.
Procedure
Undergraduate and graduate LGBT students were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Due to the confidentiality issues related to LGBT students, subjects were recruited via email, list serves, and flyers in the following ways: a) the Clemson Gay Straight Alliance (CGSA), a student organization, distributed the on-line survey to their confidential list serve. Survey recipients were invited to share the survey’s Web address with other LGBT students that may not be on CGSA’s list serve; b) survey information was distributed to all Clemson University international students via list serves; c) students could access the survey on the Union Programming and Activities Council’s (UPAC) Website; and d) flyers with the survey’s Web address were distributed as part of One World Week, a program aimed at raising diversity awareness. Participants returned surveys via the Internet to protect the identity of students who were not willing to publicly disclose their sexual orientation information.
A Likert scale was selected to evaluate and measure perceptions of LGBT students in regards to university services and support. A literature review, which investigated the modern attitudes, perceptions and general issues related to homosexuality and perceptions regarding the lack of inclusion of LGBT college students was utilized in the construction of this survey. Additionally, researchers interviewed members of several programs and departments and researched policies regarding LGBT issues in order to more accurately reflect current university services and support. Programs and departments included the Michelin Career Center, UPAC, Athletic Department, International Student Affairs and Study Abroad, Greek Life, Catholic Student Association, and the Housing Department.
The survey began with an informational letter, which addressed the purpose, confidential nature, and intended use of the research. Participation in the survey was deemed as consent from the respondents. The survey contained two parts. Part one was a survey, which targeted support and services at Clemson University, comprised of 21 items on a Likert scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. In constructing the Likert scale, an undecided response was included so that respondents would not be obligated to agree/disagree. These 21 items assessed perceptions of a variety of Clemson University programs and services including departmental policies, religious organizations, student programming, LGBT student organization participation, perceptions of faculty/staff/peer support for LGBT students, and several scenario situations. Part two was an optional section used to gather basic demographic information of gender, age, sexual orientation, year in school, and degree to which students are “out” in diverse contexts. All collected data was analyzed through percentages.
Results
Findings and Implications
Thirty LGBT student participants responded to the survey. Twenty-two of the 30 participants filled out the optional demographic section. Results indicated that 16 men (73%) and six women (27%) participated. The mean age was 22 years old.
Demographic data collected revealed that 57% of the respondents were gay men, 14% lesbian women, 14% bisexual men, 10% bisexual women, and 5% transgender persons. The demographic data also indicated that 20% were freshmen, 15% sophomores, 25% juniors, 25% seniors, and 10% graduate students. Most participants, 81%, reported being “out” to other LGBT students, while only 52% percent were “out” to a group of trusted, heterosexual friends. The demographic data collected is supported by research findings of Bowen & Bourgeois (2001) that LGBT students seek support from other LGBT students, further suggesting that students feel safer with other LGBT students.
The research findings also suggest that LGBT students are more comfortable coming out to LGBT Clemson University staff/faculty in comparison to straight faculty/staff. Sixty-two percent of respondents indicated that they were not “out” to straight faculty and staff. Literary research supports the research findings suggesting that there is a mistrust of disclosing to straight faculty/staff for fear of homophobic reactions, which may consequently negatively impact non-heterosexual students’ growth & learning (Malaney, Williams, & Geller, 1997). These research findings also yielded that 57% of students were not out in their classes.
Further analysis revealed that 39% of LGBT students believed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Laws (EEOC) were inclusive of LGBT faculty/students/staff, and 33% disagreed that these laws were inclusive of the LGBT population. EEOC laws do not include in its construction the category of sexual orientation as protected from workplace discrimination. The marginal difference in percentages may be explained by a perception of assumed inclusion in the policy rhetoric despite the specific reference to the LGBT population.
Findings revealed that 60% of LGBT students felt that housing policies did not adequately prepare students for the possibility of assignment of a LGBT roommate, which indicated a deficiency in this student service. Recently, Clemson University has approved the implementation of a “Safe Zone” program. The Safe Zone program will target stronger education of resident administrators and resident directors regarding LGBT issues. Educated RAs and RDs will be designated as advisors/counselors for LGBT students.
In terms of student programming, the findings indicate that 51% of students would feel comfortable participating in UPAC activities such as the Valentine’s dating game; however, results also indicate a need for more inclusive programming. Forty percent of participants disagreed (14% agreed, 48% undecided) that UPAC’s film series is representative of LGBT issues. These programming results may indicate a need for additional programming targeting the LGBT population or a more appropriate marketing of services.
Findings revealed strong results in the survey item addressing the career center. Sixty-nine percent participants were undecided if the career center offered services to the LGBT population, while 24% disagreed that services and support were offered for LGBT students. The career center has also adopted the EEOC policy, and they are sensitive to diversity issues in the work place. Typically student organizations, classes, or faculty approach the career center for special services (ex. international student workshops); however, there are also programs initiated by the career center for students with special needs. Due to the confidential nature of the LGBT population or the lack of knowledge about the openness of the career center, LGBT issues had not been addressed. In the past, the Career Center has conducted research on the issues and concerns of the LGBT population. Due to the results of this study, the career center is currently pursuing a panel discussion with LGBT issues as a forefront topic.
Overall, research findings revealed that LGBT students are most comfortable being open about their sexuality with other LGBT students. Areas of concern include findings that 34% of participants feel they are not accepted by Clemson University faculty/staff and 44% do not perceive that they are supported by faculty in academic pursuits to explore LGBT issues. Furthermore, 55% of students felt that they were not treated equally compared to their straight counterparts.
Student services personnel and faculty should make efforts to improve the negative attitudes on college campuses. One way to improve the negative perception may be to provide more visible LGBT role models in faculty/staff positions at Clemson University. Results indicate that 48% disagreed that LGBT role models were represented at the university.
The survey also produced other pertinent information. Seventy-nine percent of participants would like to receive information on cultural climates towards LGBT individuals as a part of the Study Abroad services. Positive attitudes were reflected in the findings with 51% of participants in agreement that they were comfortable discussing their sexual orientation with nurses, doctors, and counselors at Redfern Health Center. Most LGBT students would be uncomfortable “coming out” in Greek organizations and to athletic teams, and some participants would be uncomfortable participating in religious organizations that take an anti-gay position. For complete survey results, see Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Percentage for Each Survey Item by Total Respondents
Note: N represents number that responded to survey item. Respondents were not required to answer all items. Scores were based on a weighted Likert scale SA=5/A=4/U=3/D=2/SD=1. * This item was weighted differently to represent negative responses reflecting agreement SA=1/A=2/U=3/D=4/SD-5. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. Percentages (%) represent percentages of responses in agreement (either responding strongly agree or agree) with the survey.
Limitations
Several limitations should be considered in evaluating the research findings. The limited number of participants is a concern; therefore, this data should be used as a preliminary step for addressing LGBT concerns. Since the survey was distributed from a variety of Web sites and list serves, there was no way to prevent heterosexual students, non-students, or people from other universities or communities from participating. The transgender population was very small, and there was not a balanced representation of female respondents. Also since the participants were from only one institution, the results are not generalizable.
In constructing the survey items, CGSA was not utilized for their suggestions although many faculty and staff were included. Consulting the LGBT student population for their input would have ensured the relevance of survey items and deepened the breadth of the survey.
In addition, the survey did not evaluate all of Clemson University services and support, and distribution of the survey was limited due to the confidential nature of the population. Students not personally comfortable with discussing their sexual orientation may not have felt comfortable in responding to the survey. Some organizations were not permitted to distribute the survey information to their list serves due to the confidential nature and sensitivity with this population.
A final limitation was the allowing for undecided responses. Several undecided responses to survey items were collected. Although the undecided response allowed respondents more freedom in their choices, the choice did not indicate positive or negative attitudes. Thus, caution should be exercised when generalizing these results.
Conclusion
From the research results, it is appears that the focus of improving negative perceptions of LGBT students in regards to student services and support lies with the relationships between faculty, staff, and peers. Programming for this specific population does exist, but many students are unaware of them. Efforts should be made to improve the awareness of LGBT programs and to encourage the creation of new programs in all departments. Improvements need to be made in the communication between departments and LGBT students. However, without an overall improvement in students’ perceptions of acceptance on Clemson’s campus, improved communications will be challenging. If the university’s goal is to provide student services inclusive of the LGBT population, efforts made to promote a tolerant and accepting college environment that pervades every classroom should improve negative perceptions and attitudes and validate the success of student services. Such efforts will not only improve perceptions, but assist LGBT students in their personal and academic growth and development.
References
Bowen, A. M., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual
college students: the contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social impact, and
contact theories. Journal of American College Health, 50(2), 91-96.
Bullough, Vern L. (1979). Homosexuality: A history, New York: New American Library
Edwards, A. T., (1997). Let’s stop ignoring our gay and lesbian youth. Educational
Leadership, 54(7), 68-71.
Engstrom, C., Sedlacek, W. (1997). Attitudes of heterosexual students toward their gay male
and lesbian peers. Journal of College Student Development, 38(6) 565-575.
Lee, C. (2002) The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High
School Journal, 13-26.
Malaney, D., Williams, E., Geller, W. (1997). Assessing campus climate for gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals at two institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 30(4),
365-374.
McRee, T., & Cooper, D. (1998). Campus environments for gay, lesbian, and bisexual
students at southeastern institutions of higher education. NASPA Journal, 36(1), 48-57.
Neufelt, V., & Guralink, D.B. (1997). Webster’s New World Dictionary, Cleveland:
Simon & Schuster.
Renn, K. A. (1999). Including all voices in the classroom. College Teaching, 48(4),129-
135.
Rhoads, R. A. (1998) Student protest and multicultural reform: making sense of campus
unrest in the 1990s. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 621-642.
Greeks of Integrity: A Journey to Leadership
Kevin Kerr
Penn State University
Tyler Page
University of South Carolina
On February 15, 2002 Daniel Reardon, a new member of the Eta Chapter of Phi Sigma Kappa International Fraternity (Phi Sig) at the University of Maryland (UMD), died as a result of an alcohol related incident (Rothman, 2002). The death of Daniel Reardon was a tragic incident and a devastating shock to the UMD community and others around the nation. Was it truly a shock that such an incident could occur anywhere?
The case against the brothers of the Eta Chapter was cut and dry. Dru Bagwell, former Grand President of Phi Sigma Kappa and former Associate Vice-President of UMD, stated that from knowing the basics of the incident, there was no excuse for the situation. The Inductor, the chapter leader charged with instructing the new members on what it means to be a Phi Sigma Kappa, was leading a drinking exercise with the new members in the fraternity’s house (personal communication, February 3, 2004).
Reardon had lived in the fraternity house for some time, becoming “immersed in the fraternity’s social scene” (Schuler, 2002). His last social event with the Phi Sigs ended with him drinking alcohol until he became unconscious with a blood alcohol level of 0.50 (Clark, 2003). The pressing question becomes: could the tragic death of Daniel Reardon have been prevented if the men of Eta Chapter of Phi Sigma Kappa were reminded of their fraternity’s Cardinal Principles? Unfortunately, this situation is but one example of how fraternity and sorority members have lost focus of the values and principles they affirm.
Greeks: Don’t they Just Drink and Haze?
The action of hazing, like other problems facing the Greek system, is one of escalation; the extent and the severity of these actions seem to know no end. If inappropriate actions by members of the Greek system are not addressed they become more than habits, they become traditions. Have inappropriate actions, like those that led to the death of Daniel Reardon, replaced the core values and principles that fraternities and sororities were founded upon? If so, is there a way to challenge fraternity men and sorority women to begin living the values and principles affirmed by their organizations, instead of simply reciting them at meetings? Greeks need to rediscover their organizations’ founding values and principles.
All fraternities and sororities have foundational values and principles that serve as the guide to life for all members. For example, the Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity asserts three Cardinal Principles: “To Promote Brotherhood, To Stimulate Scholarship and To Develop Character” (About Phi Sigma Kappa, Ideals, para 7-9, n.d.). However, Phi Sigma Kappa does not stop with these brief action statements. The Cardinal Principles are clarified and further explained so no member should ever misinterpret the three core principles.
Sororities also have values and principles that form their foundational purposes. Chi Omega, a National Panhellenic sorority, affirms “six purposes have guided the direction of every chapter and brought its members unequaled opportunities for personal growth and development” (About Chi Omega, Purpose, para. 1, n.d.). Friendship, high standards of personnel, sincere learning and creditable scholarship, participation in campus activities, career development, and community service form the foundation of Chi Omega sisterhood. These six core values provide the rubric through which sisters should view their lives and actions. Each principle promotes the development of students while simultaneously supporting the missions of the institutions where the chapters find a home (About Chi Omega, The Chi Omega Symphony, n.d.).
The emphasis on core principles and values does not end with National Inter-fraternity Conference (NIC) and National Panhellenic Conference NPC) organizations. The National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) also values similar principles. Members of historically black organizations emphasize values that their members should espouse through their actions, words and deeds. The sisters of Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA) seek “the upliftment of their community, as well as to the grand ideals of service, scholarship and sisterhood” (Alpha Kappa Alpha History, A Brief History of AKA para 1, n.d). Once again, the ideals affirmed provide a framework for the sisters of Alpha Kappa Alpha to view the world. These common principles, hoped one of the sorority’s founders, would “[enrich] the social and intellectual aspects of college life” (Historic AKA, Overview, para. 1, n.d). The sorority challenges its sisters to seek out ways to aid and serve their community and maintain a commitment to academics, all while strengthening the bond that brings them together. “Alpha Kappa Alpha seeks to serve as a catalyst for positive growth by” focusing on these important issues with their members and the overall community (Alpha Kappa Alpha History, A Brief History of AKA, para. 3, n.d.). Overall, Alpha Kappa Alpha hopes to foster an environment where these principles provide its members “a means of self-fulfillment” (Historic AKA: Overview, para. 3, n.d.).
Thus, no matter whether they are members of the National Inter-fraternity Conference (NIC), the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC), the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) or affiliated with another governing body, all Greek organizations affirm foundational principles. These principles can help their members develop into men and women of integrity.
Research on organizational membership reveals that students who pledge Greek organizations tend to espouse the values and principles central to the organization (Holtz, 1997). Those already held values that are congruent with the fraternity’s will be encouraged and will help the new member gain acceptance from his brothers (Jakobsen, 1986). Any values the student has that do not match those held by the brotherhood or sisterhood will be pressured to change to match those of the group (Borsari & Carey, 1999). For example, a woman who does not believe that she is up to the challenges of her classes yet pledges a sorority that affirms academic achievement will potentially find her scholastic pursuits enhanced by the values shared by her sisters.
Although how organizational members influence one another can be exceedingly positive, it can also be exceedingly detrimental in the case of Greek organizations. If the organization espouses the values that led to the death of Daniel Reardon, students then learn behaviors detrimental to their success and well-being; however, if the fraternity or sorority upholds their foundational values and principles, positive changes to these students and to campus culture can happen.
Understanding the importance of core principles and values of fraternities and sororities is essential to fostering a positive change in the Greek community. This change must occur from within the chapter itself and cannot be imposed by the university administration. Thus, it becomes critical to identify a key chapter leader who not only understands the organization’s values and principles but who can also affect change in the organization.
But why choose House Managers?
At Clemson University, an amazing opportunity to help educate Greek leaders developed. Since 16 of the 21 NIC fraternities and all 9 of the NPC sororities have on-campus housing in residence halls, each has a resident assistant (RA). Arvidson (2003) in his study of resident assistant roles found that most college campuses regard RAs as important student leaders, but this fact was not the case within the Greek community at Clemson. The fraternities and sororities struggled to put forward quality candidates; no one wanted to step up and assume the RAs leadership role. A focus group was conducted with the Greek RAs to investigate why this situation occurred, and the focus group responses discovered what was intuitively known. No one wanted to be “that brother” or “that sister” who reported policy violations to the University. The Greek RAs also reported that if the job were changed to reflect the needs and values of the Greek community would it be more appealing, and the answer was a resounding “yes”.
In reviewing recent literature on the changing role of the resident assistant, it became clear that Bailey and Grandpre’s (1997) model for an RA job description did not cover all the needs of the Greek residential community. Although Greek RAs, like their non-affiliated counterparts, must be educators and role-models, they must also become chapter leaders and they must be knowledgeable about the organization’s principles and purposes.
Changing the title of this key leadership position was the first step taken to bring about a shift in understanding and in living the foundational values and principles among Clemson’s fraternity and sorority members. No longer would fraternities and sororities have RAs, they would have House Managers (HMs). To some this appeared as mere semantics, but to the Greek men and women who took on this new role, the change in title made a world of difference. The Greek RAs no longer saw themselves as an outsider in their own organization’s residential community. They now saw themselves as part of the chapter’s leadership team. The Greek chapter leadership teams took notice of this change as well. All 16 of the fraternities agreed to fund the development and purchase of House Manager polo shirts, making their support for the House Manager position tangible. Additionally, the one sorority that prohibited a sister from serving the chapter as the RA is in the process of deciding to alter this policy, changing the chapter’s by-laws because of the affects of having a House Manager on the floor.
A new job description that met the needs of the Greek community accompanied the change in title. By researching what the job requirements were of other student and professional staff who supervised Greek residential housing, a new comprehensive job description for Clemson’s House Managers was developed. The job description was developed to accommodate the nuances that of fraternity and sorority residential living. Beyond the typical responsibilities of an RA, a House Manager places their brothers or sisters into their room assignments, creates ownership of the housing situation by both the residential and non-residential members, and serves as the main liaison between University Housing and the chapters.
Additionally, the House Manager aids in the development of the Housing Board, a cooperative effort between the Greek Councils and the Residence Hall Association (RHA). This collaboration allows the residential fraternity and sorority members to remain actively engaged with the other residential communities on campus while maintaining their distinctive identity.
The most important additions to the job description involve each House Manager understanding and exemplifying the core values that his or her organization affirms. This application of what it means to be a member of that specific organization provides the framework for the House Manager to hold the members of the chapter responsible for their actions. The House Manager is not only able to implement University policy, but more importantly able to use the foundational principles of the organization to reinforce appropriate behaviors. This focus on chapter values also allows for the creation of meaningful programs that address issues of concern for the chapter and the Greek community as a whole. Through these actions, the House Managers reinforce the true meaning of their organization with their brothers or sisters.
The changes reflected much more than just the special administrative functions handled by the House Managers. The words of Dave Westol, Executive Director of Theta Chi Fraternity, served as a guide in developing the core of the job description: “[Fraternities] need to get back to what they once were—a group of men brought together by values and ideals” (Reisberg, 2000, A59). The House Managers needed to understand their organizations’ values and principles so they could help their brothers and sisters develop into the men and women that their organizations’ founders would be proud to call brothers or sisters.
Each House Manager is charged with developing programs that supported the chapter’s values, mission and goals. They also complete the Greeks of Integrity program, a program designed to promote self-reflection on the personal and fraternal values and principles. A deeper understanding and personal commitment would be needed from the House Managers in order for their organizations’ members to represent their core principles and hopefully “foster ethical actions by connecting their choices to the organization’s cornerstone principles” (Whipple, 1998, p. 44). Through this program, values-based leadership would become a reality in Clemson’s Greek community.
But can one member make a change?
Changing a system built upon tradition not only takes time, but it also takes buy-in from those inside the system. Although buy-in could be seen as a weakness in affecting change within such a system, it is not necessarily the case. If the goal of the change revolves around returning to the values and principles that the organizations were founded upon, tradition could be a powerful aid. Getting the members to believe in and act upon those values and principles then becomes the challenge.
The House Managers became instrumental to changing the Greek culture at Clemson University. Through the Greeks of Integrity program, House Managers reflects upon what it truly means to become a member of their organization. The program impacts all members of Clemson’s Greek community: chapter leadership, Greek council members, general members and even new members.
The values-based training program, Greeks of Integrity, for House Managers includes the following:
- Write out the public creed or statement of principles that is the core purpose of their organization;
- Complete a self-assessment, a brief series of questions designed to elicit, in his or her own words, what the values and principles of his or her organization actually means;
- Explain how these principles guide his or her everyday actions and how this can influence the other members;
- Identify any actions, attitudes, habits or practices that are incongruent with the values and principles of their fraternity or sorority.
- Set up an action plan that, with the support of their supervisors, will allow them to affect the change they want to see so their actions, attitudes, habits and practices will truly reflect the core values and principles of their organization.
The new House Manager job description may sound challenging for young, college student; however, all new member education processes for fraternities or sororities already include similar yet far more intensive exercises. The Greeks of Integrity program actually reinforces what organizations want members to affirm in their words and deeds. The Greeks of Integrity program assists members in taking ownership of the high ideals of their organizations and to promote change.
Implementation of Change
To promote change and initiate the Greeks of Integrity program, the House Managers at Clemson University attended a week long training institute. Part of this institute was spent with the resident assistants who work in other residence halls on campus. Much of the institute centered on what it means to be a leader in a Greek organization. The institute included discussions centered on comprehending the values and principles that each organization affirms and how they, as House Managers, could help their brothers and sisters make choices and set priorities that reflect these foundational values and principles.
The week long institute culminated in the writing of a creed by the fraternity House Managers. The creeds or principles of the staff members were printed and placed into unmarked envelopes. Each staff member, including the professional staff members, drew an envelope and read the enclosed document organizational creed or principles without identifying the organization. The staff member of the organization whose creed or principles had just been read would then claim the creed or principles. The group then discussed the similarities and differences present in the creeds and then outlined six common themes among the organizations: Brotherhood, Scholarship, Teamwork, Integrity, Community Service and Leadership.
The six common themes derived from the institute became the foundation for the “Pillars of Principle”. For the next activity during the institute, the staff broke into groups and drafted a group creed based upon these six Pillars of Principle. When completed, all staff gathered to sign the creed and pledged to live up to this creed as a House Manager and a fraternity man.
Training Using the Common Themes
The creed and the Pillars of Principle formed the basis for on-going training for the remainder of the year. Each month a team of fraternity and sorority House Managers formulated an activity or event for the residential Greek community that promoted a specific pillar. For example, the October Pillars of Principle team chose to engage the Greek community with a service event. They planned and implemented a Halloween trick-or-treat in Clemson’s Fraternity Village for local elementary school children. Fraternities and sororities came together and demonstrated the good they can do in the community. Events like this helped to promote the true values and principles of the Greek organizations. Pillar activities are but one way that the House Managers can affect change and create buy-in among their brothers and sisters.
Additionally, all newly hired House Managers must complete a three-credit leadership class. Once again, the House Managers are challenged to explore the purposes of their organizations and discover their role in helping the Greek chapters to meet their ideals. The class helped the House Managers affect change in their organizations by allowing them to become more familiar with how to confront their brothers and sisters who do not live up to the core values and principles of the chapter.
Through exposure to the current issues facing the Greek system today, the House Managers learned to think. They learned how to reach out to their brothers and sisters and help them make decisions that will reflect and affirm the true purpose of their organization. The House Managers learned how to lead by example and understand that they have the ability to work with their chapter’s leadership to promote positive actions, attitudes, habits and practices reflective of the organizations’ founding creeds and principles.
Why this helps Greeks change?
Anyone who has ever joined a Greek organization has committed to following certain values. These values, regardless of the organization, are meant to benefit not only the individual, but also the entire community. Greek organizations instill these values in their members so they may make wise decisions and positively represent their fraternity or sorority; but, most importantly live their life with character and integrity. Through the values-based training program, Greeks of Integrity, the House Managers, as well as the brothers and sisters are consistently reminded, renewed, and reaffirmed of the values they have committed to for a lifetime.
How will this program benefit a college campus? Campus leadership is often overwhelmed with Greek members. Furthermore, the Greek community is typically responsible for some degree of behavioral problems on campus. By assisting Greek members with their decision-making skills and personal development through their own stated values, a positive change should evolve on campus.
Even though the Greeks of Integrity program found success at Clemson, mimicking it entirely at another institution is not the answer. Nevertheless, a values-based program can be implemented into any Greek community. Although establishing the program at first will be time consuming, maintaining the program should take less effort than addressing the problems that arise from a system that is not challenged to live up to its beliefs. There are four key areas in the implementation that must be taken into consideration:
- Greek advisors and university administrators must have knowledge of the organizations on their campuses. Every chapter has its own values and principles it adheres. Even though all chapters have a common theme in their values, the program must be personalized for buy-in. Remember, these members spent weeks memorizing, understanding and exemplifying these values during their new member education process. Knowing their values will help create a common understanding;
- Be aware of the campus culture. An approach at one university will not guarantee the same results at another institution. Greek communities differ from campus to campus in their acceptance of new ideas, resistance to change and general attitude. Therefore, the program must be adapted to fit the culture of each individual campus;
- Must have chapter buy-in. When formulating a program like Greeks of Integrity, gaining insights and perspectives from Greek leaders will help determine how to focus the initiative on the needs of the campus. The program cannot be forced on the chapters; but, if the program is individually tailored, it will open the door of interest to the chapter. Sell the program to the chapter leadership, Chapter Advisor, and Faculty Advisor; and
- Simply confront the chapter when behaviors differ from the chapter values. The confrontation should not be hostile, but developmental. The chapter must always abide by its values and be reminded to hold themselves to a higher standard because of what they affirm as fraternity men and sorority women.
Through values-based leadership, the culture of the organizations will be challenged from within and the core values and principles will become more evident in the words and deeds of the Greek men and women on campus. Nonetheless, changing the culture of fraternities and sororities will take time. The average life-cycle of a chapter is 3 years. As new members come into a fraternity or sorority and practice the core values and principles of their organization they will find the true meaning of being a fraternity man or a sorority woman (Holtz, 1997). Therefore, campus staff and administrators should not despair over this time lag.
Clemson University’s Greek System has already reported anecdotal evidence of the changes in the fraternities and sororities, including decreased vandalism in their communities and decreased judicial incidents. The Greeks of Integrity program will challenge fraternity men and sorority women to exhibit behavior reflecting their organizational values.
References
AKA History (n.d.). A Brief History of Alpha Kappa Alpha. Retrieved February 13,
2004, from http://www.student.virginia.edu/~akatude/03/history.html
About Chi Omega. (n. d.). Purpose. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from
http://www.chiomega.com/chiomega/?about
About Chi Omega (n.d.). The Chi Omega Symphony. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from
http://www.studentgroups.ucla.edu/chiomega/symphony.html
About Phi Sigma Kappa (n.d.). Ideals. Retrieved March 3, 2004 from
http://www.phisigmakappa.org/about/ideals/asp
Arvidson, C. (2003). A new role emerging? Reviewing the literature on ra roles. Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 31(2), 31-36.
Bailey, E. A. & Grandpre, E. A. (1997). A performance evaluation of a resident assistant in
student housing. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 26(2), 40-46.
Borsari, B. E. & Carey, K. B. (1999). Understanding fraternity drinking: five recurring themes
in the literature. Journal of American College Health, 48, 30-45.
Clark, S. B. (2003, February 14). One year after death, no changes in alcohol policy. The
Diamondback. Retrieved February 16, 2004 from Historic AKA (n.d.). Overview.
Retrieved February 13, 2004, from http://www.aka1908.com/aka/kistory/overview.htm
Holtz, R. (1997). Length of group membership, assumed similarity, and opinion certainty: the
dividend for veteran members. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27, 539-555.
Jakobsen, L. (1986). Greek affiliation and attitude change: developmental implications.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 523-527.
Reisberg, L. (2000). Fraternities in decline. The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 7,
A59.
Rothman, M. (2002, February 25). Fraternity charter revoked: phi sigma kappa has two
weeks to vacate frat row. The Diamondback. Retrieved February 16, 2004 from
http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/ archives/2002/02/25/news1.html
Schuler, J. (2002, February 11). Student found unconscious in frat. The Diamondback.
Retrieved February 16, 2004 from http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/
archives/2002/02/11/news1.html
Whipple, E. G. (1998). New challenges for greek letter organizations: Transforming
fraternities and sororities into learning communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
The Executive Office Role in Higher Education Public Policy
J. A. McArthur
USC Upstate
The Executive Office Role in Higher Education Public Policy
The executive office in any community plays a distinct role in shaping public policy. It can assist in the formulation of policy and its evaluation, adoption, or termination. However, the executive offices of a community more often facilitate agenda-setting: the movement of a policy issue from obscurity into the public eye. Agenda-setting is certainly practiced at every level of the community, but the executive officer has a distinct voice that can enhance or impede public policy efforts. Both Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina, and George W. Bush, the President of the United States, have used this voice to set their public agendas about a wide array of issues, including higher education.
Mark Sanford: Shouting Out Loud
Late last year, Sanford offered state institutions the opportunity to become private entities in an effort to change the governance of higher education system in South Carolina. Supporters and critics have offered a wide variety of comments and complaints on the subject, but Sanford has set an agenda, loud and clear: “Our only goal is to make sure that as we move forward, folks are at least considering all of the options on the table” (Sanford, 2003, ¶ 12). His statement further points to the role of his office in creating an agenda for public policy:
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have a monopoly on that answer…Whatever form it takes,
we need to more efficiently and strategically spend higher education dollars, and this
administration is committed to making sure that’s what happens. (¶ 8)
Thus, Sanford has taken an issue from obscurity and presented it not only as a public issue, but also as a commitment of his administration.
Regardless of any perceived motives behind his agenda, Sanford spoke with a loud enough and strong enough voice to create national headlines. Kelderman (2004) reported that the governors in Colorado and South Carolina have made the most grandiose proposals concerning the privatization of higher education and discussed Mark Sanford’s role in creating an agenda for higher education in South Carolina. Waite (2003) notes that national experts on higher education and the Chronicle of Higher Education, the journal of record for the higher education community, have called Sanford’s proposal “unprecedented” and pointed out that “no state has yet allowed public universities to wholly transform into private colleges” (¶10).
Sanford’s voice on higher education was resounding in this instance, but had this been Sanford’s only attempt to influence higher education public policy, it has been met with less consternation. Indeed, Sanford has focused much time and energy to the promotion, analysis, and restructuring of higher education in South Carolina.
Clemson University, the state’s land-grant college, has been a recent beneficiary of the administration’s attention and agenda in higher education. Last November, Sanford joined in Clemson’s festivities surrounding the creation of the International Center for Automotive Research in Greenville, SC. In a related press release, Sanford said, “What you are seeing today is the larger vision that our administration has been focused on achieving with this research park from day one” (Folks, 2003, ¶ 2).
The independent colleges and universities have likewise gained the support and attention of the governor. Sanford, who is a graduate of Furman University, a private liberal arts institution in Greenville, SC, has issued several proclamations supporting the state’s independent colleges and universities. Most recently, a Governor’s Proclamation created Independent College and University Week on April 18 – 24, 2004 and Independent College and University Day on April 21 (see Sanford, 2004).
Some of his more controversial proposals have been met with criticism by universities, alumni, the legislature, and private entities. The University of South Carolina has tried to defend its branch campuses after one such proposal by Sanford called for the closing of two branch campuses in Union and Salkahatchie (Stensland, 2004). Sanford has also frequently espoused a dramatic reshuffling of the statewide governance of higher education issues and the role of the SC Commission on Higher Education.
Dr. James L. Hudgins, executive director of the SC State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education, (personal communication, February 21, 2004) suggested that the state needs to balance autonomy and accountability in higher education by setting a distinct agenda and vision for higher education in South Carolina. Sanford can be seen setting such a vision for the state as part of his agenda:
This administration will continue to throw different ideas out there as we attempt to foster a
discussion of that ultimate objective of creating a more coordinated system for higher
ed(ucation). Some folks will agree with those and others won’t, but the fact that we’re having a
conversation as to that strategic direction is critical. (Sanford, 2003, ¶ 10)
Whether the higher education community, or even the legislature, agrees with his proposals and plans, Mark Sanford has utilized his voice as governor to set an agenda for higher education in South Carolina.
George W. Bush: Mum’s the Word
President George W. Bush also uses has executive voice to set a clear agenda grounded in national security, national defense, the war effort, and the economy; all very noteworthy and admirable goals, especially in the context of our current political atmosphere. He has even successfully promoted the “No Child Left Behind” Legislation during his presidency. For higher education, however, his voice has been notable absent.
In his 2004 State of the Union address (see Bush, 2004), the President discussed his current agenda: “Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people” (¶ 8). Later on, he mentioned higher education under a plan called “Jobs for the 21st century.” In paragraph 41 (of 70 total paragraphs), Bush devoted two sentences to higher education:
I propose larger Pell grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in
high school. (Applause.) I propose increasing our support for America’s fine community
colleges, so they can (Applause.) I do so, so they can train workers for industries that are
creating the most new jobs.
Bush followed up his statements by visiting a few community colleges in subsequent weeks, and his statements were heralded by some, like David Baime of the American Association of Community Colleges (as quoted in Evelyn, 2004, ¶ 30): “It’s the first time in recent memory that a United States President has tipped his hat to community colleges on such a big stage.” Others (see Lane, 2004; Troumpoucis, 2004; Evelyn, 2004) have mixed feelings about the statements. One group, the Committee for Education Funding (CEF), offered great concerns that the agenda set by the president for overall education was not matched by his budget proposals for fiscal year 2005. The committee suggested that it is the “smallest budget increase in almost a decade and cuts total education funding in FY2006 through FY2009 by $5 billion” (CEF, 2004, p. 10).
As previously stated, Bush’s history of support for higher education is relatively quiet. Selingo (2000) suggested that in 1996, a particularly treacherous time for higher education in Texas, “through it all, Gov. George W. Bush remained silent” (¶ 3). Selingo is quick to point out that the then-governor certainly signed and approved valuable legislation concerning higher education, but that his personal role in the process was one of ambivalence. In the San Antonio Express-News, Bush is quoted as saying, “Higher education is not my priority” (Russell, 1998, p. 15A). His voice in that instance backed up his silence, indicating that, in the agenda-setting process, higher education took a backseat to other, and perhaps equally worthwhile, issues.
Bush’s silence has left higher education in the background this year. The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) is scheduled to be reauthorized for the eighth time on or before it expires on September 30, 2004. The 108th Congress may very well be the first Congress not to reauthorize the act on time (Boulard, 2004). Even though the President has played an important role as an agenda setter for other educational legislation, such as “No Child Left Behind”, the administration has neither been vocal concerning HEA “nor has the White House yet weighed in on reauthorization” (Hartle, 2004, p. 16). Dr. Thomas Wolanin, a senior associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy (personal communication, March 23, 2004) argues that the failure to reauthorize HEA may not be a bad thing for the legislation, given that much of the current debate has centered around political press rather than access to education.
Whether the higher education community or the legislature agree with his proposals and plans, President George W. Bush’s ability to use his voice to set an agenda is clear. In the case of higher education, his silence speaks louder than his words.
Final thoughts
Mr. Tom Corwin, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and Improvement at the US Department of Education (personal communication, March 22, 2004), suggested that the agenda is always in flux. President Clinton used his voice to make school construction issues an agenda item. Now, that item is no longer on the agenda. Corwin offers that policy-makers must therefore be ready to act upon the agenda as it is set and reset by those, like the executive officers, that speak with a loud voice.
For better or for worse, the executive officers of the states and the nation play a distinct role in the formulation of public policy, especially in the agenda-setting stage. Their voices can range from a shout to a whisper and from a loud cacophony to an utter silence. They bring issues such as defense, medicine, education, wellness, safety, and economy out of obscurity and into the forefront of the community. These messages conveyed by the voices of the executive offices, whether loud or silent, speak volumes.
References
Boulard, G. (2004, March 15). HEA renewal faces roadblocks. Community College Week, 3.
Bush, G.W. (2004, January 20). State of the Union Address. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/print/20040120-7.html
Committee for Education Funding. (2004). Position statement of the Committee for Education
Funding on the President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request. Education Budget Alert for
Fiscal Year 2005, 4-10.
Evelyn, J. (2004, March 19). Community Colleges expect loss in job-training funds despite Bush’s
promises. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50 (28), A23.
Folks, W. (2003, November 12). Gov. Sanford, Sec. Faith Join Clemson, BMW in Announcing
Auto Park [Press Release]. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from
http://www.clemson.edu/autoresearch/newsrelease/governor.htm
Hartle, T. (2004, Winter). Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act: Checking the score at
halftime. The Presidency, 7(1), 14-16. (Available from the American Council on Education,
One Dupont Circle NW, Washington, DC, 20036).
Kelderman, E. (2004, March 4). States and public colleges consider new relationships. Retrieved
April 24, 2004, from http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id
=354642
Lane, K. (2004, February 16). An honorable mention or political posturing? Community College
Week, 6-9.
Russell, J. (1998, March 22). Despite campaign spotlight, college plans don't have starring role.
San Antonio Express-News, 15A.
Sanford, M. (2003, December 28). True statewide vision needed for higher education. The
Greenville News. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http://greenvilleonline.com/news/
opinion/2003/12/28/2003122821658.htm
Sanford, M. (2004, April 21). State of South Carolina Governor’s Proclamation. (Available from
the Office of the Governor of South Carolina or online from http://www.ciu.edu/news/scicu/
proclamation.pdf).
Selingo, J. (2000, June 23). George W. Bush’s mixed record on higher education in Texas. The
Chronicle. Retrieved on April 26, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i42/
42a03201.htm
Stensland, J. (2004, January 9). Higher-education plan to stir controversy. The State News.
Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/7667360.htm?template
=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Troumpoucis, P. (2004, March 15). Bush’s plan to change Pell irks some educators. Community
College Week, 3 & 10.
Waite, S. (2003, December 12). Gov. Sanford makes privatization offer to state colleges,
universities. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.scgovernor.com/interior.asp?
SiteContentId=18&newsid=91&NavId=71&ParentId=55
Perspectives from a Director of Student Publications
Robert Stevenson
Lander University
Author Note: At many institutions of higher education, student publications are located in the division of student affairs. Even in those colleges and universities where student publications reside elsewhere, student affairs usually have a vested interest in the health of student publications. At Lander University I serve as Director of Student Publications under the auspices of Student Affairs. The following retrospective highlights some of the realities I’ve recently faced in that role.
For the past 13 years, I have taught collegiate level journalism and advised The Forum, the student newspaper at Lander University. Before then, I taught journalism and advised The Clipper student newspaper in Everett, Washington. I have been a reporter for the Greenville News and for the Index Journal in Greenwood, SC. I was also a news reporter for two upstate South Carolina radio stations. As a student, I worked for two different college newspapers. I thought I had heard it all, but I was sorely mistaken. A few semesters ago, the editor for the paper which I advise told me that I was just too old (my actual age is 41 – hardly antediluvian, I hope!). She said that I was out of touch with what her generation wanted to read in a college newspaper.
My editor was responding to my advice to pull the new sex column that she had been running on the Campus Life page. I suggested that it was pure sensationalism with little to no news value. The editor told me she was just giving readers what they wanted (she reached this conclusion without the aid of an assessment tool). Clearly, there were students who enjoyed the new column in the paper, but the long line of protesters outside my office was not as supportive! Phone calls and office visits came primarily from students upset about the new risqué content. I am proud to report that my administration and colleagues, while less than pleased with the off-color column, respected the student journalist’s first amendment rights.
What I am talking about here all boils down to appropriateness. Even if the editor was giving the readers what they wanted, some content simply does not belong in a newspaper. Explicit sex columns that would make Howard Stern blush are a good example. I advised the editor that news about sex was appropriate, but jokes about the calorie content of body fluids were not appropriate. But like a snowball growing in size and momentum as it rolls down a slippery slope, and in spite of my guidance, each issue of the newspaper became increasingly offensive. New sleazy columns and cartoons filled spaces previously occupied by news.
After a few weeks, many of the newspaper’s volunteer staff members had put down their pencils, deciding to take “rain checks” from the newspaper until the following semester. Student publication committee members stepped in and offered me suggestions for reasoning with the editor. They said, “Explain the concept of mass media versus more specialized media.” So I explained. But the editor disagreed. Strike one! Next I was advised, “Discuss the potential to offend versus the need to know.” So I discussed. But the editor demurred. Strike two! Then, “Inquire about how one’s parent might feel about reading such columns.” Guess what? She disagreed again. Strike three! I was losing ground fast.
I thought for a moment. I had had it pretty good as an advisor so far. The Forum editors, selected annually by the student publications committee, had been motivated more often than not, by a desire to prepare for careers in the professional press. Granted, most were as Melvin Mencher so eloquently put it, “raw recruits using real bullets,” but by the end of their terms, most editors and many staffers had become well-trained press officers. I can not say that all the editors fully grasped the concepts of verification, objectivity, and agenda setting, but week after week they successfully produced a quality, award-winning publication.
I well recall my next conversation. I dialed the phone number. “Bill Rogers,” the voice answered. I stammered, “I, I need your help.” “I can be there in a couple of days,” he replied. I felt hope. Two days later Bill, the Executive Director of the South Carolina Press Association, was on campus addressing my newspaper editor and her staff.
I sat fixed, watching and waiting and wondering. Bill’s presentation was articulate and convincing. I was secretly proud that I had already touched on many of the same principles he discussed. Then it was all over. Fingers crossed, I watched my editor stand up and shake hands with Bill Rogers. With a pleasant smile she thanked him. And then to this leader in the field for which was preparing to enter, she told Bill (who is older than I am, but certainly not ancient) that he too was old and out of touch.
I was still stunned as I walked Bill to his car. I can remember him saying something about the pendulum swinging back. I thanked him and returned to my office. For the remaining weeks of that semester, I was told that many members of the Lander community just stopped reading the student newspaper. The editor unceremoniously and voluntarily stepped down at semester’s end.
Prior to that memorable semester and since, editors and staffers have faced similar dilemmas: what to put in the newspaper and “what crosses the line.” I do not always agree with the staff’s decisions, but that is okay with me. I am not interested in imposing my ethics on anyone. My goal is to motivate each staff member to develop his or her own ethical philosophy within the parameters of journalism, and to do so prior to facing an ethical dilemma. As advisor, I continue to strive to develop positive rapport with each staff member and to support staff members whose goal is to produce the best newspaper they can.
Oh . . . and one more thing. Always keep plenty of copies of the Sigma Delta Chi Code of Ethics lying around.
Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship
Cathy Stevens
Clemson University
Magolda, M.B., & King, P. (Eds.) (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of
practice to educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publications.
Student learning, identity development, and cognitive maturity are well-known concepts in the world of student affairs. They roll off our tongues easily, but the challenge lies in developing programs that move these concepts from theory to reality.
Drs. Marcia Baxter Magolda and Patricia M. King support a more recent concept, self-authorship, in their co-edited book, Learning Partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship. Self-authorship encompasses a student’s ability to construct an individual identity, define a personal value set, make decisions from an internal perspective, and develop mature relationships. The authors set forth self-authorship as the central goal of higher education and provide a model – the Learning Partnerships Model – to help practitioners achieve this goal. First introduced in the late nineties, the Learning Partnerships Model is further developed in this book, and examples of implementation are provided.
What is useful about this book is that following the first few chapters, which define self-authorship and explain the model, are individually authored chapters detailing how the Learning Partnerships Model has been utilized in a variety of settings. These settings include an interdisciplinary writing curriculum, a community college, an urban internship program, a study abroad setting, campus housing, and a graduate program. The book ends with two chapters describing implications of the learning partnership in student affairs, which I found particularly applicable and interesting for student affairs practitioners. They outline the process undertaken by two institutions as implementation of the Learning Partnerships Model occurred.
The theory of the learning partnership is grounded in a seventeen-year longitudinal study conducted by Baxter Magolda, which followed young adults from their undergraduate career through their thirties. Derived from almost a thousand interviews with students, Baxter Magolda found self-authorship at the core of student development. Building upon the work of numerous cognitive theorists, Magolda and King suggest that understanding how students conceptualize their experiences is crucial, so that students can be validated and supported on the road to self-authorship.
The Model works on the principle that in order to help students embrace self-authorship during college, educators must break students’ attachment to authority earlier in college. This detachment should take place during the first or second year, rather than the third or fourth, and students should be challenged to construct their own personal identity. Authority is then shared between educators and students, in the form of a learning partnership.
Baxter Magolda and King do a nice job laying out the concept of self-authorship and the Learning Partnerships Model. The ideas are easily understood and relevant to those working in student affairs. I found myself pausing to think about the concepts set forth and how I could apply them in my own situation. The case study chapters in the middle of the book support the theory and model, and offer content that could inspire student affairs’ educators. Each chapter gives an example of a learning partnership, and how this partnership benefits students. As is often the case with Baxter Magolda, this book is full of narrative excerpts, supporting self-authorship as the central goal of higher education. While narratives can be helpful and valuable supporting evidence, it seems that they could be shortened in length.
Overall, Baxter Magolda and King have written a valuable guidebook for student affairs practitioners. Although implementation of the Learning Partnerships model in student affairs will require a mind shift on the part of some individuals, the process is not impossible, and this book demonstrates how it can be accomplished. I would recommend this book to all educators in higher education, including staff, faculty, and administrators. It is evident that the importance of helping students author their own identity cannot be underestimated.
Variable Tuition Rates: A Revenue Fix or Failure
Bob Hanley
Anderson College
The landscape of college finances has shifted dramatically over the last few years. As the economy continues a slow recovery and state budget coffers grow thinner, college and universities face continued budget challenges. As higher education struggles to keep pace with rising costs and decreasing outside support, some institutions are seeking new ways to raise money. One of the more controversial approaches lies in charging tuition based on a differential formula, which may have students pay at varying levels (based on such factors as family income, type of major or even time of day for a class, to name a few). Although this approach may produce more revenue dollars, charging different tuition rates has both strength and weaknesses.
Before examining the positive and negative benefits of this approach, one needs to understand how college and universities got into this financial dilemma. For the past two decades, college costs have been rising steadily, but family income has not kept up with these increases. “For instance, between 1980 and 1999, median income increased 20 percent. But during that same 19-year period, tuition at four-year private colleges jumped 118 percent, while four-year public schools experienced a 114 per cent increase.” (Kercheval, 2002, p.1)
South Carolina institutions reflect these same trends. The Southern Regional Education Board “found that South Carolina this year had the second highest college tuition increase among 16 states in the Southeast. Tuition for in-state undergraduates at South Carolina public universities rose by 17.1 percent for the 2003-2004 school year. Tuition at two-year colleges increased by 18.7 percent – third highest in the Southeast” (“Big Troubles,” 2003, p. 18A). The University of South Carolina has increased its tuition by 48 percent since 1999, while Clemson University has doubled its tuition in this period.
Because of the need to produce more revenue dollars internally, some colleges have turned to using a variable formula for charging individual students tuition. Some of the factors used to differentiate charges include: a) family income, b) type of major, c) time of day for class, and d) academic credentials. First, colleges may adjust their charges based on family income and the student’s ability to pay. Wildavsky (1999) states that “[economists] like to compare college classrooms to airplanes; two people setting next to each other often pay very different prices for the same service” (p.64). If students were charged tuition and fees based on ability for family to pay, then colleges would see revenue increase to a degree. However, the federal aid program to help students afford college targets the poorest students. Middle-income families, particularly those who saved money specifically for their children’s college expenses, are hardest hit by current federal guidelines. Hood (1993) states that “eligibility rules for many aid programs both government and institutional, punish those who save for college” (p.10). Also, most first-tier institutions are seeking to attract the best-qualified students and accordingly will offer incentive-laden financial packages to attract the best and brightest to their campuses. As a result, using a different pricing formula for college tuition may be useful only for second-and third-tier institutions. Cornell University Professor Ronald Ehrenberg states that “institutions that are further down the pecking order are not in such great demand and classrooms fill by selectively offering tuition discounts” (Wildavsky, 1999, p.64).
A second factor that some colleges use to charge different tuition rates for students is the type of major selected. Bruce (2003) observes that colleges should explore “charging more for courses in certain majors” (p. B1). For example, a student majoring in biology (premed) will take a large number of laboratory-based courses. These courses are more expensive as they demand the physical space for the lab, often require expensive equipment and material for usage, and employ some of the highest paid professors to staff. This student’s education for four years will cost substantially more than the comparative financial requirements to educate a history major. Another illustration is the music education major who must not only take a number of hours in music practicums to develop those skills but must also participate in many clinical experiences in the public school classroom as well to earn the degree. In both theses examples, a college could differentiate tuition charges based on the actual expenditures made to educate students in this particular major. Such an approach is positive in that it places more charges on the student who costs the college more to educate.
At the same time, one can argue these students may ultimately give more back to the college as alumni than students in less costly majors. The student in biology (premed) goes on to earn her medical degree and over time has great earning power; her gift potential and influence could prove highly valuable to the institution. For the music education student, while at the institution, this student will probably be part of the college choir, band, and/or other musical groups. He will perform numerous times for internal/external constituents during his college career. When he graduates, he will teach in a public high school where he could favorable influence future college students to consider his alma mater. This student gives much back to the college in terms of recruitment and recognition. Both these examples illustrate that, although different tuition pricing can target specific majors to increase revenue, the fairness of this method can be questioned when considering how these students may reward the college in other ways.
Other factors a college may consider for charging different tuition rates are time of day the class is offered and/or the length of the course. Bruce (2003) notes that “college should look at other alternatives, such as charging less for 8 a.m. courses (and more for other times) (p81). By identifying “prime time” for classes, such as mid-morning, colleges could take advantage of student’s desire to complete courses by noon or early afternoon. By clustering classes together, a student may create opportunities to have more time in the afternoon for athletics, for clinical/practicum experiences off campus, or for part-time jobs. Higher pricing for premium class times may however produce negative results. One, students who are more acclimated mentally and physically to take morning classes may not be able to afford the higher rates and be forced to take classes later in the day when they are not at their physical/mental peak level of performance. Some students who are charged higher prices for key class times may create public relations problems when they argue they are being penalized simply because of the clock. In addition, colleges too may find it necessary to offer courses at more times than it typically would because of the differential cost factor, which would eat into profits produced by the varying rate charges.
Last, colleges utilize academic credentials as a factor for charging different tuition rates. Students with lower high school gpa’s and lower SAT’s will often be charged higher tuition rates at many colleges and universities. This procedure is fair in that it rewards students who have excelled academically and puts more of a cost burden on students who have not. At the same time, problems do arise with charging tuition based largely on academic performance. Some argue that all students do not have equal opportunities to excel in K-12 schools because of limited personal resources, poor access to supplemental education outside the classroom, or a home environment that is neutral or ever hostile to education. Some note that standardized tests such as the SAT are biased against minorities, which then becomes a limiting factor on equal access to higher education opportunities for them.
To add to the complexity of college financing, some institutions are recipients of lottery-based funding which offers its students added financial incentives to go to in-state public colleges. More and more colleges and universities are adopting merit-based programs much like Georgia’s merit-based Hope scholarship, which aids residents “who earn at least a B average in high school and maintain it in college” by paying tuition and books while attending any Georgia public institution (Wildavsky ,1999, p.64). Still, many students find that scholarships and grants will not cover all college costs. Wildavsky (1999) observes that “even as tuition discounts grow, many colleges also build a significant part of their aid packages around loans. Some financial aid experts worry that, increasingly, access to college is coming at the cost of growing student indebtedness. About half of all student graduate with loans, an average of $12,000 at public schools and $14,300 at private schools” (p.64).
The future for college funding looks very challenging. In “Keeping the Public Colleges Afloat,” legislators lament about colleges raising tuition; at the same time, “the states are cutting back (funding) because they are increasingly broke.” (2003, p.A30) Some states, such as South Carolina, are considering reducing the number of public colleges and universities to eliminate costly duplication of programs. In all these changes, colleges will continue to look closely at tuition costs for students and overall revenue. Whether it is considering formulas for differential pricing for tuition based on multiple factors (major, class time, to name a few) or any of a number of cost-saving/revenue producing initiatives, institutions of higher learning will face drastic challenges over the next decades to meet the financial needs of the future.
At the same time, students will continue to seek a college education for personal and financial reasons. As Kercheval (2002) states, “There is no doubt a college education provides a satisfying return on investment. College Board’s Caperton notes a four-year college degree doubles the earnings of a high school graduate” (p.1). Ultimately, whatever a student pays for in college tuition and time is well worth the effort. For the foreseeable future the charging practices for tuition will continue to vary greatly among institutions nationwide.
References
Big troubles in education. (2003, November 23). The Greenville News, p. 18A.
Bruce, A.L. (2003, December 5). Wider reform in education proposed. The Post and Courier
(Charleston), p. B1.
Hood, J. (1993, October). How to hold down college tuition costs. Consumers Research
Magazine, 76 (10), p.10(6).
Keeping the public colleges afloat. (2003, November 13). The New York Times, p. A30.
Kercheval, N. (2002, April 27). College tuition costs rising rapidly. Daily Record (Baltimore), p.1.
Wildavsky, B. (1999, September 6). Is that the real price? U.S. News and World Report, p.64.
.gif){kind=small}
