One of the most difficult situations a student affairs professional may encounter is a student suicide. The sense of urgency, the sensitive nature of the issue, and the vulnerability of the surrounding students make the campus environment a puzzling place. As the number of suicides at the national level remains high, student affairs professionals must anticipate and be prepared to the handle this difficult situation. The purpose of this article is to examine the campus environment after a student suicide and provide suggestions for student suicide protocol for university staff and administrators.
In 2004, suicide was the eleventh leading cause of death in the United States accounting for 32,439 deaths (National Institute of Mental Health, 2007). Even though research on preventative measures continues, the number of suicides remains consistent every year. It is estimated that more than 1,000 suicides occur on college campuses each year and one in 12 college students have made a suicide plan (ULifeline, 2007). In anticipation of the worst, and inevitable, student affairs professionals must take the initiative and research the most effective methods of addressing student suicide on their campuses.
Student Suicide
A young man of 18 years, entering his second semester of college, ended his life abruptly at approximately 11 o'clock on a January evening. "Cory," a well liked and 4.0 student, waited as a train approached, directly behind his residence hall. When the train was within a few feet, he jumped. Due to the close proximity of the incident to campus and residence halls, the emergency response team was easily noticed. Although many students were aware of an incident on the railroad tracks, none were knowledgeable as to the specifics.
Student Reaction
Prior to his death, Cory lived in a coeducational residence hall, housing approximately 531 freshmen. He met his roommate on move-in day and they quickly became friends. Cory was one of 18 male students on his hall.
Grieving the loss of an individual that committed suicide is particularly difficult. Many individuals find frustration in their attempt to internally answer questions that seem to have no answer, such as: Why did she/he do it? Why didn’t they tell me something was wrong? Was it really a suicide?
The students in Cory's building took his death particularly hard, especially his hallmates. During support meetings for the hall, students displayed an inability to move through the grieving process. Students felt a necessity to have their pondering questions answered before moving forward. This inability to allow the body to grieve makes the handling of a suicide complicated and prolonged. Dealing with such a sensitive area takes thoughtful decision making to ensure intentional actions.
Inquiry into Protocol
In dealing with any student death, staff and administrators must remember to anticipate the unexpected. Due to the unique nature of suicides, not one specific protocol will work for all cases. It is important that all staff approach this topic in an open minded, resourceful and well educated manner.
Every institution should have standard procedures to follow during a crisis situation, as part of an overall crisis management plan. When reviewing an institution's plan, staff and administrators need not only pay ample attention to administrative logistics, but also to the emotional support needs of the entire campus community. While examining the plan, staff and administrators should notice three areas of consideration:
Who is the lead and point of contact for all information? It is important to establish a leader for all crisis situations prior to their occurrence. Once a student suicide has been discovered, your point of contact should immediately be notified so his/her strategic plan may be implemented. The lead should also have a pre-assigned core leadership group comprised of all vested or essential parties based on the specific situation.
Collect and confirm all details. It is imperative that all details concerning the death of a student be confirmed by an expert. Make sure to await the confirmation of the student death from the coroner or a physician. No dissemination of information, outside of your core leadership team, should take place until that confirmation has been received. Establish a list of those most affected by this death. Consider family, friends (on and off campus), roommates and hallmates, academic contacts, staff advisors, and student organizations.
Effective communication is essential in handling a student suicide.
a. How will information be disseminated? Consider who will notify the family,
friends (on and off campus), hallmates, roommate, building, student body,
media, and community? Confirm what role(s) the following offices desire, or
need, to play in this event: the president of the university, media relations office,
department of student life, counseling center and possibly university housing.
b. Written communication should be carefully crafted with a thoughtful message.
c. Contact necessary campus agencies to mobilize and brief staff for anticipated
student support (counseling center, religious workers, housing staff).
Though many institutional emergency management plans will address these three areas of consideration most needed, they may not address the emotional distress of the student body and affected staff, and the support that is necessary. Steps to consider while critiquing your institutional plan or handling the aftermath of student suicide are listed below:
Assess your student population. During the assessment of the students, staff and administrators should consider the actual act of the suicide, the location the suicide took place and the students affected. In addition, staff and administrators should consider how the demographics of the institution may affect the situation. Is your campus small, medium or large in size? Is it located in a rural or urban area? Multiple input of information will assist with your critical thinking and analysis of the crisis.
What level of support is perceived to be needed? If the incident occurred within a residence hall, you will definitely pay particular attention to the residents of that hall. However, how much attention will be provided to students familiar with the deceased through class, campus organizations or work?
What is the best way(s) to provide support? What may initially come to mind is group or individual counseling. You may also want to consider inviting religious workers to campus, arranging an on-site counselor, and establishing an on-call counselor for the evening hours. As the technology of the world continues to change, so will the way students communicate, even in the expression of anger, confusion and grief. Depending on the comfort level or stance your institution has with on-line networks, the following may be extremely useful for the recluse student: establishing a temporary instant messaging account with a counselor, utilizing a current Facebook.com or MySpace.com account for communication, or referring online journal sites or a memorial page established by the family.
When Cory passed away approximately 25 students utilized the on-site counselors;
however several hundred posts were made to his Facebook.com account immediately
following the announcement of his death. Staff must be prepared to reach the student in
the most beneficial way possible.
Have an outreach plan. Lasting effects of a student suicide are not easily, if ever, overcome. Continued outreach and communication should be a part of any plan.
Conclusion
Individuals coping with the death of a friend or family member will display a variety of characteristics. According Dr. Michael Conner (2006), a licensed psychologist, you may notice symptoms of denial, yearning, disbelief, anger, confusion and guilt. He also recommends five steps in helping individuals during the grieving process: 1) share the sorrow, 2) doesn’t offer false comfort, 3) offer practical help, 4) be patient, and 5) encourage professional help when necessary.
Handling a student death is difficult for all involved. It is imperative that all individuals affected by and engaged in the situation, remember to care for themselves. Students and staff should feel comfortable utilizing the resources offered to the entire campus community. One's level of knowledge, ability to communicate, genuine care and critical thinking skills will assist above all else.
Advancement Constraints for Females in Higher Education:
Problems and Potential Solutions
Introduction
Currently, males and females achieve Ph.D.s at an even rate; however, only 37% of females who earn Ph.D.s pursue fulltime tenure-track positions (AAUW, 2004). Researchers hypothesized that the primary reason females with Ph.D.s turn down full-time higher education employment is because the age females receive their doctorates directly coincides with prime childbearing years (AAUP, 2004). Additionally, this age also coincides with the time when many females are required to care for elderly family members or family members with special needs (AAUP, 2004).
The Feminine Choice
According to recent research, many females in higher education do not pursue promotions and/or tenure-track positions and do not achieve promotion and tenure in institutions of higher education because of issues related to the ages of the females (AAUP, 2004; AAUW, 2004; Williams, 2004). According to a recent survey (AAUP, 2004), the average age for attaining a Ph.D. is 33; the average age females receive Ph.D.s is 34, and males, 33.
Females who decide to pursue full-time careers in institutions of higher education often hit what one author called "the maternal wall" (Williams, 2004, p.1). This phenomenon occurs mostly in male-dominated fields, which include institutions of higher education. The "maternal wall" attempts to explain why many females in these fields may choose to appear physically and behaviorally androgynous to coworkers in order to appear equal to males in their fields or as dedicated to their jobs or fields (Jagacinski, 1987; Lemkau, 1983).
On average, institutions of higher education have a seven-year tenure application process (AAUP, 2004); therefore, the average age females in institutions of higher education earn tenure is 41 years old. Because of this occurrence, more females in higher education who desire to have children choose to do so only after they achieve tenure (Williams, 2004). Conversely, many females put off having children indefinitely for the sake of their careers; approximately 45% of tenured females remain childless (Williams, 2004).
Williams (2004) found that males and females who worked in institutions of higher education and had children at the same age did not achieve tenure at an equal rate. Females often took time off immediately following the birth of their children in order to recover, but also to care for their infants – a responsibility largely assigned to females, in part, because of social norms (AAUW, 2004). Therefore, tenured males dramatically outnumber tenured females in higher education (Mason & Goulden, 2004). In her study, Williams (2004) found that many of the males were able to enjoy successful academic careers and family lives, while many of the females were forced to choose between families and work (AAUW, 2004).
Relevant Case Law
Although gender discrimination is unconstitutional (Kaplin & Lee, 1994), institutions of higher education have proved to be fertile grounds for inequality. Three cases exemplify tenure status inequity and serve to signify that this type of discrimination continues to plague academia. In both Crystal v. Regents of the University of Michigan (2003) and Krause v. Marquette (1992), the institutions of higher education were sued by or received negative publicity from females who were not given adequate paid maternity leave. In the case of Kern v. University of Notre Dame (1996), females were denied a tenure clock extension necessary because of maternity leave. Additionally, in Euben and Thornton’s (2002) article answering frequently asked questions about the Family and Medical Leave Act, females interviewed revealed that they were required to perform extra duties because of their maternity or family leave. According to a recent report (Wilson, 2004), the majority of females in higher education who sued their institutions based on sex-discrimination lost their claims and subsequently lost $20,000 to $200,000 individually. Many of those females also experienced excommunication from higher education (Wilson, 2004).
Potential Solutions
Currently, three federal statutes are in place and provide insight into how institutions create and implement leave policies (AAUP, 2005). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on gender. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1975 amends Title VII to include that no woman may be discriminated against because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 enforces minimum leave requirements in reference to childbirth, adoption, family illness or care, and personal health problems (Holland & Hart, 2004, p.2).
Although these statutes are in place, females continue to face gender discrimination. Therefore, in addition to these statutes, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP, 2003) suggested three additional measures for institutions of higher education to make academia more family-friendly. It is important for institutions of higher education to implement these measures as formal policies rather than leaving these decisions up to department chairpersons to be made on an individual basis (AAUP, 2003). The first suggested measure requires that institutions of higher education ensure paid maternity and paternity leave. Federal statutes require that maternity and paternity leave be viewed and treated as similar to other types of sick leave or short-term disability (Danaher, 2004; Holland & Hart, 2004); therefore, colleges and universities must be willing to temporarily replace instructors who take maternity and paternity leave in classrooms and labs. Additionally, no extra work should be assigned to instructors that request maternity leave, as that is a form of illegal unequal treatment. Researchers suggested placing support staff at all institutions to assist faculty with family-related issues that affect work (Sullivan, Hollenshead, & Smith, 2004). Further, the AAUP suggested “active service with modified duties” or an option of reduced teaching and workloads without any risk of termination or demotion (AAUP, 2003, p.1). Finally, the AAUP suggested allowing faculty members who require maternity, paternity, or family leave the option of extending or stopping the “tenure clock” (AAUP, 2003, p.1). This would allow females who must take maternity leave extra time to work towards tenure – no time taken during an approved leave would be time counted against the average seven year application period.
Implementing these policies as well as complying with the federal statutes will promote the success of female faculty members in institutions of higher education that have or desire to have children before they achieve tenure. Curtis (2004) discussed the implementation of additional measures as an important catalyst to begin to address the structural inequities currently in place in higher education and to attract more qualified female candidates to the professoriate. If these policies are already in place, they are grossly underutilized, as faculty perceive taking advantage of these as professionally damaging (AAUP, 2004) and "fear discrimination in future promotion and tenure decisions," (American Council on Education, 2005, p.6). These policies need to be made university-wide and should be well publicized, especially when female candidates are interviewed. In addition, these policies should be made available to all faculty members, without any risk of penalty or perceived unprofessional behavior.
Conclusion
Institutions of higher education claim to promote equal opportunity for hiring both genders and often claim equal opportunity for career advancement. However, until institutions of higher education understand the pressures females face regarding balancing family and work, and implement means to provide a more level evaluation base for tenure and promotion, females will continue to face a silent and often hidden prejudice. If institutions of higher education desire to attract and retain quality professionals, promoting the measures described about must be viewed by administration as a vital part of strategic planning efforts. The face of the professorate is changing and academia must accommodate the rising needs of the next generation of tenure-track faculty.
I attended a women's college, which is NOT a girls' school, and definitely is not a finishing school! No, I never had to walk around in heels with a book on top of my head to improve my gracefulness. I was not taught to be a "bra burner." No, it was not like living in a convent. Yes, I was allowed to have men in my residence hall room. No, men were not allowed to spend the night in my room. Nope, we never had pillow fights wearing Victoria Secret's lingerie, and we definitely did not have catfights while wearing aforementioned lingerie. No, I do not plan to be a stay at home mom. No, I never took cooking lessons, and we definitely did NOT have Home Economics as an elective. No, I did not attend a women's college in order to obtain my "Mrs. degree." Yes, I CAN get a job and/or attend graduate school after graduating from a women's college.
Despite these common stereotypes, women's colleges still play an important role in higher education. I would not trade my undergraduate experience at a women's college for anything. Since I work in higher education, I have been exposed to several other institutions, and at each one, I imagine how my life would have turned out if I had attended another type of institution. I can safely say that I would be very different if I had not attended a women's institution. However, I do not think I would like who I would have become by attending a coeducational institution. I believe that a coed institution, rather than a women's college, would have inspired me to work on that "Mrs. degree." I do not think that I would have worked as hard academically because I would have been intimidated by the cute guy sitting next to me in class. I would have been held back by my own insecurities-what if I look like an idiot when I ask for further explanation in class? I understand that not every woman feels this way, and I respect them for that. I, on the other hand, was completely introverted and shy when I started college. I was so shy that I started crying when my mother made me spend the night on the college campus during my senior year of high school. The women's college setting allowed me to come out of my shell in an environment that invited me to just be me-without trying to impress the cute guy beside me in physics.
I attended Converse College which is located in the upstate of South Carolina. Converse, like most women's colleges, was founded to develop the unique talents of women through a liberal arts education on a residential campus. Yes, in the past, some institutions placed a heavy emphasis on developing young ladies to become proper members of society, but those times have long gone. Women's colleges should never be referred to as "finishing schools" because they offer so much more than that. To be quite honest, some of my fellow "Connies" graduated without the social graces needed to become polite members of society, yet they were still able to enter prestigious graduate programs!
There used to be hundreds of women's colleges and universities, but the doors of many have closed and we are left with fewer than sixty in the country (Women's College Coalition, n.d.). It saddens me that people understand so little about these colleges, and, as a result, many women's colleges are losing quality students to co-educational institutions. As the students shy away from visiting single gender institutions, they fail to see the benefits of a women’s institution. Students may be too close minded to even visit these institutions. Or, maybe their parents are so consumer minded that they refuse to spend so much money on an institution that they do not believe will live up to the cost-benefit analysis. I think both parents and students are overlooking several important parts of their cost-benefit analysis.
It is true that more women than ever are entering math and science fields, but according to the Women's College Coalition, single gender institutions graduate women in these fields at 1 ½ times the rate for coeducational institutions (Women's College Coalition, n.d.). Women's institutions help female students explore and develop their inherent strengths. Females are exposed to positive roles models on these campuses. Women hold every leadership position on campus, so not only are students exposed to more female role models, they also have the opportunity to engage in more leadership opportunities. Females at women's institutions develop a strong sense of self, without trying to please others or mold into stereotypical female roles. Students are free to ask questions without being conscientious of what the guy sitting beside them might think about them. Women's colleges positively affect the development of self esteem and confidence. Women's institutions have been graduating well respected women for many years. Did you know what Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Katherine Hepburn, and Madeline Albright, and Harvard’s first female president, Drew Gilpin Faust, have in common? All of these famous women attended women’s colleges (Women’s College Coalition, n.d.). There are pages and pages of women who have attended women’s institutions and have gone on to be accomplished professionals, wives, and mothers.
I have come to terms with my struggle to defend my decision to attend a women’s college. I have chosen to accept a position as a Director of Student Involvement and Programs at a women's institution, and once again, I find myself defending my actions. I can hear the questions now: "Why in the world do you want to work at a women’s institution? I can’t believe that they still have girls' schools? Why….." I hear the same questions over and over again. I will continue to put on a smiling face and answer their questions politely. I know the best way for me to prove to the world that a women’s college does provide a quality education is by showing them a product of a single gender institution--ME.
Student Affairs Practitioners: Influencers in US-Iranian Diplomatic Relations
Solutions to diplomatic problems the US faces with Iran might rest within the corridors of American institutions of higher education. Currently 2,251 (Open Doors, 2005) students from Iran are enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States. Enrolling foreign students in higher education in the US has always been widely accepted as an influential instrument in foreign relations (NAFSA, 2003). Currently, the State Department touts a long list of foreign heads of state and world leaders educated in the US including outgoing United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, as-Sayyid Abdu'llah II, King of Jordan and Abdul Zahir, former Prime Minister of Afghanistan (United States Department of State, 2007). Noticeably absent from this list are any current or former leaders from members of President Bush’s highly flaunted "Axis of Evil" regimes (Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria).
My thoughts on this topic (US-Iranian relations) were the result of a recent conversation with an Iranian student arriving at the university to begin his program of study. Our discussion, revolving around the relationship (or lack thereof) of our two countries, was initiated by my new friend's extension of an invitation to visit Tehran, his home town. As gratefully and harmlessly as possible, I declined his offer citing my media-driven Western perspective of the unpopularity of US passport holders visiting his country. What ensued was an intelligent discussion about the differing points of view held by our countries and about the role of media as assumed by politico-economic theory (how media perspectives are shaped by the politico-economic and ideological influences of the country producing them).
Conversations on this topic are not uncommon. However, what stands out about our discussion is precisely this: an American and an Iranian were talking--and not just talking about the weather. We were talking about real issues facing our two nations, which is a task our two governments seem unable to achieve.
Since the United States broke relations with Iran in 1980 following the release of the American hostages being held in Tehran, there have been limited attempts at conversing with the Iranians. Following the election of Khatemi in 1997, President Clinton extended an olive branch by offering official dialogue with the Iranian government with no preconditions (Katzman, 2007). In response, Khatemi agreed to "people to people" relations but refused direct discussions (Katzman, 2007).
In May 2003, the US and Iran engaged in direct talks relative to Afghanistan and Iraq (Wright, 2003 as cited in Katzman, 2007). This affair marked the first direct dialogue between the US and Iran since 1979 (Katzman, 2007). With direct communication lacking for almost three decades, why would anyone be surprised by our existing diplomatic problems?
I propose a seemingly improbable yet potentially simplistic solution: talk! Think about it. If people only speak once or twice every 25 to 30 years how can conflict be resolved? What the Iranian and American governments have been unable to achieve within a 27 year period, my Iranian colleague and I accomplished only moments after meeting. My guess is multiple conversations like the one we had are happening in American universities across the nation. Even if they are not, given the free-speech and academic freedom values of US institutions of higher education, at least the ground is fertile for sowing seeds of intercultural understanding that can lead to harvests of improved relations between these two nations.
Of course, I am not so naïve that I fail to recognize the complexities of international relations. Certainly, what I suggest will likely not solve the problem fueled by the current Iranian regime's desire to erase the existence of America’s strongest Middle Eastern ally. Nevertheless, my argument is rooted in the fact that no one knows because no one has tried—at least not our government leaders.
Repeatedly and unapologetically, the Bush administration has functioned as if someone pressed the mute button on the remote control to the television. "On March 11, 2005 the Bush Administration announced it would support but not join the EU-3 talks" (Katzman, 2007, p. 17). The term "EU-3" refers to discussions among the United Kingdom, France, and Germany aimed at resolving Iran’s aspirations to acquire nuclear capabilities (Katzman, 2007). The Administration offered to join the follow-up to these talks only after Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005 and the failure of the initial EU-3 attempts had occurred (Katzman, 2007).
Ironically, this approach to diplomacy forced leaders of prior administrations to speak out. In the spring of 2006, Samuel Berger, Madeliene Albright and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the US should “exhaust all possible options including dialogue” (Katzman, 2007, p. 33). Presently, President Bush has refused direct bi-lateral exchange with the Iranians (Katzman, 2007). Most recently (May and November 2006), he failed to respond to letters from Ahmadinejad. One letter was addressed directly to the President and the other to the American people. Thus, the speechless saga continues.
How can I be certain what I am suggesting will improve our countries relations? I cannot. However, what I am certain about is the current practice of arrogantly remaining silent has not worked! Given the historical communication logs (capable of fitting on one page of notebook paper) between the United States and Iran, it is safe to suggest solutions to our diplomatic problems will not be induced by government officials of either country. Therefore, the quest for answers must be launched from the locations that value rather than oppose human diversity and alternative opinions. These locations are institutions of higher education.
What better professionals to lead this charge than Student Affairs practitioners? After all, we are the individuals possessing professional training in conflict resolution, interpersonal and multicultural communication and counseling. Our "belief in the dignity and worth of individuals and respect for individual differences and diversity" (NASPA, 2007) adequately positions us for engagement. If we truly believe what we say we believe, then we will find a way to intentionally create meaningful dialogue with our Iranian peers on our campuses. It is entirely possible one of their names might one day appear on the State Department's list of US educated foreign leaders. When that happens—maybe, just maybe—the conversations we began on campus might extend into the marketplace and political arena.
Clearly, my Iranian colleague's views differ from mine. Yet at the end of the day, we sit together in a local restaurant on College Avenue enjoying sweet tea (very popular in the southern United States and in Iran) and the absence of conflict. For us, this 'ole adage is a reality: we "agree to disagree". We simply cannot understand why that is so difficult for our two governments.
The shootings at Virginia Tech have left those of us in the student affairs profession reviewing our campus safety policies and warning systems to help prevent such a tragic incident from ever occurring on our campus. Many of us have asked ourselves "What would I do?" The lessons from VT are many and valuable; one such lesson is the impact of the media on our campus culture.
The Impact of the Media
Strange and Banning (2001) indicate in their environmental theory that the perception of a campus by those inside and outside of the campus community is a key part of how our students develop. In the case of the Virginia Tech shootings, the media has had a massive impact on this component of the VT campus; mainly, is VT a safe campus?
Imagine for a moment you are a senior in high school and have just received your acceptance to Virginia Tech; you’re thrilled! Then, that same afternoon, you flip on the TV and watch the media critically analyze every step VT administration made before, during and after the shootings. The media claims that the failures of the VT administration have cost student lives – would you still go to Virginia Tech? Now imagine that same scenario as a parent – would you still send your child to Virginia Tech?
We know now that the media vastly exploited the VT administration. We've seen students, parents and alumni stand up for the heroic actions of faculty, staff and administration on that day; all claiming the VT is a safe campus and that this was one random act of violence. But have the positive voices deafened ears to the cries of the media? Or is that damage done permanently? Will VT forever be marked as an unsafe campus? It may take years for there to be a final answer to those questions.
Similar arguments could be made in relation to the media response to the Duke University Lacrosse scandal. As an incoming student would the media coverage regarding athletic privilege or questionable party situations cause you to refrain from matriculating at Duke? Of course now, just as in the VT case, we know that the lacrosse players were unfairly treated by the legal system and slandered by the media.
Unfair Response to Virginia Tech
One particular area of criticism from the media towards Virginia Tech administration was the lack of a lockdown on the college campus and the lack of effective communication to students regarding the situation. However, an examination of the timeline of the shootings reveals that campus officials did respond to the situation as best they could given the information they had. According to a report from CNN the timeline is as follows:
At 7:15am a shooting was reported in Ambler Johnson residence hall; police responded locked down the building and identified a person of interest. They believed the shooting was domestic in nature and sent a campus wide email at 9:36am informing students, faculty and staff about the shooting. At 9:45am shots were reported at Norris Hall as reported by 911 calls. The university responds by sending another email warning students to stay inside and emergency messages are sent to campus phones. All on campus are requested to stay inside away from windows, entrances to campus were closed (2007).
This timeline shows that VT officials did their best to communicate to students the situation and gave instructions to the best of their [college officials] ability to keep students safe. It additionally shows that no lock down was necessary at the time of the first shooting as it was believed to be isolated and that when the second shooting occurred, the campus was effectively placed on a lockdown.
Protecting Your Campus from the Media & Suggested Reading
We must all hope that we will never be a part of a tragedy like that of Virginia Tech, but we all must face the reality that someday we will have to deal with the media for one reason or another on our campuses. Perhaps an athletic scandal, a residence hall fire, persistent theft; whatever the reason, we must be prepared.
First, get to know your campus policy on the media. Odds are you're not the person that should be talking to reporters, so find out who should. Second, stand your ground. Reporters can be very pushy and can get you to say things without you realizing it. Say "no comment" and stick to it, refer them to the proper media outlets. Third, train your student staff on dealing with the media. Most students have no idea that they should not be speaking with the media; make sure they know the name of the contact person who deals with the media.
For more information in dealing effectively with the media the following literature is suggested:
Stewart, Sally (2004). Media training 101; a guide to meeting the press.
Lovre, Cheri (2006). Media relations for schools, including crisis communication.
Conclusion
We must be aware of how the media impacts our campus culture, not only for those within the communities but for those outside of our campus communities. The unfortunate fact is that we cannot attempt to predicate or control how the media may interpret any one of our campuses on any given day. We owe it to ourselves, our colleagues and our students to be prepared to handle the media and protect the perception of our campuses.
By 2012, total college enrollment is expected to rise to over 15.8 million. With the continuing increase of traditional students on college campuses, it is important for student affairs personnel to adapt current practices to accommodate the Millennial students. Michael Coomes and Robert DeBard's book, Serving the Millennial Generation, offers many suggestions for working with today's traditional college students (Coomes and DeBard, 2004).
The work by Coomes and DeBard (2004) is especially interesting. The discussion in the text relating to the way development has changed across generations is significant. Chapter Four addresses the GI Generation, those born between 1901 and 1924, and how members of this generation are considered psychologically mature and advanced if they conform to the norms of their time. The GI Generation believes that learning, growth, and development are customary experiences and that each person should behave in the way that society considers "normal." The function of the intact family and other social groups in nurturing the young along the path to early adulthood was established by the GI Generation (Coomes and DeBard, 2004).
Baby Boomers were born between 1943 and 1960. With the Baby Boomers generation, the focus shifted from "we" to "I." This generation began a revolution of denying authority. Baby Boomers focused on being different than the previous generation. The Generation Xers', those born between 1961 and 1981, theme was "we differ" (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). This constant change in the focus of each new generation is significant considering the influences parents and those in positions of authority have on the succeeding generation.
The generational theory of human development's basic premise is that characteristics of one generation set standards to explain how that particular generation defines development within itself as well as the behavior in the upcoming generation (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). I find it interesting that one generation can predict the behavior of its succeeding generation based on how the current generation defines itself. This is remarkable because in the recent past, each generation has been substantially different from the preceding generation.
Millennial students, those born since 1981, may challenge current literature that is related to student development and the way student affairs professionals should address Millennial students’ needs. As Coomes and DeBard (2004) mentioned in the text, student affairs professionals will need to be able to assist parents in letting go of their children. Students in the Millennial generation have become very dependent on their parents, and most parents have become so attached to their children that letting go is becoming more difficult. These parents make it hard for their children to live their own lives and take responsibility for themselves. "Helicopter parents," a term used by college administrators to describe these over involved guardians, are becoming increasingly visible on college campuses (Wikipedia, 2007, Origins ¶ 1). Professionals on campuses need to be capable of helping parents and students cope with the changes college life brings.
Some of the research outlined in the text relating to the 2000 US Census was shocking. I did not realize that 39.1 percent of the population under age 18 was of a different race than White. I also found it interesting that the Asian student population will increase 86 percent from 1995-2015 (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). The results of this census emphasize the importance of professionals on college campuses in developing programs relating to diversity. Equally important for professionals is the ability to reach out to the students of the Millennial generation, a generation that is drastically different from previous college students (Coomes and DeBard, 2004).
I believe the format in which college campuses collect information on their students will need to be changed as many college students are refusing to identify their race (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). This process needs to be altered because a growing number of students do not identify with a single race and do not fit into only one category because they consider themselves to be multiethnic. Therefore, the "check your race" box on college forms is not appropriate for many college students (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). If colleges continue to collect information on race, students should be given an option to select more than one race.
According to Commes and DeBard (2004), 20 percent of Millennial students have at least one parent that is an immigrant. Along with this increase in immigrants comes the increase in the number of non-English speaking households. It is surprising that the number of households that speak another language has doubled since 1979 (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). The increase in students from non-English speaking households leads to the issue of communicating with parents or guardians that may not speak fluent English. This is a communication barrier that student affairs professionals will be faced with more often in the very near future.
With the increase in the number of biracial and multiracial students in this country, it is disturbing that some schools are becoming more segregated than they were ten years ago. According to Coomes and DeBard (2004), White, Black, and Hispanic elementary school children across the country attend schools where their race is the predominant race. Startling facts show that interracial contact is likely to be a new experience for many college students (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). With the idea of interracial contact being new to many college students, it will be even more important for student affairs professionals to develop programming to assist students in appreciating diversity and ethnicity.
Lastly, I find the issue of political point of view in the Millennial generation to be significant. A survey conducted in 2003 found that regardless of which political party students identify with, the total number of students calling themselves liberals or moderates on social issues was greater than on economic and general issues. The percentage of students classifying themselves as liberals was less for both social issues and economic issues while the number identifying themselves as moderates was less on social issues but greater on economic issues (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). According to Coomes and DeBard (2004), there is an increase in the number of students that call themselves liberal as well as those that consider themselves to be conservative resulting in a polarization in political views. In the entering freshman class in 2001, the number of students defining their political views as being liberal was at a 20 year high. The number of students labeling themselves as conservatives increased in 2001 and 2002. I agree with the text that there is a shift in the definition of these political points of view (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). This shift should be recognized on college campuses in order to provide diverse programming for these students.
Student affairs practitioners should accept that college campuses will be different as students change. Diversity requirements mandated on college campuses should reach past merely learning about foreign cultures in a required course to understanding how social justice works in one’s own country (Coomes and DeBard, 2004). Student affairs practitioners need to review and study the changing demographics and experiences of the Millennial generation's college students. It will become increasingly important for student affairs professionals to develop programs ranging from increasing diversity and understanding ethnicity to how to separate from parents and get involved on college campuses to assist the Millennial student in being successful in college.
.gif){kind=small}
One of the most difficult situations a student affairs professional may encounter is a student suicide. The sense of urgency, the sensitive nature of the issue, and the vulnerability of the surrounding students make the campus environment a puzzling place. As the number of suicides at the national level remains high, student affairs professionals must anticipate and be prepared to the handle this difficult situation. The purpose of this article is to examine the campus environment after a student suicide and provide suggestions for student suicide protocol for university staff and administrators. 
