Crisis Response

What’s truly needed to be prepared for crisis response on our college campuses? There are plans galore, but some question their validity and strength in current forms. One thing that most tend to agree on is that during a crisis, whether there is a well laid out plan or not, it is a time that administration and university president’s either rise to the occasion or fall flat on their faces. No matter what it is not a something that any institution wants to deal with, but they now it is inevitable.

            One of the debates is over all campus crisis response plans are not comprehensive or tested enough. The critique is that there are holes in what type of crises are expected. Though almost all respondents from one survey had a crisis plan, only roughly half had a response plan for a suicide or strike on campus. More than half of the respondents said their plan had been tested (June, 2007). These statistics show that perhaps universities and colleges are not as prepared as we would believe them to be.

            There are some critiques of the actual effectiveness of crisis response plans. Many argue that the best response plan is a competent leader. The role of president or chancellor is one of much responsibility. One of those responsibilities is the ability to respond effectively and with grace to a crisis on campus. In Fain’s article he quotes Michigan’s Mr. Bastedo to say “search committees are looking for leaders with charisma, in part so they will be better prepared to deal with the news media” (2007). At a conference of housing directors the majority present said they relied mostly on experience to respond to a crisis, not a crisis response plan (Hoover, 2009). The argument that can be drawn from this is that even the best laid plans can fail without the proper leader. Being able to respond to the crisis and students’ safety is half the battle, though the most important. Mr. Bastedo’s  comment about search committees for presidents or chancellors sums up that being able to handle the questions after the event are largely considered when looking at the success of a campuses crisis response. The importance placed on handling questions from the media, alumni, and public are why experience and charisma are so important in leadership roles on our college campuses.

            Crisis response plans are called to be well thought out and tested. The reality of this happening is less likely. One hopes that a crisis on a campus never happens, but they are much more likely to happen than we think. A charismatic and experiences president or chancellor has the best opportunity to assist the institution through the trying time with grace. There is no perfect answer to handle these situations and hopefully a combination of a plan and a great leader can contribute to a successful crisis response.

Fain, P. (2007). Wanted: Crisis President. The Chronicle of Higher Education

Hoover, E. (2009). During a Campus Crisis, There Is No Substitute for Experience. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

June, A.W. (2007).  Survey Results Suggest Gaps in Many Colleges' Crisis-Response Plans. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Spirituality in Higher Education: The Role of Student Affairs Professionals?

            It is common knowledge that students tend to become less religious during their collegiate careers. However, they want and do become more spiritual. It was “found that students' level of spiritual quest, or seeking meaning and purpose in life, rose during college” (Supiano, 2010). With these facts we, as student affairs professionals, have to decide where we, religious campus organizations, and campus chapels or chaplains fit into guiding these students spiritual or religious development. Where does this topic fit into our mottos?

            Susan A. Minasian, the chaplain of Franklin & Marshall College, wrote a moving article about the responsibility of campus chapels to provide a space in which true discourse can take place (2010).  She urges campuses to use this space as a place for all to come. She also wants the space to be for all to ask the hard questions without receiving negative answers. She challenges all that “it's important to model for students how to make room for opinions other than our own, not to run away from the uncomfortable feelings that arise when we hear opinions we don't agree with, and to consider ideas that might force us to grow and change” (Minasian, 2010). Urging universities to use chapel spaces and chaplains as tools to teach students the true meaning of discourse may be the best way to present the idea of encouraging spiritual development.

            Edington looks at the many different ways in which we can address spiritual life on our campuses (2011). He, much like Minasian, calls for the chapels or previously established places of worship to be used as interfaith laboratories. This came in response to a letter from the White House to universities asking them to serve as leaders in interfaith initiatives. In summary Edington’s suggestion lies here:

“Now colleges and universities are presented with the challenge of strengthening social harmony in a nation of increasing religious diversity. The college chapel—large, lovely, and lonely—can be the laboratory where that work is done.” (2011)

         

           Melissa Morgan urges the student affairs professional to also begin to take a role in the spiritual and religious growth of students. The students are asking that we take part in this part of their lives, “2/3 of them expect us, as university employees, to play some role in their emotional and spiritual development” (Morgan, 2013). She urges professionals to be competent in the area of spirituality and religion. This will allow professionals to not only better serve students, but begin to create a truly interfaith-friendly campus.

Edington, M. (2010). The Campus Chapel as an Interfaith Laboratory. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Minasian, S. (2010). Spiritual Life on Campus: Agreeing to Disagree. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Morgan, M. (2013). Building Bridges: Creatng an Interfaith‐Friendly Campus Culture. NASPA: Knowledge Community – Spirituality and Religion in Higher Education.

Supiano, B. (2010). How Spiritual Traits Enhance Students' Lives—and Maybe Their Grades. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The “Boy Crisis” in Higher Education

The number of women enrolling in higher education is exceeding the number of men. “Nationally, the female-to-male ratio in higher education is roughly 60 to 40 percent” (Smith, 2011). The argument being that men are being left behind and action should be taken to help them. These studies conclude that their lack of persistence also equates to ability to achieve.  There is a counter argument that their ability has not shrunk simply their presence and that affirmative action for men would only be a setback for the progress that women have made.

"Beyond the availability of dance partners for the winter formal, gender balance matters in ways both large and small on a residential college campus. Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive," Britz wrote, the President of Kenyon College (Jaschik, 2006). Kenyon College has adopted an affirmative action for men in the admissions process. A point brought up in this article argues that a “lopsided gender ratio in enrollments can make it more difficult to comply with Title IX in athletics” (Jaschik, 2006). Smith argues that it will lead to a troubled country and confusion of gender roles:

“Ultimately, it could lead to a country in which millions of young men live with their parents and work lousy jobs with few or no benefits, and in which a class of highly educated, professionally engaged women is expected to support underemployed husbands.”

There system seems to lack balance. The real stem of the argument is what is contributing to that imbalance. Scholars cannot seem to agree on this topic. If there is truly a boy crisis and we leave the issue unaddressed we will have a problem on our hands. This will be a problem of an uneducated portion of the population and even more confusing gender roles.

A report from the AAUW stated “to the extent that there is a problem, the AAUW argues, it involves subsets of male students, such as inner city minority males who may attend poor high schools and be poorly prepared for college” (Jaschik, 2006). Another report focuses more on the fact that it is not that men are doing poorly, just that women are achieving at higher rates than previously (Matthews, 2006). This issue also stirs up some very uncomfortable topics as women are still an underrepresented group. To state that males, who are usually in a position of privilege, are being lost in the education system is not easy for some to accept.

Resources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062501047.html

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/21/gender

Smith, R. (October 2, 2011). Saving the 'Lost Boys' of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education

Colleges and Universities Responsibilities to Sexual Assault Victims

Sexual assault on college campuses is a problem that continually draws the attention of the nation and how to best deal with it. The conversation primarily focuses on the responsibility that an institution has when the crime has already been committed. This has become even more heated in the wake of recent events like Penn State and UNC-Chapel Hill. The hope and intent of the “Dear Colleague” letter from the Office of Civil Rights was that under Title IX institutions would be held responsible to protect victims of sexual assault, Title IX call for non-discrimination on the basis of sex. Recent events and this letter have led to many more questions. The line between legal and social responsibility begin to blend and makes a painful situation confusing as well.

                The “Dear Colleague” letter, published on April 4, 2011, requires institutions to “have transparent, prompt procedures to investigate and resolve complaints of sexual misconduct, protecting the rights of alleged victims” (Lipka, 2011). This letter was to try to insure that victims were not being left unprotected because of the process of cases. The letter has called into question if institutions are being asked to make legal decisions. As soon as it was released many suggestions were made for revision. “Congress approved a bill renewing the Violence Against Women Act (S 47) that incorporates the first major campus-security legislation in years, the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, which is known as the Campus SaVE Act (Schnoebelen, 2013). The Campus SaVE Act make the “Dear Colleague” letter a requirement for institutions.

One response in particular that campuses have had is to call in the experts. Amherst College and UNC have both called on Gina Smith. She is a lawyer with background serving as prosecutor for sex crimes; she now serves as a consultant to higher education institutions in sexual misconduct cases (Sander, 2013). Her role is to help the institutions respond to incidents on their campuses and help them form policies to deal with future cases. Ms. Smith has helped lead discussions on campuses after incidents and her knowledge of the issue allows these institutions to have someone assist them in navigating this sensitive issue. I believe this also shows that Title IX coordinators alone have an extremely large task laid in their lap under the “Dear Colleague” letter, perhaps something that is too large for a non-expert to undertake.

Some are under the opinion that these actions will actually lead to discrimination of the accused. The concern is that “a lower evidentiary standard implies that more students accused of sexual misconduct will be found responsible” (Lipka, 2011). Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an impassioned article that greatly defended that it would greatly discriminate against males (2011). “Now, on campuses throughout the country, we face the prospect of academic committees—armed with vague definitions of sexual assault, low standards of proof, and official sanction for the notion that sex under the influence is, ipso facto assault or rape—deciding the fate of students accused of a serious crime” (Sommers, 2011). She further argued that:

“The new regulations should be seen for what they really are. They are not enlightened new procedures for protecting students from crime. They are a declaration of martial law against men, justified by an imaginary emergency, and a betrayal of the Title IX equity law.” (Sommers, 2011)

Several people responded very angrily to her article. However, she raises an important question. Are we asking our higher education institutions to take on more legal responsibility?

               

Sources:

Lipka, S. (2011). Campuses Strive for Compliance and Fairness in Policies on Sexual Assault. The Chronicle of Higher Education.         

Sander, L. (2013) In Campuses' Sexual-Assault Crises, an Outside Voice Offers Guidance. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Schnoebelen, A. (2013). Push to Improve Campus Policies on Sexual Violence Gains Momentum. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Sommers, C. (2011). In Making Campuses Safe for Women, a Travesty of Justice for Men. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Asking Too Much of Our Student-Athletes?

                There is no question that athletics play a large role in ‘college life.’ The argument of many is that they play far too large a role. These arguments usually lead to a discussion about the academic capabilities and expectations that are placed on the athletes. Many are disheartened by the amount of athletes that are allowed to maintain eligibility at low standards and the many that do not graduate. The focus of this issue lies mostly on the big two, basketball and football; but other sports face this issue with their athletes as well. The question that many are asking is that as we expect more on the field or court can we still expect these young people to be both student and athlete?

                Thomas Palaima argues that our current expectation of the student-athlete is failing them. In his article “The NCAA and the Athletes it Fails” he discusses that these athletes are asked to perform almost at a professional level while still maintaining the status of a student. If asked to choose or try to balance the two, one part of this forced identity is bound to suffer. The majority of collegiate athletes are not going to make a career out of sport. The college setting should provide them the ability to find other opportunities. Palaima’s point is that the expectations set on them as athletes do not allow them to do this.

 He discusses four points that would help these athletes. First, athletes should only be placed at institutions in which they are academically prepared to succeed. Second, they need to be provided the time to succeed academically and explore interests on their own. Third, they need to be able to complete their degrees before their aid runs out. Lastly, many of them need the idea of going “pro” burst. These things are currently not happening.  As Palaima discusses these goals he describes that a big issue is that many of the athletes are allowed to go along with just the bare minimum for eligibility. This does not promote true learning or the goal of graduation.

Bruce Smith wrote an article about a suggestion he has to help alleviate this problem. He suggests that athletes be given a voucher to complete their education at any time, including and specifically after their eligibility has ended. This would give these athletes to focus on their sport and education separately and with full attention. The premise of this seems logical and well-meaning, but there are many holes and arguments against it. Wouldn’t that just draw more to attention and focus to collegiate athletics? Does that just turn collegiate athletics into amateur leagues? Shouldn’t that money be going to support funding academic programs for all students that so badly lack it? Though no one is a hundred percent sure of what the answer is, it points out that everyone can agree, something needs to change. Society and institutions are no longer supporting the true purpose of a student- athlete. Whether on purpose or unintentionally collegiate athletics is asking a lot of athletes and stripping them of the opportunity to truly take advantage of collegiate scholarship.  It calls into question if collegiate athletics truly supports the mission in which all higher education institutions have set and determine to follow.

References:

Clotfelter, C. (October 24, 2010). Is Sports in Your Mission Statement? The Chronicle of Higher        Education.

Palaima, T. (April 17, 2011). The NCAA and the Athletes it Fails. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Smith, B. (January 9, 2011). Lifetime Chits Would Allow Athletes to Be Students, Too. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The Fight for Free-Speech on Campus

                Free speech is a topic often fought over on college and university campuses. The fight ranges from students protesting on campus and ability to cover topics in student newspaper to professors’ rights to academic freedom.  Groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) are fighting campuses that seem to have taken first amendment rights away from members of its community. This battle generally boils down to a question of when it is necessary to disrupt free speech or expression because of safety concerns. The line is often very thin and a little blurry.

                One professor felt that they were denied a promotion and a faculty award for supporting a student activist group (Schmidt, 2011). “The case is one of several in which the federal courts have grappled—and sometimes differed—on the question of how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that public agencies can discipline their employees for any statements made in connection with their jobs” (Schmidt, 2011). Most cases with professors and free speech bring up concerns about academic freedom. This case, however, seems to be second handedly discouraging student activists from speaking out. The question is was it truly related to her job? The courts argued that since she was the advisor for the Socialist Club that her speech and involvement in protest against university policies were related to her job.

                The FIRE organization continuously supports cases to protect first amendment rights in education. “These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them” (FIRE). Some of the recent cases they support range from a student at DePaul University publishing the name of the students that vandalized his pro-life project to the University of Memphis cutting its student newspaper budget. The case at DePaul is one that many student affairs professionals can see the blurry line of free speech and safety come into play. The student’s rights had most definitely been threatened by students that disrupted his project. The question is if he had the right to publicly call out the students that wronged him. Was he placing them in danger?

                “Could a speaker conceivably utter words so hurtful and so malicious that college officials could justifiably prohibit those words or punish the speaker for uttering them? Unless and until the Supreme Court changes the law, the answer pretty clearly will be no” (White, 2010). This quote seems to sum up the argument that FIRE is making on behalf of the DePaul student. While it might seem wrong, that student had the right to publicly announce the other students. He is protected by the first amendment. As student affairs professionals this can be a tough pill to swallow as we try to protect and help our students develop.

Resources:

               

www.thefire.org

Schmidt, P. (2011). U.S. Appeals Court to Weigh the Speech Rights of Public-College Faculty Members. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

White, L. (2010). Free-Speech Ruling’s Impact on Colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Combating Alcohol Abuse on College Campuses

               There is agreement in the fact that colleges and universities are faced with an alcohol issue. Students binge drinking has become part of the college culture on many campuses. The way in which university leaders, community leaders, and students want to combat this issue varies greatly. Solutions cover the gamut with education, stricter enforcement, and lower drinking age.

                Many universities are trying to change the drinking culture on their campuses through education. Some are using programming in the residence halls or campus wide events to spark discussion about the true alcohol culture on campus.

“Indiana embarked on a long-term campaign to educate first-year students about some of the myths surrounding normal college drinking. Pitt opened a new student-activity center to provide a robust set of alternative social options.” (Busteed, 2010)

At one small college campus the president took up meeting individually with students that had to seek medical attention due to alcohol consumption. Higdon stated that “I believe our conversations have helped elevate the seriousness of the situation for them and for others” (Higdon, 2011). The goal of his article was to urge university staff and faculty members to start conversations about alcohol on campus and in the classroom in order to encourage students to take responsibilities for their actions. Another way that campuses are using education to deal with alcohol abuse is through AlcoholEdu. Many campuses and organizations are requiring participation in this online alcohol education. The hope is that education about alcohol use will prevent abusive use of the substance. Studies show that it seems to be having a positive impact (Outside the Classroom, 2010).

                 

            Stricter enforcement is another tactic that colleges and universities are embracing. At the University of Wisconsin at Stout six alcohol-connected deaths in two years spurred the chancellor to release a memo informing the students of a new approach to combating this problem.

“The university would increase the number of classes held on Fridays in order to discourage Thursday drinking; empower the dean of students to deal more harshly with underage drinking (and its abettors) as well as other alcohol-related offenses; and step up its efforts with local law enforcement to crack down on off-campus house parties, which he considers havens for underage students looking for access to booze.” (Kolowich, 2010)

Many students at the university were outraged by the statement, arguing that drinking was part of the university’s culture. One student also argued that this tactic would lead to people getting caught but not actually dealing with the problem. Apparently the reforms also included harsher punishments for those with higher blood-alcohol levels (Kolowich, 2010). Many universities, along with Stout, are coupling stricter enforcement along with alcohol education to battle the issue. “Frostburg State began extensive outreach with local police and landlords to help curb excessive off-campus partying” (Busteed, 2010) is just one example at how campuses are cracking down.

                Alcohol education and harsher rules are often coupled together in the fight against drinking culture on college campuses. 136 chancellors and presidents of colleges and universities have a different approach to dealing with the issue. They have signed the Amethyst Initiative supporting debate over the current drinking age Click here. Here’s part of their argument:

“Twenty-one is not working.

A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.

Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.

Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.

By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect              for the law.”

This is met with much controversy. Most notable among opponents is MADD. They arguing that these university and college leaders are just avoiding the true responsibility of dealing with the problem.

Resources:

Busteed, B. (2010). High-rish drinking at college? Soon to be a thing of the past. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Fain, P. (2008). Drinking-age campaign binges on big names, big media. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

http://www.theamethystinitiative.org/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/13/drinking

Higdon, L. (2011). How to make students uncomfortable with drinking. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

http://www.outsidetheclassroom.com/Upload/PDF/AlcoholEdu_EfficacyResearchSummary_2011.pdf