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

Crystal Ball: Are Behavioral Intervention Teams Asked To Predict The Future?

                A growing trend that is becoming seen as a necessity is behavioral intervention teams or threat assessment teams. The creation of such teams poses two questions.  Are these teams given the expectation of preventing all threatening activity on a campus and community? When do the actions of these teams start to become harmful for those suffering from a mental illness? It has become general consensus at higher education institutions across the nation that the mental health of the students is extremely important and the best preventative measure against threatening situation (Mole). With more and more students attending college that were never able to before (due to scholarship, counseling, and/or medicine), this generation is much more volatile. One “2008 study, conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health and titled "Mental Health of College Students and Their Non-College-Attending Peers," found that half of people in the traditional college-age group, ages 18 to 24, met the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.” Taking in all these factors and questions, behavioral interventions teams have a great task outlining their responsibilities.

                In the aftermath of every active shooter situation it is asked if the shooter was displaying any strange behavior. In retrospect at least one person can point to some sort of strange behavior. Behavioral intervention teams are asked to decipher strange behavior before a threatening situation occurs. The shootings in Arizona of Gabrielle Giffords and others was by a young man that had been suspended from a community college because of threatening comments and demeanor (Reiss).   The community college removed him from their environment. Is it their responsibility to protect the community? Can the college force a student to obtain help from mental-health professionals? These questions are the reason why the majority of these teams also include legal staff.  The reality of the situation is that not only are these teams not able to predict every threatening situation that occurs, but their ability to enforce assistant to students is limited. A member of behavioral intervention team at University of Wisconsin’s River Falls campus, Sandi Scott Deux, had this to say about their responsibilities and effectiveness (Wilson):

“We're only human. We're dealing with the same issues that society has. It's no different from trying to stop this in any town or community. Until we can predict human behavior, we're never going to say with 100-percent certainty we can stop this from happening. There are still going to be students who are able to do these kinds of things, who we don't know about or for whom we don't have the right information to proceed in time. Compared to general society, college campuses are still much safer. Are we immune? No.”

                The limit of behavioral intervention teams’ abilities prohibits them from being able to help and/or even diffuse every situation. They have to consider things like privacy laws as well as further damaging someone’s mental health. There is a fear that mandatory mental health screenings of students could turn a minor problem into a major one unnecessarily. These teams face the issue of how to identify those who are at high risk(Han). Most teams have a reporting system that faculty, staff, and students can report to if someone is displaying strange or disturbing behavior (Peterkin). They then gather information on the student and try to look at the whole picture assessing the best way to help and deal with the person. While not a perfect system most school feel with these teams in place campuses are much better off than they were before Virginia Tech occurred (Wilson).

Peterkin, C. (2012) Campus Threat-Assessment Teams Get New Guidance From Mental-Health Groups The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Reiss, B. (2011). Campus Security and the Specter of Mental-Health Profiling. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Wilson, R. (2009). A Safety Official Discusses How Campuses Handle Threats. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Mole, B. (2012). Threat-Assessment Teams Face Complex Task of Judging Risk. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Han, F. (2010). Studies on College Student Psychological Crisis Intervention System. International Journal of Psychological Studies. Vol. 2, No. 1.

Community and the Campus

                Universities around the nation grow larger and larger every year. As a result, defining community on campus is become harder and even more important. Communities on a campus come in a variety of different areas such as student organizations, athletics, and residence halls. One has to wonder what these communities are portraying about the larger campus community. Are they hurting or promoting a true whole community? Another question that faces higher education institutions is in regards to the physical community. Are the gathering places still important for communities that are continually tech savvy?

                In her article, Deborah Taub, points out that the ever growing campus size has made the sense of community lessen at most institutions. She points out the diverse student population as another hurdle. Part-time and commuter students cannot become involved in the campus community in the same manner as the traditional student. Our student populations are no longer small classes of privileged white males and sense of community is not quite as obvious. Taub goes on to share “The Social Change Model” which urges student affairs professionals to see leaders in all students. She then goes on to describe one of the best way to use these leaders to build community on campus is through service-learning. As a pillar of the university service would be a great way to create a common thread throughout the community.

                Magolda takes a look at rituals on campus and how they create a certain perception about the community. He suggests that hundreds of student organizations only show that it is hard to gain a true understanding of issues relevant to entire campus. Throughout the article Magolda uses the ‘voice’ of a student tour guide and how that voice sets up expectations about the campus community. Beginning with a campus tour one is expected to uphold traditions, whether those be roles or expectations, because they are sacred. A sense of normalization is expected on campuses to uphold this tradition and is even romanticized. Are we truly building a community if students are not themselves? Are these traditions ignoring the needs and development of some members of the population?

                Another question about community on campuses today is whether the physical structure of community is still necessary. Scott Carlson points out in his article in The Chronicle that many thought that the library would soon be obsolete with the rise in technology and e-books. The reality is contrary to this statement and one of the biggest reasons is that it helps create a sense of community. “The library, as someone once put it, is one of few places you can go to be alone in public.”  Another testament to this is the millions of dollars being put into state of the art student centers and unions across the country. The Ohio State University just spent $100 million on a new student union and $140 million on a recreation center. Large portions of these projects are being absorbed by the students in their tuition and fees. Why is there not outrage? It creates a place for a sense of community and a point of pride for the community.

                Community is complicated for the growing institutions across the nation. These institutions have to tread carefully and hope that perception does not harm their efforts. There is hope however, as the populations of these institutions continually call for more opportunities to become a part of the larger community.

Sources:

Carlson, S. (February 4, 2013). For making the most of college, it's still location, location, location. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Magolda, P. M. (2001). WHAT OUR RITUAS TELL US ABOUT COMMUNITY ON CAMPUS. About Campus, 5(6), 2.

Kronholz, J. (2005, May 18). Colleges get building fever; when big-ticket amenities are added to campus unions students often foot the bill. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/399008247?accountid=14588

Deborah J. Taub (1998): Building community on campus: Student affairs professionals as group workers, The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23:4, 411-427

Parents: Friends or Foes

                Today’s parents are much more involved in their children’s education than were their own parents. This does not stop when they enter a post-secondary institution and not even in the workforce as Michigan State research found.  This generation of PTA parents is paying for the soaring costs of higher education and wants to be informed and in contact with the institutions in which they see themselves ‘consumers’.  With parents registering for their children’s’ classes and calls to the dean’s office, has it gone too far? Should colleges and universities embrace the heightened family involvement or try to discourage it?

                

                A recent case in Ohio led to a student seeking and gaining a restraining order against her parents. The university has supported the student to the point of providing a scholarship for her last year after her parents pulled their support. The mother of the student is now filing for repayment of the $66,000 she spent on the student’s education. While this case may be extreme it sets up a case that parents want to involved in their children’s education beyond the usually parameters. Are parents, students, or both the ‘customers’ we are serving in higher education? In this case the institution supported the student and it made a statement, whether intended or not, that ‘helicopter’ parents are not supported at the institution.

                Universities and colleges are taking steps to include parents, but also to give their students room to breathe. They are using clever tactics particularly at orientation sessions to set the tone for these relationships. Several universities are creating orientation sessions for parents while the students are registering from class. This gives the student the opportunity to make these decisions by themselves. The University of Vermont is doing something interesting in creating a position of ‘parent bouncers’ to help keep parents away from student sessions during orientation. These students provide information and distraction to the parents, creating that separation from their children. Other universities are also using parent orientation sessions to have hard discussions with parents about letting their children make some of their educational decisions on their own. Parent organizations are also flourishing to help parents feel more connected to the institutions on their own basis and not through their children.

                Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act also greatly play into institution interaction with parents. The purpose of this act was to:

“to assure parents of students, and students themselves if they are over the age of 18 or attending an institution or postsecondary education, access to their education records and to protect such individuals’ rights to privacy by limiting the transferability of their records without their consent.”

While the original intent was more to protect this information from being released to the public it has also been used as a tool to protect the student from the parent. The student now has the ability to sign off on whom can have access to their financial and educational records. This gives administrators information on what information can be released to parents to try to avoid situations like the restraining order in Ohio case.

                Colleges and universities are faced with a decision about the future of family relations. Most institutions are embracing this new level of support from parent and family members. This style of parenting begins as soon as the child is born and not something as professionals in higher education we can change, but only embrace. Though sometimes frustrating it is in the best interest of the student and parent relationship that we work with both for the future development of that student.

Sources:

Connectingg the dots... Education and the Law 

Vol. 20, No. 4, December 2008, 301-316

Family-Friendly FERPA Policies: Affirming Parental Parnerships.

New Directions for Student Services, 2001

"Helicopter Parents"

Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World

Parent Trap

by Eric Wills 

July 22, 2005

The Chronicle of Higher Education

Is A Restraining Order Necessary?

by Peg Streep

January 8, 2013

Psychology Today

Student Self Perception and Goals

     A common phrase at freshman convocation around the country is “you are the best and brightest this university has ever seen.” The pressure on students to succeed is higher than ever. Success to most of them is a high paying job after graduation. Today’s college student is more likely than ever to believe that success is not only achievable, but expected. These results came from a study through CIRP that also found that students were bragging about their ‘drive to achieve.’ There were two major themes in several articles on the results of the CIRP study. The first being about the expectations of what a college degree provides and the success it should garner. The second theme was that students believe their drive to achieve is relatively high. Students believe they can be successfully with a college degree.
      Success to according to today’s student is the ability to make more money because of their degree. More and more students are attending college not only to get an education, but for job-related goals. Students seem more certain of the results a degree can offer in the job market even in an uncertain economy. While some are questioning the value of higher education it seems that today’s student correlates going to college with success. Are these students really willing to do the work in order to be successful in the job market? How seriously are they taking their education to attain the skills to be successful? Unfortunately, these questions are ones that many students may fail to ask themselves until it is time to enter the job market. 
     Today’s student believes they have a high drive to achieve, according to the CIRP study it is worthy of bragging. One article stated this supported a previous study that showed students had inflated ambitions. From my experience this is true and goes hand and hand with students’ expectations in high paying jobs upon completion of a degree. Often students who fail or greatly struggle with prerequisites for professional school, such as medical school, continue on that career path. In some case passion for the field may play in, but frequently it is a matter of their belief in their right to be successful. This is hard for students to accept that success comes in many different forms. Their drive to achieve is high, but it also can get in their way of actually achieving.

 Articles:

 Freshman Survey: This Year, Even More Focused on Jobs in The Chronicle of Higher Education

Perceptions of Self in The Chronicle of Higher Education

 U.S. College Students Feel Super Special About Themselves: American Freshman Survey in The Huffington Post

 More college freshmen view diploma as gateway to better job in Los Angeles Times