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.