MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School
Certificate for Approving the Dissertation
We hereby approve the Dissertation
of
Adam Zook Leftin
Candidate for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
______Dr. David Pérez II, Director
______Dr. Elisa S. Abes, Reader
______Dr. Kathleen Knight Abowitz, Reader
______Dr. Jennifer M. Blue, Graduate School Representative
ABSTRACT
A NARRATIVE EXPLORATION OF FREE SPEECH EVENTS BY NEW STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS
by
Adam Z. Leftin
Free speech movements in U.S. Higher Education are as old as the education system itself (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Hofstadter, 1970; Sun & McClellan, 2020). However, there has been a dearth of literature regarding the role of student affairs practitioners in managing issues of free speech events on campus. Further, recent works by Ben-Porath (2017), Chemerinsky and Gillman (2017), as well as Whittington (2018) highlighted the urgency in protecting free speech on campus as a democratic bedrock in the mission of colleges and universities.
The purpose of this narrative inquiry study was to explore how new student affairs professionals engaged in sensemaking (Weick, 1995) about their roles and experiences with free speech events on campus. This study used a narrative approach (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) grounded in a constructivist paradigm which allowed participants the opportunity to name and vocalize their experiences. In total, 10 practitioners from two public institutions of higher education participated in a series of three interviews about their experiences.
This study found five emergent themes that contributed to sensemaking about free speech events: 1) Pathways into the profession, 2) Identity salience, 3) Context, 4) Supervision and mentorship, and the 5) Role of higher education and student affairs. These themes offer important considerations when thinking about how new student affairs professionals engage in complex sensemaking. These assemblages extend the body of research on sensemaking (Weick, 1995) and provide insight into the valuable role these professionals play in responding to free speech events on campus.
This study has broad applicability for those working as student affairs professionals, generating standards of best practice that support students and promote democratic aims of higher education. These findings also have meaningful implications for senior-level student affairs professionals, graduate preparatory programs that support new practitioner socialization, and policymakers broadly. With the increase in events such as protest movements nationally, and on college campuses over the last five years, this topic remains urgently timely and timeless.
A NARRATIVE EXPLORATION OF FREE SPEECH EVENTS BY NEW STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of
Miami University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Educational Leadership
by
Adam Z. Leftin
The Graduate School Miami University Oxford, Ohio
2020
Dissertation Director: Dr. David Pérez II
©
Adam Zook Leftin
2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...... vi DEDICATION ...... vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 3 Purpose of Study ...... 4 Research Questions ...... 5 Significance of Study ...... 5 Definition of Terms...... 6 Conclusion ...... 8 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9 Historical Context Within Higher Education and Democratic Aims...... 9 Historiography ...... 9 Democratic Aims of Higher Education...... 13 Free Speech in Higher Education ...... 15 Legal Considerations ...... 16 Academic Freedom ...... 18 Hate Speech ...... 18 Campus Activism ...... 20 Balancing Free Speech and Inclusivity ...... 21 Role of Student Affairs ...... 23 Student Affairs Socialization ...... 25 Theoretical Framework ...... 27 Conclusion ...... 29 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY & METHODS ...... 31 Paradigmatic Worldview ...... 31 Narrative Inquiry Methodology ...... 32 Methods...... 33 Sites and Participants ...... 33 Data Analysis ...... 37 Trustworthiness ...... 38 Positionality ...... 39
iii Conclusion ...... 40 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ...... 41 University of the Midwest (UM) ...... 42 Jennifer (she/her) ...... 42 Emma (she/her) ...... 47 Julio (he/him) ...... 51 Jordyn (she/her) ...... 57 Rose (she/her) ...... 61 City University (CU)...... 66 Derek (he/him) ...... 67 Aria (they/them) ...... 71 Molly (she/her)...... 76 Aaron (he/him) ...... 81 Destiny (she/her) ...... 85 Narrative Themes ...... 90 Pathways into the Profession ...... 90 Identity Salience...... 94 Context ...... 99 Supervision & Mentorship ...... 105 Role of Higher Education & Student Affairs ...... 110 Conclusion ...... 114 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...... 116 Summary ...... 116 Experiencing Free Speech Events as New Professionals ...... 117 Connection to Sensemaking ...... 117 Personal, Professional, & Institutional Characteristics ...... 123 Role of the Student Affairs Professional ...... 127 Implications...... 130 Limitations and Future Research ...... 134 Conclusion ...... 136 EPILOGUE ...... 138 REFERENCES ...... 141 APPENDIX A: CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS ...... 164 APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT SCREENING SURVEY...... 165
iv APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM ...... 166 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONS ...... 167
v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Participant Demographics…………………………………………………… 35 Table 2: Sample Code Process.……………………………………………………….. 37
vi DEDICATION
For Antonio, I never would have made it to the finish line without you. This is for you, this is for us, this is for our future!
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As someone who enjoys distance running I frequently use the metaphor that the completion of a doctoral degree is akin to completing a marathon, or in the case of my preferred race format, the half marathon. It is not about being the best or the fastest, but putting forth a quality effort to reach the finish line. There are moments where one has to simply put one foot in front of the other in order to keep pushing forward. At times it can be an isolating experience where one is alone with a variety of thoughts running through their head. It requires stamina, personal will, and acknowledging that some days you just do not have it. When you reach the finish line, there is no greater feeling of joy, euphoria, and exhaustion. Yes, completing a doctoral degree is a journey, but one that does not happen without an incredible support system of fans cheering you on. This small section is a way of giving thanks to everyone who cheered me on to the finish line of this race. The relationship cultivated between student and advisor is unique in doctoral education. Good advisors invest countless hours of time and energy (a precious resource among faculty) to ensure success for their advisee. I had the good fortune of working with three different advisors during my time at Miami, and I am forever indebted to their support and wisdom at different steps in the doctoral process. First, Dr. Mahauganee D. Shaw Bonds, your crisis management class affirmed my interest in doctoral education, and your pragmatism helped me cull my absurd list of potential dissertation topics. I appreciate you guiding me through the majority of my coursework in the program. Next, Dr. Kathleen M. Goodman, you have a special gift for teaching quantitative research in an accessible way and working with students to co-create learning environments. Thank you for your insights on early versions of this study and guiding my committee through the comprehensive exam process. Finally, Dr. David Pérez II, you stepped up in a big way to help me get this project over the finish line. During tremendous periods of transition, you graciously, and without hesitation, offered your guidance and support. I do not have enough hashtags to express my appreciation for you as an advisor and friend. Gracias! #thankful #appreciative #PhinisheD #StudentSuccess In addition to my triumvirate of advisors, I am beyond grateful for my dissertation committee members who thoughtfully provided support, resources, and feedback at each major step of the process. Dr. Elisa S. Abes, you are the steady force that has maintained
viii the excellence of the SAHE program. Thank you for always checking in and meeting with me. You are one of the most legendary theorists in our field and you always push my thinking in critical ways. Dr. Kathleen Knight Abowitz, I always credit your seminar for planting the initial seeds that would become this study. I appreciate the numerous resources you sent my way to enhance this research. Dr. Jennifer Blue, thank you for your leadership in the College Teaching Certificate program and for always sending free speech resources in my direction. I do not have the words to express my gratitude for the time and effort expended by each committee member. I would also be remiss not to thank the numerous academic folks who served as good learning partners during my graduate studies. Dr. Stephen John Quaye, Dr. Judith L. Rogers, and Mayor Dr. Kate Rousmaniere, you each provided me with memorable classroom experiences that enriched my personal and professional growth. Thank you for your care and investment in my academic experience. To my cohort members, Dr. Aeriel A. Ashlee, Dr. Kyle C. Ashlee, future Dr. Shamika N. Karikari, Dr. Wilson K. Okello, and Dr. Mark W. Pontious, I cannot think of a better group of people to have as a support system during these past five years. We are forever bonded by this adventure. Thank you for making the SAHE experience a truly memorable one. Completing a doctoral program as a part-time student requires significant patience, understanding, and support from the full-time job. Miami University is a special place filled with people who were invested in my success and allowed me to complete this program. First and foremost my supervisor, Dr. Katherine R. B. Wilson, you provided me the time, space, and support to complete this whole program. We have navigated a variety of free speech events over the last six years, and I value your leadership and input. Although I run the risk of inadvertent omission, I want to personally thank current and former Miami staff who supported me along the way: Dr. Scott L. Walter, Victoria A. Suttmiller, Dr. Jamie L. Workman, Dr. Erik A. Sorensen, Dr. Gwen M. Fears, Jerry Olson, Dr. Vicka D. Bell-Robinson, Rob Abowitz, Tresa Barlage Zianno, Dr. H. Lincoln Walburn, Taylor Wallace, Hannah Muldoon-Davis, Pam Goodwin, Dr. Elizabeth Buffy Stoll Turton, Elizabeth K. Walsh, Dr. Kimberly M. Vance, Jennifer Levering Loeffelman, Tiffany R. Harrison, J.S. Bragg, Laura Backer, Dr. Yvania A. Garcia-Pusateri, Gerald S. Yearwood, Dr. Barbara Jones, Dr. Rayshawn L. Eastman,
ix Taran R. Cardone, Jessie Weasner, Jaymee Lewis-Flenaugh, Kelly M. Sosa, Steven Sajkich, Jessica Melita Lee, Elizabeth A. Gordon-Canlas, Jelene Grace, Sarah A. Meaney, Helen Pegler, Ricardo Treviño Jr., Kyleen Ammerman, Dan Darkow, Kathy Squance, and Monique Frost. Additionally, a special note of thanks goes out to my current and former supervisees: Lauren Brassfield, Shayna A. Sandbank, Angie Cook, Casey LaBarbera, and Kayla Pinto. You all have collectively made me a better supervisor. Finally, thank you to all of my former Residence Life colleagues, undergraduate students, and graduates of the SAHE program. Next, this project would not be possible without the graciousness of the 10 participants in this study. Free speech is a complicated topic and your willingness to engage in critical discussions about your experiences was a highlight of this project. I hope I was able to honor your stories and share them faithfully in this document. Without you, this project does not exist—thank you for your engagement! On a personal level, the completion of this degree is the culmination of hopes and dreams poured into me by my family. To my parents Nancy and Gregg, although you may never know what I do, or the work required for this “big paper,” you imparted on me a tireless work ethic, the meaning of sacrifice, and a selfless concern for others. Collectively, these life lessons kept me on track and I know you are proud that you can finally call me a doctor. For my brother Andy, you and your family have gone through a lifetime of experiences I can never fathom; thank you for serving our country, I am so incredibly proud of you. Most importantly, thank you to my fiancé (and unofficial doctoral advisor), Dr. Antonio A. Duran. Your patience, encouragement, support, and love is what sustained me on this journey. Without you, I never would have made it to this point. You are a gift to the field of student affairs and I am lucky that I get to learn from you on a daily basis. I am excited to embark on this next phase of our life together as the Dr. Duran-Leftin family, complete with little Michael the corgi by our side! I can now turn my attention to planning our wedding. Finally, I want to acknowledge that I completed this experience on the ancestral lands of the Myaamia people. The Miami Tribe experienced a painful forced removal from this area into Oklahoma. I am hopeful the university continues to cultivate a positive relationship with members of the Tribe in the years to come. neewe (thank you).
x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION As an Assistant Director of a college union, I frequently help student groups host events on campus. These events include everything from philanthropic programs, cultural celebrations, movie nights, and occasionally a nationally recognized speaker. I view my role in the college union as one that helps students develop their capacities for critical thinking, interpersonal communication, and event planning logistics. However, there is one event that forever left an indelible mark on my professional career—it was when Milo came to town. As a frequent consumer of news media, I was familiar with some of the controversial statements made by this speaker; so when I saw the room reservation request come in for his event from a registered student organization, I immediately knew our campus would face a trying situation. In the weeks leading up to the December 2016 event, different administrators met with leaders from the student organization to make sure the program could safely happen and to develop strategies to minimize campus disruption. As an event planner, I felt I had a responsibility to ensure the student organization had the necessary tools to host their event; as an educator, I found myself reflecting on bigger questions about the role higher education should play in promoting the First Amendment, what an institutional response for this type of event should look like, and how to support students who feel attacked by the speaker’s message. What I was not prepared for leading up to the program was the amount of personal push back I would receive on campus. I would run into faculty members who would say, “How could you let your office invite him to speak on campus?!” I had administrative peers question my commitment to marginalized student groups on campus because Milo was speaking in our building. I soon began to realize that much of the campus community was not aware of the actual details surrounding the lecture, and that few people knew the parameters involving free speech at a public university. I then ruminated on additional questions: How can I help create an inclusive campus environment that balances the free speech rights of all students? How do I support students who want to bring a controversial speaker to the institution? In a time when multiple protest movements are occurring across the country, how do I help educate the campus community about the guidelines for free speech at a public institution? These questions, and many more, continue to serve as professional reflection points that shape my work as a student affairs practitioner.
1
Following the lecture, I vividly remember thinking to myself that something larger was afoot on campus—not just at my institution, but nationally. It felt reminiscent of the opening lines from the 1967 Buffalo Springfield hit, “For What It’s Worth:” “There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.” Little did I know at the time that the Milo lecture and the #BlackLivesMatter protests the year prior in 2015 were simply the beginning in what would be a series of free speech events I would encounter as a practitioner over the next several years at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. My reflection above highlights some of the professional tensions that arise when events involving free speech take place on campus. In the period leading up to the 2016 United States General Election, and in the months that immediately followed, a series of high profile campus events drew national attention to free speech policies at higher education institutions. For example, in December 2016, an outside community member invited white-supremacist Richard B. Spencer to speak with over 400 attendees in the ballroom of the Texas A&M University Memorial Student Center; his appearance prompted university administrators to reconsider institutional guidelines governing the rental of campus facilities to outside groups (Schmidt, 2017). The 2016–2017 academic year also saw conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos travel the country on his controversial campus tour. Although Yiannopoulos’ tour was commonly met with disruptions and counterprogramming at other colleges, his February 2017 event at the University of California, Berkeley incited protests that resulted in $100,000 worth of damages to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Student Union (Kell, 2017). Another campus flashpoint occurred in March 2017 when demonstrators shouted down Bell Curve author Charles Murray, a controversial conservative scholar, during a lecture in the McCullough Student Center at Middlebury College (Krantz, 2017). Protestors then physically attacked Murray and forum moderator Allison Stranger, a Middlebury professor, as they left the venue. This incident prompted scholars George and West (2017) to reassert the sacrosanct democratic idea of respectful engagement with those who challenge our own views. Their denunciation of a growing campus illiberalism, or lack of protection for civil liberties, invited scholars and practitioners alike to reexamine the roles of free speech and civility on college campuses (Ben- Porath, 2017). The exemplars noted above are representative of the broader uptick in free speech events on college campuses. From 2015 to 2018, there has been a precipitous increase in reported free
2
speech events at higher education institutions. According to Oglethorpe (2018), from January 2014 to January 2016, there were 42 mentions of free speech events that appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education; from January 2017 to September 2017 there were 173 mentions of free speech. This rise in free speech activities caught the attention of the major student affairs professional association, NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. As a leading voice in student affairs administration, policy, and practice, NASPA identified “crisis response/protest and activism” as one of the big six challenges currently facing the profession during the Vice Presidents for Student Affairs Institute at the centennial anniversary conference in Philadelphia, PA (Kruger, 2018). Because student affairs practitioners play an important role in supporting students (Coomes & Gerda, 2016) and managing campus crises (Reason & Lutovsky, 2007; Zdziarski et al., 2007), it is important to understand how these campus professionals experience these contemporary movements sweeping across college campuses from coast-to-coast. Statement of the Problem Although these recent examples pertaining to free speech serve as useful sites for reflection about the mission of higher education, this topic is both timely and timeless. Free speech movements in U.S. Higher Education are as old as the education system itself (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Hofstadter, 1970; Sun & McClellan, 2020). One of the earliest recorded examples of student expression took placed during the Harvard Butter Rebellion of 1766 (Oglethorpe, 2018; Pisner, 2011). Students attending Harvard University expressed their displeasure over being served rancid butter in the dining hall; over the next month, students protested and petitioned the Board of Overseers to provide better quality food on campus (Pisner, 2011). Although this colonial incident predated the formal ratification of the U.S. Constitution, it represents one of the first times that students asserted their voice against university administration. Countless other examples of student expression can be found throughout the storied history of higher education in the United States (Thelin, 2011); however, many consider the 1960s Free Speech Movement (FSM) at the University of California, Berkeley to be the defining moment that shaped free speech in the era of the modern university (Cohen & Zelnik, 2002). Frustrated with campus policies that prohibited political advocacy, students at the University of California staged a series of demonstrations challenging speech restrictions on campus (Gales, 1966).
3
Though it may seem expedient to make sweeping generalizations that higher education is currently facing a new crisis with the recent surge in free speech activities on campus, these historic examples provide important context in framing contemporary studies. The scholarship regarding free speech on campus has explored a wide range of topics which include student attitudes toward free speech on campus (Oglethorpe, 2018), faculty rights under the protection of academic freedom (Hammersley, 2016), and reflections on student activism from college presidents (Williams & McGreevey, 2004). However, there has been a dearth of literature regarding the role of student affairs practitioners in managing issues of free speech events on campus. Further, recent works by Ben-Porath (2017), Chemerinsky and Gillman (2017), and Whittington (2018) highlight the urgency in protecting free speech on campus as a democratic bedrock in the mission of colleges and universities. Because of the legal complexities surrounding free speech, Senior Student Affairs Officers are often the primary audience for sharing stories and resources about free speech events on campus (Morse, 2018). NASPA even offers a two-day program about balancing free speech tensions and creating inclusive campus environments exclusively to those who serve as a Vice President for Student Affairs (VPSA) because these institutional leaders are often responsible for managing free speech on campus (“Free Speech vs. The Inclusive Campus: An Unending Struggle,” n.d.). Depending on the institutional structure, the VPSA role may be several levels removed from everyday student interaction; as a result, it is often entry-level and mid-level student affairs professionals who initially confront protestors inside a student center, work with a student organization to arrange a controversial speaker visit, or support students before/during/after an event due to their preexisting relationships (Harris & Ray, 2004; Leffers, 2000). Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how new student affairs professionals, some whom will eventually ascend into a VPSA role, make sense of free speech on campus. Purpose of Study The purpose of this narrative inquiry study was to explore how new student affairs professionals engaged in sensemaking about their roles and experiences with free speech events on campus. By investigating how campus professionals comprehend and navigate free speech events on campus, this study provided clarity and reasserted the important role higher education plays in fostering democratic principles. Because free speech events are highly contextualized and experienced in an individualized way, this study used a narrative approach grounded in a
4
constructivist paradigm which allowed participants the opportunity to name and vocalize their experiences (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Additionally, the present study utilized sensemaking (Weick, 1995) as the theoretical framework to understand how student affairs practitioners come to make sense of these events as employees within an organizational system. In order to meet the stated purpose of this study, I posed the following research questions: Research Questions RQ1: How do new student affairs professionals describe their experience with free speech events at public institutions of higher education? RQ2: At public institutions of higher education, what are the personal, professional, and institutional characteristics that affect new student affairs professionals’ sensemaking about free speech events on campus? RQ3: What role do student affairs professionals play in responding to free speech events on campus? Significance of Study By exploring how new student affairs professionals make sense of their roles and responsibilities regarding free speech events on campus, this study adds to the expanding literature about free speech on campus. Specifically, this issue represents a boundary-spanning topic that has broad applicability for student affairs practitioners across many different functional areas. Professionals in offices of student activities, college union, residence life, fraternity/sorority life, judicial affairs, and multicultural affairs will likely work with students who seek to protest on campus, invite controversial speakers, or host events that push the limits of campus policies regarding free expression (Labanc et al., 2020). This research highlights the varied responses of student affairs professionals to these highly nuanced campus events. By illuminating these narratives, this study assists practitioners in working through these complex events with students and other campus stakeholders. During the last decade, the federal government has become more involved in regulatory oversight of higher education institutions (Lowery, 2016). This involvement has forced senior administrators and those working in a general counsel office to examine different campus protocols. As the courts continue to provide clarity on First Amendment rights, their rulings will continue to impact the work of student affairs practitioners (Bird et al., 2006). Moreover, because federal and state regulations shaped by case law commonly influence guidelines surrounding free
5
speech (Kaplin & Lee, 2014), participants had varying levels of familiarity and comfort with legal procedural guidelines. Therefore, this study provides useful insight to Senior Student Affairs Officers, and those working in an office of university general counsel, regarding the level of legal consideration new professionals give to free speech events. Further, understanding how early student affairs practitioners make sense of free speech events has implications for graduate preparation programs. By exploring how administrators were socialized and understood these events, this project offers insight into the salient graduate experiences that resonated with participants. Conversely, this study revealed gaps in professional knowledge that could be resolved by specialized coursework in higher education administration or perspectives that could be underscored in existing classes. In either case, by focusing on early student affairs professionals, the results from this study are relevant to those working in graduate preparation programs. Finally, in addition to the groups listed above, this study reinforced the essential role student affairs plays in supporting the democratic mission of higher education. Ben-Porath (2017) noted that free speech “is a necessary condition for the pursuit of knowledge and as a contributing condition to the development of civic and democratic capacities” (p. 37). As a profession, student affairs educators are uniquely positioned to support and cultivate these capacities through their primary occupational roles: educating and developing others (Lowery, 2016; Morse, 2018). Narratives presented in this study give voice to the unique ways in which student affairs educators support the democratic purpose of higher education. Definition of Terms Before continuing on to the next chapter, this section will provide definitional clarity for readers regarding terms frequently used throughout the present study. The topic of free speech often involves legal jargon requiring explication for those unfamiliar with the terminology. Below are terms and concepts that will be used in future chapters, along with an accompanying definition as it pertains to the present study. Academic Freedom. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) developed this concept in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (Levinson, 2007). Academic freedom is a set of values that protect both classroom speech and inquiry for faculty members as a way to advance the search for truth. These protections do not extend to non-faculty staff positions on a college campus.
6
Content Neutrality. Institutional leadership on campuses have the ability to restrict certain forms of speech through the concept of Time/Place/Manner (see definition below); however, those restrictions must be content neutral and applied universally regardless of topic or viewpoint (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). First Amendment. The First Amendment is a federal constitutional amendment ratified in 1791 along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights (Garner, 2014). The amendment extends freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and government petition. For purposes of this study, the focus is on the guarantee of free speech. Forum. A forum is a public place dedicated to free assembly or debate. When viewed as an extension of the government, public universities are generally considered to be an open forum for free expression (Travis & Scott, 2017). For a traditional public forum, the location has an established history as a space used for public expression or assembly (e.g. sidewalks, parks); restrictions on public forum require a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). Free Speech. A clause in the First Amendment that protects most forms of verbal and nonverbal speech (O’Neil, 1997). Public institutions of higher education have a legal requirement to uphold free speech protections on campus (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). Free Speech Event. For purposes of this study, a free speech event is any instance where the notion of free speech is challenged, enacted, or debated on campus. This includes, but is not limited to: campus demonstrations/displays or controversial lecturers speaking on campus. Hate Speech. A form of speech that Waldron (2012) described as “words which are deliberately abusive and/or insulting and/or threatening and/or demeaning directed at members of vulnerable minorities, calculated to stir up hatred against them” (p. 9). Although many democratic nations prohibit hate speech, the United States does not (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). Marketplace of Ideas. Concept generally attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Whittington, 2018). In his dissenting opinion, Holmes argued that rather than placing unexamined faith in our own ideas that an ultimate good is reached when ideas can compete for acceptance among the general public (Abrams v. United States, 1919).
7
Overbreadth Doctrine. Legal concept applied when statutes or policies are written in such a broad way that it deters free expression. The courts have used this doctrine to invalidate existing laws that may infringe on free speech rights on campus (Bird et al., 2006). Speech Codes. A set of rules that explicate which forms of speech are tolerable in an environment in order to promote civil discourse (Uecker, 2011). The 1980s and 1990s saw the development of several speech codes on college campuses (Rychlak, 1992) that were ultimately struck down in numerous court cases as unconstitutional (PEN America, 2016). Time/Place/Manner (TPM). A concept which allows communities, such as public universities, to impose restrictions on free speech based on the time, place, and manner of speech (Meiklejohn, 1948). For example, an institution may restrict free speech events which block fire egress in a building, or use a bullhorn outside a classroom window; however, a forum must still be provided to allow for free expression. Conclusion In the current political climate, scholars and practitioners can expect the recent surge in campus activism to continue for the foreseeable future. In response to this increased activity, campuses are now beginning to create cross-functional student affairs teams to prepare for, and respond to, free speech events (Morse, 2018). By interrogating how new student affairs professionals make sense of this complex topic, the present study strove to add the voices of these educators into the growing body of free speech literature. The next chapter will provide greater historical context for free speech movements across higher education, along with a review of relevant literature on the topic.
8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides readers with an overview of the literature that informs the topic of free speech in higher education. First, because any review of this topic would be incomplete without a thorough understanding of historical perspectives, the opening section offers a historiography and timeline of events and legal rulings that situate this study into a broader context. Next, a discussion of how free speech ties into the democratic mission of colleges and universities serves as a bridge to connect the historical context with relevant research. From there, the chapter synthesizes relevant strands of literature that inform free speech generally, and the role of student affairs professionals specifically. Finally, the chapter concludes with an overview of sensemaking (Weick, 1995) as the relevant theoretical framework for this study. Historical Context Within Higher Education and Democratic Aims Scholars have argued that colleges and universities are uniquely historical entities (see Hofstadter, 1970; Thelin, 2011), with others articulating the importance of understanding history within the profession of student affairs (Levine, 1981; Rhatigan, 2009). As a result, it would be imprudent to investigate free speech in higher education without noting how the topic has evolved over time. This first section briefly examines the history of free speech across the context of higher education. Historiography Some of the earliest examples of free expression on campus predate the ratification of the United States Constitution. In the colonial era, there were student demonstrations aimed at “expressing genuine dissatisfaction with archaic administration, disrespectful faculty, and a dull course of study irrelevant to the issues they would face as adults” (Thelin, 2011, p. 65). As mentioned previously, the classic exemplar during this era was the Harvard Butter Rebellion of 1766 (Oglethorpe, 2018). Students attending Harvard University were upset with being served rancid butter in the dining hall and were angered by the inaction of school administrators to address the issue (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). In the months that followed, students protested and petitioned the Board of Overseers to provide better quality food on campus (Pisner, 2011). These types of student uprisings were common during 1700s and 1800s with various incidents occurring at Yale University, University of Virginia, and Miami University among others (Bledstein, 1976; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Freeman, 2009; Oglethorpe, 2018; Rudolph, 1990;
9
Thelin, 2011). These incidents showcase that even in the antebellum United States, students were using their voice to advocate for change on campus. The next historic movement that played a role in shaping free speech at colleges and universities was the development of debate societies and college unions. Originally formed during the early 1800s in England, the first college union emerged as a result of students at Oxford College organizing a group dedicated to spending time together in order to focus on the free discussion of ideas (Butts et al., 2012). The true raison d’être for these societies stemmed from the belief that “open discussion, of urgent political questions especially, should be attainable in a university” (Butts et al., 2012, p. 17). As the idea of a college union developed in the United States during the early 1900s, students at different institutions began to raise funds to support the construction of physical structures on campus that would live out the beliefs of these early debate societies. By providing students a forum to foster open discussion and debate, college unions helped promote free speech in higher education institutions at the turn of the century. Following World War II, students who entered college during the late 1940s and 1950s had little interest in campus involvement—their primary objective was to complete a degree and obtain employment (Sorey & Gregory, 2010). Though student dissent was minimal during these decades, academic free speech was challenged by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). The Cold War era was particularly challenging for some faculty who found themselves labeled as members of the Communist Party by political leaders. University governing boards from New York to California actively sought to redefine academic freedom and have faculty removed from campus if they sympathized or espoused a communist ideology (Schrecker, 1980). The national atmosphere became so repressive that even faculty who refused to disclose their political beliefs were punished by campus administrators (Chemerinksy & Gillman, 2017). The attack on academic freedom and requirement that faculty reveal, under oath, their political ideals was an affront to the principles of free speech. Ultimately, the 1967 Supreme Court case of Keyishian v. Board of Regents found that university governing boards could not use such tactics to punish faculty members (Bird et al., 2006; O’Neil, 2000). In his court opinion, Justice William Brennan wrote: Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is
10
therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom . . . The classroom is peculiarly the “marketplace of ideas.” The Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth “out of a multitude of tongues”. (Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 1967, p. 603) Although McCarthyism pushed the limits of speech and censorship during this time period, Justice Brennan’s opinion highlights the foundational role of free speech in supporting academic freedom for faculty in colleges and universities. While the late ‘40s and ‘50s were marked by a relative calm in student life, a great period of tumult was on the horizon. Though some critique institutions of higher education for being disconnected ivory towers (Bok, 1982), it is crucial to remember that colleges and universities are complex organizations that do not function within a vacuum. What happens in the broader national society has a ripple effect that impacts campus climate (Hurtado, 1992; Sweet, 2001). Thus, it is not surprising that Thelin (2011) described the 1960s as a time period with the greatest level of upheaval in the history of student life in the United States. Mirroring the growing civil unrest in the country, colleges and universities quickly became the sites of demonstrations, riots, sit-ins, and lie-downs (Smyth, 2016). The burgeoning civil rights movement, an escalation of the war in Vietnam, and concerns about the freedom of political speech created a tempest of discontent that swept across the U.S. (Phillips, 1985). In response to the growing national sense of unrest, Association of College Unions International president A. L. Ellingson challenged his colleagues to “provide safe places for [students] to congregate . . . and to provide programs where their voices could freely be heard” (as cited in Smyth, 2016, p. 15). The issue of free speech came to a head during the 1964–1965 academic year in what many consider to be a formative moment for higher education—the rise of the Free Speech Movement (FSM) at the University of California, Berkeley (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Ellingson, 1965; Sorey & Gregory, 2010). The Berkeley campus had a long-standing policy that students could not engage in political protest activity on campus grounds (Gales, 1966). In September of 1964, students began to actively resist the policy and started tabling for political causes in front of the administrative building in Sproul Plaza. Following the suspension of eight students found in violation of the campus political activity policy, students and student organizations commenced days of protests and sit-in’s (Freeman, 2009). The Free Speech Movement only continued to grow in the months
11
that followed; in December, the FSM group issued an ultimatum that called for the suspended students to be readmitted with all previous disciplinary charges dropped (Freeman, 2009). Frustrated by the lack of progress during the fall semester, FSM leader Mario Savio guided a rally in Sproul Plaza that evolved into a sit-in blocking access to the main administrative building (Cohen & Zelnik, 2002). After refusing orders to disperse by the University of California President Clark Kerr, 773 students were arrested; the following day, the Academic Senate voted that there should be no restrictions on the content of speech or advocacy (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). The campus activism at Berkeley during this time raised important questions about student free speech rights and political activism, the regulation of space on campus, and the role of a state university to engage in public debate. In his analysis of the events at the University of California, free speech scholar Robert O’Neil (1966) asserted: The university campus is clearly less “public” than the village square or public park . . . The university must be able to control noise and maintain the flow of traffic in order to protect those who work and study in its laboratories, offices, and classrooms. Yet the student or faculty at the state university needs some forum on the campus to present effectively a controversial message to the academic community. (p. 91) The lasting legacy of the FSM at Berkeley was that it established the norm that public universities should allow members of the campus community to freely express ideas, even if those views are controversial or contentious (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Freeman, 2009; Sorey & Gregory, 2010). The next major development for free speech in higher education occurred during the 1980s and 1990s when institutions developed speech codes as a way to promote inclusive campus environments (Bausch, 1995). By the mid 1990s, over 350 institutions developed policies known as speech codes to regulate hate speech on campus (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Rychlak, 1992). However, the case of Doe v. University of Michigan (1989) soon challenged these codes in the federal courts. Faced with pressure from the state of Michigan legislature, University of Michigan President Harold Shapiro developed a speech code in response to an increase of racist incidents on campus (Travis & Scott, 2017). The policy called for punishing students who engaged in speech found to stigmatize or victimize individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status (Leffers, 2000). University of Michigan
12
student John Doe, a pseudonym, brought suit against the university claiming he would be unable to conduct or discuss his research examining biological differences between race and gender because some students may be offended. Ultimately, the federal court found the speech code to be overly broad and the language around stigmatizing/victimization to be too imprecise (Doe v. University of Michigan, 1989). Nearly every court case involving speech codes in higher education has been struck down, and critics view these codes as an attempt to silence individuals who may hold dissenting viewpoints (Kitrosser, 2017). The Doe case illustrates the delicate balance higher education administrators face in trying to preserve First Amendment freedoms while also promoting a safe learning environment (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). The overview presented above helped frame the present study within a broader historical context. As Whittington (2018) asserted, the topic of free speech on campus is “not new, but newly relevant” (p. 3). Indeed, the recent discourse about free speech in higher education reflects a mounting sense of urgency in understanding this multifaceted topic. By exploring how new student affairs administrators make sense of free speech events, this study sought to add a different perspective to the growing body of scholarship. Before transitioning into a review of related literature, it is necessary to explicate the democratic aims of higher education which serves as an underlying concept connecting the historical context and free speech scholarship. Democratic Aims of Higher Education One way in which scholars have examined this topic in contemporary texts involves philosophically framing free speech as part of the democratic foundation that is central to the mission of colleges and universities. Ben-Porath (2017) commented on the centrality of this epistemological enterprise noting, A commitment to open-minded inquiry and expression is at the heart of the college as an institution of learning, research, and service to the public . . . this inquiry is most vibrant, most broad, and ultimately most successful when all are able to participate in it not only formally but also substantially. (p. 69) The pursuit of learning and the dissemination of knowledge is at the heart of the purpose of higher education—communal discussion, critical thinking, dialogue, and argumentation are all pedagogical tools used toward this goal of learning (Bird et al., 2006). This exchange of ideas presupposes the notion of free speech as a prerequisite condition (Golding, 2000). Scholars and educators alike assert that protecting and promoting these rights of free speech “are essential to
13
the university’s most important mission, which is the Socratic pursuit of truth and truthfulness” (Downs, 2006, p. 13). American philosopher John Dewey (1936/2008) viewed free expression in education as vital to democracy stating, “since freedom of mind and freedom of expression are the root of all freedom, to deny freedom in education is a crime against democracy” (p. 378). Indeed, a core benefit of the university system is the preservation and promotion of free speech—the ability to pursue any idea, argument, or intellectual pursuit (Labaree, 2014). These views advance the notion that colleges and universities serve to advance the public good (Dorn, 2017; Kezar, 2004, 2005). Scholars have drawn on these foundational beliefs to produce scholarship in response to the contemporary events unfolding across the collegiate landscape. In his recent text, Whittington (2018) developed a main thesis that protecting free speech is the central mission of the modern university. Specifically, Whittington (2018) argued: The right to free speech is not an extrinsic value to a university that has to be imposed by outside forces to serve ends that have no immediate connection to the goals of higher education itself. Rather, the value of free speech is closely associated with the core commitments of the university itself. The failure to adequately foster an environment of free speech on campus represents a failure of the university to fully realize its own ideals and aspirations. (p. 6) Whittington (2018) believed that free speech is the foundation that sustains the pursuit of truth, open inquiry, and disciplinary rigor in higher education. Additionally, this intellectual mission of colleges and universities supports a broader democratic ideal of higher education by expanding and conveying knowledge to others. If administrators were to limit or restrict speech on campus, these core values would be subverted. Therefore, the “ultimate goal of a university community is to foster an environment in which competing perspectives can be laid bare, heard, and assessed” (Whittington, 2018, p. 97). However, some academics like Ben-Porath (2017) argued speech itself is insufficient in promoting this mission as it can be used as a tool in maintaining unequal or undemocratic structures. Specifically, if free speech and inquiry are central tenets to the mission of higher education, there must also be consideration given to diversity, equity, and inclusion (Ben-Porath, 2017). Because colleges now serve a larger number of students from diverse backgrounds, free speech on campus requires a reassessment that affirms student dignity (Ben-Porath, 2016, 2017). Censoring speech, however, is not the answer because this action harms democratic ideals and
14
can hurt the very marginalized groups that the speech is designed to protect (Ben-Porath, 2017; Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Whittington, 2018). It is not enough to believe that notions of free speech and civility alone are sufficient to promote open inquiry and knowledge production. Applebaum (2003) stated that the liberal belief in freedom of expression and marketplace of ideas only works if all voices and viewpoints have an opportunity to matter. Thus, campuses should strive to be open and inclusive environments as a way to develop citizens who cultivate leadership, knowledge, and civic participation (Ben-Porath, 2017). Chemerinsky and Gillman (2017) acknowledged the inherit tension that exists with protecting the learning experience for all students while also promoting freedom of speech; they believed that the university cannot succeed at their core mission unless it accomplishes both. Too often the debate about free speech is presented as a polarized choice between free speech rights as a secondary concern to the learning experience for all students and campuses going too far in coddling students through a culture of political correctness (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). However, history again serves as a reminder that the country has a long history of suppressing unpopular speakers; many civil rights protestors were considered offensive and hateful by state legislatures in the ‘50s and ‘60s (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). As a result, free expression requires broad protection because “freedom of speech is essential to freedom of thought; it is essential to democratic self-government; and the alternative—government censorship and control of ideas—has always led to disaster” (Chemerinsky & Gillman 2017, p. 23). Ultimately, institutions of higher education should foster an inclusive culture of mutual respect that is attune to structural racism, while also modeling how to work through controversial topics; these behaviors serve as a bulwark in protecting free, diverse, democratic societies (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). With scholars highlighting the centrality of free speech to the broader democratic mission of colleges and universities, it is essential to examine how the topic has been interrogated across higher education contexts. Free Speech in Higher Education A major impetus for this research project was the current dearth of empirical studies that wrestle with the topic of free speech in higher education. Though issues of free speech have been around since the creation of higher education in the United States (Chemerinsky, 2017; Hofstadter, 1970; Sun & McClellan, 2020), scholars have primarily used theoretical,
15
philosophical, and rhetorical tools to explore this topic broadly across the literature. This section of the chapter synthesizes relevant literature that informs free speech in higher education. Legal Considerations First, it is essential to review legal constructs that shape this topic on college campuses. As noted previously, the common metaphor used to discuss free speech on college campuses is the competition of viewpoints in a marketplace of ideas (Callan, 2016; Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Golding, 2000; Whittington, 2018). This phrase has its origins in the 1919 Supreme Court case Abrams v. United States. In his famous dissent, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote, “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market” (Abrams v. United States, 1919, p. 630). Holmes’ opinion helped establish a legal precedent in contemporary interpretations of free speech protection, creating a capitalistic metaphor in the process. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) used this market-based language to articulate the importance of free speech on campus stating that “a university exists to educate students and advance frontiers of human knowledge, and does so by acting as a marketplace of ideas where ideas compete” (“Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Mission,” n.d.). Conservative commentators like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity often decry public institutions of higher education as spaces designed to suppress conservative ideas (Whittington, 2018). They view trigger warnings and safe spaces as a threat to the constitutional fabric of the First Amendment (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). However, other scholars have asserted individuals cannot take the constitutional rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as carte blanche to run roughshod over the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which asserts that all persons are afforded equal protection of the law (Golding, 2000). As a result, campuses have commonly developed policies governing three general areas: fighting words, emotional distress theory, and non- discrimination/harassment (Golding, 2000). These policies create restrictions on speech that could incite violence or contribute to a culture of harassment or discrimination. First Amendment jurisprudence allows public institutions of higher education to place restrictions on speech in the areas of time, place, and manner (Bird et al., 2006; Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Golding, 2000; Kaplin & Lee, 2014; Meiklejohn, 1948; Whittington, 2018). These restrictions are constitutional provided they are content neutral, narrowly tailored for
16
governmental interests, and leave alternate means of expression available. Colleges and universities create policies with time, place, and manner in order to protect property, ensure safe egress of campus thoroughfares, and minimize potential disruptions to the academic mission of the institution (Meiklejohn, 1948). For example, an institution may have a policy that prohibits a protest or demonstration from occurring inside an academic building or during a particularly busy time on campus. Protection of the educational process from disruption is at the center of the legal case of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). In Tinker, high school students protesting the Vietnam War wore black armbands to school; when administrators became aware of the protest, they passed a rule prohibiting students from wearing these accessories (Blacker, 2013; Letzring & Wolff, 2009). Writing for the majority, Justice Abe Fortas stated, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969, p. 506). This landmark case led to what is commonly known as the Tinker test, a precedent which asks if an act of symbolic or verbal speech causes a material or substantial disruption (Blacker, 2013). Speech acts that violate the Tinker test are not legally protected by the First Amendment. Although Tinker was based on a high school incident, the ruling extends to public institutions of higher education. These legal frameworks represent the baseline requirements institutions must take in protecting free speech, and inform the ways in which the topic of free speech have been researched within the context of higher education. Currently, legal guidelines that inform free speech on campus face a great deal of uncertainty. In a recently released report by PEN America (2019), a human rights association, they reported that lawmakers at the state and federal levels are making the campus climate more unsettled by politicizing free speech incidents. This follows a March 2019 executive order by the President of the United States that mandated that colleges uphold free speech or risk jeopardizing federal research funds in the future (Thomason, 2019). Additionally, the federal government has filed statements of interest in five free speech lawsuits currently on the docket: University of California at Berkeley, Pierce College, Gwinnett College, University of Michigan, and the University of Iowa (Mangan, 2019a). Though it is challenging to capture literature on a topic that is evolving in real time, it is crucial to note there is a level of uncertainty regarding future legal considerations relevant to free speech.
17
Academic Freedom In thinking about free speech on campus, one strand of scholarship focuses on academic freedom as it pertains to faculty. It is important to be aware that these two terms, free speech and academic freedom, though often conflated, have important distinctions (Pasquerella, 2017; Sultana, 2018). Although academic freedom is conceptually related to free speech, the former is narrower in application. According to Levinson (2007), academic freedom refers to the rights of faculty in teaching and research both in and out of the classroom environment. Developed by the AAUP in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, this concept affords faculty the full freedom to engage in scholarly inquiry on controversial topics within their field of study (Levinson, 2007). Unlike conceptualizations of free speech that apply only in the public sphere, academic freedom extends to faculty at public and private institutions (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). Further, though free speech makes no distinction about quality, academic freedom allows for intellectually honest and reasoned argumentation to take place (Scott, 2018). Thus, academic freedom differs from free speech “in that it is founded on the principles of scholarly rigor, which involves engaging with theories and methodologies, and demonstrating competency of ideas that have been debated” (Sultana, 2018, p. 232). However, the lack of a precise definition for academic freedom allows the term to be interpreted broadly by those inside and outside of the academy (Fish, 2014; Kaplin & Lee, 2014). This lack of precision allowed philosophers to examine the role, purpose, and justification of academic freedom from a variety of perspectives (see Bilgrami & Cole, 2015; Fish, 2014; Post, 2012). Academic freedom is an important component of campus expression, but only applies to a specific population in the campus community—faculty. Student affairs professionals, who generally lack tenure protections, face different considerations when engaging with free speech. This study acknowledges that these professionals sit in a liminal educational space that can create tension or dissonance in their practice. Hate Speech Perhaps one of the most vexing areas of free speech scholarship involves the management of hate speech. When asked to articulate the difference between free speech and hate speech, leading free speech theorist Erwin Chemerinsky (2017) noted that under current legal interpretations there is no difference. Current understandings of hate speech define it as a “calculated affront to the dignity of vulnerable members of society and a calculated assault on
18
the public good of inclusiveness” (Waldron, 2012, p. 5–6). Legal scholars such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Charles Lawrence III, and Mari Matsuda have written extensively about the negative effects of hate speech from a Critical Race Theory perspective (see Delgado, 1982; Lawrence, 1990; Matsuda et al., 1993 for examples). Others have commented on the potential psychological harm created by hate speech and whether that should invite discussion around limiting or managing this type of speech (Butler, 2017; Cohen, 2017; Kaplin, 1992). An inherent tension arises on campus when offensive speech runs into explicit institutional values of diversity and inclusion (Alvarado, 2019). Klepper and Bakken (1997) utilized case study methodology to examine issues of hate speech at Trenton State College (now The College of New Jersey). During the 1993-1994 academic year, the African American History Month committee invited the Nation of Islam leader, Khallid Abdul Muhammad, to speak on campus. Some viewed Muhammad as a speaker who engaged in hate speech that targeted a wide array of religious and ethnic populations (Klepper & Bakken, 1997). Similar to Varlotta (1997) who encouraged institutions to fall back on their mission to speak for a higher purpose, the president of Trenton State College pointed to the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students as a guide for exploring controversial issues that are often constrained by legal requirements (Klepper & Bakken, 1997). Ultimately, the institution developed policies and procedures for inviting speakers and performers to campus, but also relied on a fundamental core of higher education—the right of learners to pursue the truth. The case at Trenton State College underscored the importance of balancing student rights with the needs of the college to ensure a safe environment. Although hate speech has been traditionally attributed to speakers who bring provocative ideas or incendiary rhetoric to campus, institutions are increasingly having to confront hate speech online across digital media platforms. In fact, academics have argued that the internet is an area where issues of free speech will pose the greatest conundrum in the near future (e.g., Chemerinsky, 2017; Hutchens, 2012). As colleges and universities become more interconnected through digital structures, new outlets are created that permit dominant groups to perpetuate oppression or harm against marginalized populations (Finn, 2004). Hutchens (2012) provided an overview of evolving case law involving online speech in higher education. Similar to traditional face-to-face interactions, many of the expansive free expression rights students enjoy on campus extend to the digital environment. Although online speech may be protected, Hutchens (2012)
19
encouraged institutions to disavow hateful or objectionable speech, even if there is little recourse available through disciplinary or legal action. Schroder (2013) went a step further, advocating for universities to become proactively involved in the digital communities that surround them. Scholarship examining digital hate speech will continue to develop in the years to come, and serves as a reminder that what now constitutes free speech on campus moves beyond the traditional brick and ivy into an ever-expanding digital footprint. Campus Activism An oft cited retort to hate speech is not to enact policies that silence it, but to meet it with more speech (Chemerinsky, 2017; Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). Incidents of perceived hate speech, or invitations to provocative speakers, are increasingly met with demonstrations or counter-protests. Indeed, a related body of literature that informs free speech on campus involves student activism (Douglas et al., 2020). Although student protests have a long history on college campuses (Ferguson, 2017; Sun & McClellan, 2020), student activism is on the rise (Harrison & Mather, 2017). A wide range of issues have stimulated this current surge of activism; these include responses to: immigration bans; acts of racism; sexual assault on campus; boycott, divestment, and sanctions involving the Israel-Palestine conflict; patrols along the US-Mexico border; campus consumption of fossil fuels; and food insecurity (Harrison & Mather, 2017). April 2019 saw a hunger strike at the University of Kentucky where students advocated for basic food/housing needs (Patel, 2019), while two students at the University of Arizona protested the on-campus appearance of armed U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents (Mangan, 2019b). Even now at the conclusion of this study in June 2020, the country is embroiled in national protests over the recent death of Minnesota resident George Floyd. Even as the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic rages on, the death of Floyd is likely to spur additional campus activism this upcoming fall semester. Scholars have investigated student activism in a variety of ways. Biddix et al. (2009) found that students enhanced developmental outcomes such as examining personal values, affecting societal change, developing a sense of community, and committing to a sense of global citizenry. Biddix (2014) made explicit the connection between campus activism and civic learning, specifically drawing on scholarship that viewed activism as an expression of civic engagement (e.g., Keeling & Associates, 2004; Komives et al, 2013). More recently, researchers have examined activism through the lens of developing leadership capacities (Martin et al.,
20
2019). For example, Kezar et al. (2017) discovered that student activists have the potential to develop leadership skills, empower their peers, and positively impact the campus environment. Echoing these findings, scholars have imagined possibilities where faculty and staff can work with student activists to cultivate their leadership capacities (Evans & Lange, 2019; Kezar, 2010; Kezar & Maxey, 2014; Linder, 2019). These multifaceted approaches represent the varied ways in which campus activism is framed in the current literature. Activism, however, is not always viewed in such a developmental perspective; in fact, activists are often read as trouble-makers that university administrators need to manage (Hoffman & Mitchell, 2016; Linder, 2018). These perspectives again harken back to the turbulent period of campus activism during the 1960s and highlight the ways in which free speech and activism often intersect (Altbach & Cohen, 1990). Although individuals can view protests and demonstrations as the exercise of free speech among student activists in response to hate speech or other social injustices, activism has also been used throughout history to protect the notion of free speech on campus (Braungart & Braungart, 1990). The scholarship on student activism helped inform campus dynamics related to this study’s focus on free speech events. For example, Harrison and Mather (2017) conducted a phenomenological study of student activists and university administrators to examine their meaning making experiences of campus activism. Their findings revealed that administrators varied greatly in their approaches and comfort level in working with student activists (Harrison & Mather, 2017). Although their project focused narrowly on the engagement between student affairs administrators and student activists, the administrator sample consisted of mid-level and senior student affairs professionals. This characteristic made the new professional participant sample of this study a particularly fruitful line of inquiry. Balancing Free Speech and Inclusivity With amplified focus on the role of hate speech, and the mobilization of student activists, a recent observation among free speech scholars is the increased willingness of students to suggest that limitations should be placed on constitutionally protected speech (Alger & Piper, 2019; Chemerinsky, 2017). One way in which researchers have examined this topic involves individuals’ attitudes toward free speech on campus. For example, Oglethorpe’s (2018) study on student attitudes toward free speech revealed that collegians considered it to be very important in higher education. However, these students also believed that some protected free speech acts are
21
unacceptable and harmful. Providing another point of view, Miller et al. (2018) showed the inherent tensions that arise when university bias response teams balance issues of free speech and bias incidents. Their study highlighted that balancing free speech protections and creating an inclusive campus environment were often in conflict with one another for these professionals; with this in mind, participants commented that navigating free speech issues was one of the most complex areas of their work requiring significant training. Results from Miller et al. (2018) support the notion that free speech events are complicated and nuanced events often handled by senior campus administrators—such as those serving on an institutional bias response team. This study moved down a rung on the administrative ladder to enhance the body of literature by focusing on new student affairs professionals. In addition to bias response teams, others have used an institutional lens to examine free speech on campus. Varlotta (1997) described the ways in which institutions should invoke their mission statement as a way to promote diversity, civility, and free speech on campus. Issues of inclusivity have always existed within the context of higher education (Hurtado, 2003). Though balancing free speech protections and a diverse campus climate seems challenging (Chemerinsky & Gilman, 2017; Miller et al., 2008), it is not impossible (Barr et al., 2014; Pomerantz, 1993). Varlotta (1997) argued that by invoking the stated mission of the university, administrators should focus less on redefining the legal parameters of free speech and instead work to establish a culture that facilitates dialogue while promoting diversity. For example, Mason (2001) utilized case study methods to examine how one institution, Arizona State University, promoted a positive campus climate and student free speech. They found that students, faculty, and staff all generally agreed that free speech and a culture of equal opportunity were both essential parts of a university environment; however, there was a lack of consensus about how both goals could be achieved (Mason, 2001). As a single case, the study looking at Arizona State University showcased the multitude of ways an institution can develop policies and programs that reflect an institutional mission that supports free speech. This type of institutional perspective provides valuable insight into how colleges and universities operate as a larger organizational system (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Manning, 2013; Morgan, 2006). These systems provide the context in which student affairs professionals work to manage and understand free speech events. However, individual cases are naturally bounded by their time and place (Creswell & Poth, 2018). As a result, this current study was mindful of the role institutions play in creating environmental
22
conditions, but went further by exploring the narratives of professionals working at different institutions. Thus far, the review of literature has been structured to introduce readers to the salient concepts and tensions involving free speech. The next consideration will be given to the role of student affairs. Role of Student Affairs Because this topic is ever-evolving, student affairs administrators must stay attuned to the changing legal landscape and engage in ongoing educational opportunities (Janosik, 2015; Labanc et al., 2020). Training and education for student affairs administrators is essential because it is often these professionals who are tasked with the balancing act of protecting free speech alongside the communitarian ideas of justice and civility (Bird et al., 2006; Labanc et al., 2020). With the increase in student activism on college campuses (Quaye, 2007; Smith, 2017) and the recent campus confrontations referenced earlier, questions involving free speech and the campus climate are unlikely to change in the near future. However, there has been limited research on the topic of free speech as it relates to student affairs specifically. In their newly released text, Labanc et al. (2020) noted, “Recent clashes over free speech and controversial speakers illustrate the importance of incorporating a student affairs perspective in shaping institutional policy and practice” (p. 3). Perspectives on Free Speech in Student Affairs From a disciplinary perspective, free speech was selected as a topic for discussion in the edited volume of Contested Issues in Student Affairs (Magolda & Baxter Magolda, 2011), and the new volume Contested Issues in Troubled Times (Magolda et al., 2019). In his chapter, Uecker (2011) reminded scholars and practitioners alike that student affairs educators are uniquely positioned to assist a campus community engage in dialogue around difficult topics. Indeed, O’Neil (1997) viewed educators as a central component to free speech noting “universities should approach racism, homophobia, sexism, and anti-Semitism [ideologies that form the basis for many free speech controversies] through what they do best—education. Special programs and even courses may be developed with an eye to increasing intergroup understanding across campuses” (p. 25). Professionals working in residence life, multicultural affairs, and community engagement can all play a role in supporting these educational outcomes. This requires student affairs practitioners to look beyond the legal lens when managing issues of free speech on campus (Labanc et al., 2020; Palmer et al., 1997).
23
Further, Alvarado (2019) wrestled with the question “how do student affairs educators navigate the tension between the First Amendment right to free speech and the expression of ideas that create a hostile campus climate” (p. 109)? At the core of this question is the tension that arises throughout the literature reviewed in the previous section: striking a balance between free expression and inclusivity. Alvarado (2019) contended that student affairs educators should be proactive in managing issues of free speech on campus by reviewing existing policies around free expression and speaker invitations, while also developing and training professional staff in the area of crisis management. Additionally, other scholars have recommended that all student affairs staff across a division, not just conduct or diversity staff, should become familiar with policies regarding free expression on campus (see Sigg, 2019). The growing literature on this topic is beginning to make explicit the role student affairs educators have in managing issues of free speech; this study extended the question addressed by Alvarado (2019) by taking a closer look at how new student affairs professionals navigate these competing responsibilities. Levels of training around issues of free speech and the First Amendment is a recurring theme across the literature. In one of the most comprehensive studies involving student affairs practitioners as a sample, Leffers (2000) surveyed 242 professionals affiliated with NASPA to measure their familiarity with First Amendment law. Respondents reported moderate to high familiarity with First Amendment law in general, but varying levels of familiarity depending on the aspect of the law (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, etc.) (Leffers, 2000). Using multiple regression analysis, factors such as “level of importance placed on familiarity”, “level of job responsibility”, “number of hours spent reading”, and “frequency of attendance at workshops” were significant at <.05 (Leffers, 2000). Results from this study indicated that although most professionals were familiar with free speech law, those who were more senior in the field, earned a doctorate in higher education administration, or devoted time to read on the topic were the most familiar with legal parameters. Although these findings revealed that professionals in the field were familiar with free speech, student affairs graduate preparation curricula have changed quite a bit over the last 18 years; as a result, awareness among professionals today will look different than two decades ago. Narratives gathered from this current study provided insight into the preparation and socialization of new student affairs professionals into the field.
24
In addition to training, researchers have also examined how familiar senior student affairs administrators were with major court cases such as R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) (Palmer et al., 1997). In R.A.V., the city of St. Paul prosecuted an individual for burning a cross in the yard of a Black family (Bird et al., 2006). Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the St. Paul bias motivated ordinance was unconstitutional because it prohibited a protected form of symbolic speech (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 1992). In the case of Wisconsin, the court found an individual’s rights free speech rights are not protected if there is a clear connection between a criminal act and a racial motive (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). Taken together, R.A.V. and Wisconsin established legal boundaries that institutions of higher education can use in responding to hate speech on campus (Palmer et al., 1997). Based on these court cases, Palmer et al. (1997) surveyed 139 senior student affairs officers located at different institutions in the upper-Midwest to gauge their awareness and perceived applicability of R.A.V. and Wisconsin, in addition to measuring how these senior administrators learn about law related to higher education. They found that less than half of respondents (47%) were familiar with either case; however, of those officials who were familiar with the cases, 88% found the cases applicable to higher education (Palmer et al., 1997). Additionally, the researchers found most respondents learned about court cases through popular media or sources like The Chronicle of Higher Education (Palmer et al., 1997). These findings lend additional support to Leffers’ (2000) claim that senior student affairs officers are generally aware of legal cases that either directly or indirectly involve higher education. Although senior student affairs professionals are often the focus of free expression research because of their position on the organizational chart, it is important to remember that entry level student affairs professionals are often the initial frontline responders to hate speech incidents (Harris & Ray, 2014). Consequently, it is crucial to broaden the scope of literature to provide a more complete understanding of how student affairs as a profession addresses free speech events. Student Affairs Socialization A related concept that helps inform the role of student affairs professionals managing free speech involves their socialization into the field and preparation through graduate programs. Collins (2009) defined socialization as the “process by which new professionals enter the student affairs profession” (p. 3). During this socialization process, individuals develop skills and are introduced to content knowledge that aids their transition into a formal organizational role (Van
25
Maanen & Schein, 1979). Research has shown that student affairs professionals develop competencies in personal, institutional, extra-institutional, and professional realms as they move from being introduced to the profession into a formal role (Collins, 2009). Additionally, contexts such as institutional type (Hirt, 2009) and student characteristics (Freeman & Taylor, 2009) have a major influence in how an individual is socialized into the profession of student affairs. As a topic, socialization into student affairs has received considerable attention from scholars in the field (see Bureau, 2011; Kuk & Cuyjet, 2009; McEwen & Talbot, 1998; Taub & McEwen, 2006; Tull et al., 2009; Weidman et al., 2001). Additionally, it is important to take note of the crucial role graduate preparation programs have in the socialization process (Kuk & Cuyjet, 2009). Creamer et al. (2001) articulated that the academic content of graduate preparation programs is critical in the development of quality student affairs staff. Professionals in the field of student affairs frequently complete advanced study from a variety of programs, these can include: adult learning, counseling, leadership studies, student affairs, diversity/equity/social justice, educational leadership, and sociology (Hirt, 2006; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk, 2009; Upcraft, 1998). This multiplicity of program offerings creates a context where individuals are socialized through programs that may offer different missions, values, and curricula (Kuk & Cuyjet, 2009). As a result, a standard course offering such as law in higher education may be offered in one program, but not another. In fact, Kuk & Cuyjet’s (2009) review of 96 master’s-level preparation programs found a little over half of the programs offered a course in law or ethics. Because graduate programs play such an important role in the socialization process, this study elucidated the characteristics that inform how new student affairs professionals make sense of free speech events. Ethics A component of the socialization process for professionals is the development of ethical frameworks. Student affairs professionals may be placed into situations with a high degree of role ambiguity or competing role expectations; these types of situations challenge professionals when managing conflict situations (Lebacqz, 1985). As educators, student affairs professionals are in a position to exercise professional/ethical judgments (Gunzenhauser, 2012). Specifically, the two major student affairs professional associations, ACPA and NASPA, identified professional and ethical foundations as a core competency for practitioners in the field (ACPA/NASPA, 2015). This specific ACPA/NASPA competency asks professionals to develop
26
the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to create a holistic standard of ethics in one’s life and work (ACPA/NASPA, 2015). Because free speech events commonly raise ethical questions, it is important to note this connection between professional socialization and the development of ethical frameworks. As a whole, this synthesis of literature reveals gaps in the current literature, as well as opportunities in which the present study extends the scholarship regarding free speech in higher education. The lack of empirical studies around free speech represented a great opportunity for fruitful inquiry. Further, student affairs practitioners play a central role in helping educate students, parents, and community members about this nuanced, yet timely, topic. Because this study used sensemaking (Weick, 1995) as a theoretical framework, this chapter closes with an overview of sensemaking. Theoretical Framework This study drew from organizational theory, specifically using sensemaking (Weick, 1995) as a theoretical lens to answer the stated research questions. Weick (1995) described sensemaking as an ongoing, social, and plausible over accurate, cognitive process of understanding how an individual fits within a socially bounded parameter. Sensemaking challenges positivist theoretical approaches and acknowledges that there is no single reality within organizations (Weick, 1995). Consistent with a constructivist paradigmatic approach, Weick (1995) argued that organizations are social constructions where individuals engage in a constant process of creating and re-creating meaning. In his primary text, Sensemaking in Organizations, Weick (1995) detailed seven properties of sensemaking which include: “grounded in identity construction; retrospective; enactive of sensible environments; social; ongoing; focused on and by extracted cues; driven by plausibility rather than accuracy” (p. 17). These seven properties should not be viewed as required set of mandatory propositions to be refined and tested; instead, they should be seen as general guidelines for inquiry into sensemaking (Weick, 1989). Notably, research utilizing sensemaking does not require simultaneous attention to all seven properties; for example, Rutledge (2009) focused on four of the seven citing pragmatic considerations. Four properties were particularly salient for this study: grounded in identity construction, retrospective, social, and extracted cues. The first was grounded in identity construction; Weick (1995) cited this property as the major task of sensemaking. This property dictates that
27
sensemaking processes allow organizational actors to construct aspects of their identity. As a result, this study explored the intersection between free speech events and the social identities of practitioners. Second was retrospective; Weick (1995) named this property as perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of sensemaking (p. 24). In order for members of an organization to generate meaning from an experience, they often are synthesizing multiple possible meanings. Although this tenet of sensemaking requires reflection, it can also be shaped by hindsight bias (Fischhoff, 1975) or false memories (Bartlett, 1932). The design of this study asked participants to reflect back on free speech events in an effort to engage in ongoing meaning-making. By even participating in this study, student affairs practitioners enacted principles of sensemaking by reflectively (re)creating meaning from these events—this represents a process that is ongoing/continual. The third component of sensemaking that relates to this study is the social property. For Weick (1995), sensemaking is an inherently social process that shapes interpretations and interpreting (p. 39). This can include the way members of an organization converse with others in an attempt to derive meaning from an event, or even the way a staff member is trained/socialized into an organization or profession. As a result, the way a new professional engages in sensemaking around free speech events is shaped by who they dialogue with or how they were socialized into the field of student affairs. This study unpacked the role socialization plays in how participants come to understand free speech events. Finally, as the review of literature revealed, this topic is often presented as a quandary between free speech absolutism and creating inclusive campus environments; this opacity can lead individuals to extract a variety of meanings from available contextual cues. Extracted cues are structures from which people develop a larger sense of what may be happening in a situation (Weick, 1995). This goes beyond noticing (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988) an event, like a protest, is happening and simply categorizing it as a protest; instead sensemaking requires individuals to interpret what the event means. This type of interpretation is reliant on context—institutional, local, national, and global. Understanding how new student affairs professionals contextualize free speech activities on campus and make larger sense of these events was at the heart of this study; the events served as influential cues that participants drew lessons from as they potentially ascend into more senior roles within student affairs. Taken collectively, these propositions of sensemaking provide a theoretical frame that informed the data gathered from this study.
28
From an organizational perspective, scholars have used sensemaking theory to describe the cognitive process that occurs when people encounter surprises, disruptions, or ambiguous events in a workplace environment (Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). Though controversial speakers invited to campus often involve advance notice and planning, other events like street preachers or under-the-radar protests can appear on campus with little warning and disrupt the campus landscape. Sensemaking was particularly well suited for this study because free speech events can be disruptive and catch professionals off-guard. Additionally, because participants in this study work at a college or university, a socially bounded context, an organizational theory provides the best frame for interpretation. Several investigators have already applied sensemaking in research across higher education contexts. Kezar (2013) used sensemaking as a way to understand how higher education institutions engage in transformational change processes. Staples (2019) used critical sensemaking to understand how students made sense of their encounters with worldview differences. O’Meara et al. (2014) applied sensemaking to analyze why faculty leave an institution. In a student affairs specific context, Perez (2016) explored how graduate students in student affairs programs used sensemaking during their transition to graduate school. Similarly, Savarese (2019) used this theoretical approach to explore how mid-level student affairs managers experience the socialization process. Smerek (2017) employed this approach to comprehend how new college presidents made sense of their transition into a presidency. This recent scholarship showcases the broad applicability of sensemaking within the context of higher education research. As a result, using principles of Weick’s (1995) conceptualization of sensemaking aligned with the stated research questions and was consistent with the context of higher education organizations. Conclusion Collectively, the literature detailed above represents the current scope of scholarship with respect to free speech in higher education. Despite the flurry of research in the ‘90s in response to the legal rebuke of speech codes in higher education (Miller et al., 2018), there has been a dearth of empirical studies on the topic. This is surprising considering that scholars have made the argument that free speech in higher education is essential, and that institutions have a responsibility to make every effort to protect these freedoms (Ben-Porath, 2017; Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Whittington, 2018). Additionally, the historical overview provided above serves as a reminder that the previous struggles to balance free speech and inclusive campus
29
environments are still relevant in contemporary higher education. This study specifically viewed the gap in student affairs literature as an opportunity to contribute new knowledge on the topic for scholars and practitioners alike. The next chapter uses this literature to inform the methodological choices made for this study.
30
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY & METHODS The present study implemented a qualitative approach to explore how new student affairs professionals engaged in sensemaking about their roles and experiences with free speech events on campus. Based on the research questions posed, a qualitative methodology was best situated to cultivate a rich data set (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Grounded in the constructivist paradigm (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln et al., 2011), I collected and analyzed data in accordance with narrative inquiry methodology (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). According to Jones et al. (2014), the strength of narrative inquiry results from “the emphasis on stories and understanding the lived experiences thorough the stories told by those narrating them” (p. 84). This chapter outlines the methodological approach utilized in this study; details participant selection and criteria; explains data collection and analysis techniques; and offers researcher positionality in order to address the following research questions: RQ1: How do new student affairs professionals describe their experience with free speech events at public institutions of higher education? RQ2: At public institutions of higher education, what are the personal, professional, and institutional characteristics that affect new student affairs professionals’ sensemaking about free speech events on campus? RQ3: What role do student affairs professionals play in responding to free speech events on campus? Paradigmatic Worldview An epistemological worldview allows researchers the opportunity to narrow the focus of a study and provides a framework for readers to interpret the data gathered in the process (Jones et al., 2014). This study employed a constructivist perspective to address the research questions outlined above. Constructivist approaches allow researchers to focus on specific contexts in order to develop a greater theoretical understanding of human interactions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Epistemologically, this perspective views knowledge construction as an active process that emphasizes individual meaning making over search for a universal truth (Jones et al., 2014; Pascale, 2011). Because this study attended to the ways participants construct meaning from dynamic free speech events on campus, emphasis was placed on what the participants said. Specifically, constructivism acknowledges the role of narratives in the construction of social
31
reality (Lal et al., 2012). With a constructivist paradigm as the underlying epistemological foundation, narrative inquiry was a suitable methodological approach for this study. Narrative Inquiry Methodology Qualitative scholars suggest that storytelling is a foundational tool that helps individuals make sense of their lives (Bruner, 1990; Polkinghorne, 1988). Additionally, Weick et al. (2005) described sensemaking as an attempt to answer the question “what’s the story” (p. 410). With this central question of sensemaking as a guide, this study employed narrative inquiry as its methodology. Therefore, theoretical congruence (Jones et al., 2014) existed between a constructivist paradigm, sensemaking as a theoretical lens, and narrative inquiry as the methodological approach. Jones et al. (2014) noted that narrative research focuses on the individual and their interaction with a larger social context. This study centered the voices and experiences of new student affairs professionals as they encountered and made sense of free speech events on their campus. Additionally, the focus on context for narrative inquiry closely aligns with Weick’s (1995) principle of contextual cues. By gathering rich, detailed, and nuanced narratives from participants about their sensemaking experience with free speech events, this study explicated the experiences of new student affairs practitioners working through these complicated situations. Narrative research is a methodology that allows investigators to analyze the stories participants tell (Chase, 2018; Clandinin, 2013; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Jones et al, 2014). Chase (2005) defined narrative in the following manner: [It involves] retrospective meaning making—the shaping or ordering of past experience . . . a way of understanding one’s own and others’ actions, of organizing events and objects into a meaningful whole, of connecting and seeing the consequences of actions and events over time. (p. 656) Here again sensemaking principles of retrospection, ongoing, and social align closely with elements of narrative inquiry. Although Chase (2018) refined their original definition to be broader by dropping “retrospective” and “past,” the redefinition was more an acknowledgment that narrative could also include present and future experiences. Further, Clandinin and Connelly (2000) observed that features of this methodological inquiry include narratives as three- dimensional spaces (namely, that narratives are informed by interactions, time, and place), that stories are actions in and of themselves, and researchers should take great care when interpreting
32
stories. As a result, meticulous attention was paid to centering the voices and stories of the participants. Additionally, asking participants to speak directly about their experiences through storytelling required a great deal of trust, but produced vibrant themes and stories (Chase, 2018). Careful attention was paid during the first interview in developing rapport with the participants in an effort to establish trust between myself and the selected practitioners. Based on these tenets of narrative inquiry, this methodology was strongly suited for this study. Participants’ stories became part of meaning (re)creation when they reflected back on the free speech events they encountered. By thinking through and (re)telling stories of their experiences, participants derived a new or refined understanding of free speech events. Additionally, many of these events were handled and perceived differently based on institutional context, individual socialization, and extracted cues; using narrative inquiry allowed me to decipher themes present in the data during the analysis stage. Finally, by giving space and voice to student affairs professionals who worked with free speech events, pragmatic recommendations emerged through their stories that will assist current and future practitioners in the field. These implications will be addressed more in Chapter Five. Methods By establishing the theoretical foundation and methodological approach that guided this study, attention now turns to the precise methods used to collect data. This section discusses the specific methods utilized in data collection for this study; specifically, the following subsections detail the steps taken in site and participant selection, data collection, and data analysis. Sites and Participants One of the important decision points for this study involved the determination of research sites for participant selection. Although many campuses encounter free speech events, there are important distinctions between campus types. Specifically, private colleges and universities have greater flexibility in adopting their own policies and procedures because they do not face the same constitutional limitations as public schools (Bird et al., 2006; Uecker, 2011; Whittington, 2018). Although many private institutions have policies that protect free speech akin to their public counterparts, the variability between private institutions precluded their inclusion in this study. As a result, I only considered public institutions as potential sites for participant selection. In order to explore a variety of institutional contexts, the selection of campus sites expanded to include two distinct public institutions of varying size and mission. University of the Midwest
33
(UM), a pseudonym, is a rural residential university of approximately 17,000 undergraduates where half the undergraduate student population lives on campus. City University (CU) is a large research university of approximately 33,000 undergraduates located in an urban metropolitan area with a mixed commuter/residential population. Both campuses experienced a variety of free speech events over the last five academic years, and their varying size/structure allowed for purposeful selection (Jones et al., 2014) of participants from different institutional contexts instead of a singular case; this sampling technique strengthens the trustworthiness of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Based on these selected sites, I used purposeful sampling in order to identify participants who were positioned to provide data that answered the research questions. First and foremost, participants had to be newer student affairs professionals. Scholars and practitioners have treated the operationalization of the term new student affairs professional in a variety of ways. For example, NASPA’s Knowledge Community for New Professionals and Graduate Students defined new professionals as those with five or less years of full-time experience (“NASPA New Professionals and Graduate Students Knowledge Community,” n.d.). The ACPA New Professional Needs Study Report also used this same language (Cilente et al., 2006). In researching supervision styles for new student affairs professionals, Shupp and Arminio (2012) defined this population as individuals with master’s degrees and three years or less of full-time experience. Conversely, in researching supervision narratives, Davis and Cooper (2017) described new student affairs professional as individuals with fewer than five years of post- master’s experience. Additionally, a variety of texts aimed at preparing graduate students for a career in student affairs are nebulous in defining the term (see Amey & Ressor, 2015; Magolda & Carnaghi, 2014; Tull et al., 2009). For the purposes of this study, new student affairs professional was operationalized using the NASPA and ACPA definition as a professional with a master’s degree who is five years or less into their career. An additional required component for participation in the study was experience working with, or participating in, a free speech event on campus. Experience working with or participating in a free speech event was intentionally broad, but included advising a student organization regarding a controversial speaker, participation in or witnessing of a campus protest, counseling students before/during/after a free speech event, or managing a facility like a residence hall or college union that was the site of an event. Consistent with sensemaking, it was
34
not enough to simply notice an event took place; there had to be reflection and a willingness to talk about the experience. Based on these considerations, I used purposeful criterion sampling to identify and select information-rich cases (Patton, 2015). I sent information about the study (Appendix A), along with a screening questionnaire (Appendix B), to institutional gatekeepers on each campus for dissemination via established divisional listservs at each institution. Institutional gatekeepers included Directors of functional areas and communication staff on each campus. Along with obtaining basic demographic information, this screening helped to determine if potential participants met the criteria as a new professional, and was used to gauge their experience working with or participating in a free speech event on campus. Following the screening of potential participants, I selected five individuals at each institution based on their social identities and experience across a broad range of student affairs functional areas. In total, 10 participants completed the study. Table 1 provides an overview of participant demographics. Table 1 Participant Demographics Years of Pseudonym Institution Functional Area Race Gender Experience Jennifer Midwest Student Activities White Cis Woman 4 Emma Midwest College Union White Cis Woman 2 Julio Midwest Residence Life Latinx Cis Man 4 Jordyn Midwest Residence Life Black Cis Woman 5 Rose Midwest Residence Life White Cis Woman 3 Derek City Residence Life Black Cis Man 3 Aria City Multicultural Affairs Asian Fluid 3 Molly City Fraternity/Sorority White Cis Woman 5 Aaron City Conduct White Cis Man 3 Destiny City Diversity Black Cis Woman 2
This sample size was consistent with qualitative research standards to reach the point of thematic saturation (Jones et al., 2014). Strauss and Corbin (1998) described saturation as the point when “no new information seems to emerge during coding” (p. 136). After completing informed consent forms (Appendix C), the selected participants engaged in a series of interviews to discuss their experience with free speech events on campus. Participants were informed about the
35
ways in which their participation could give voice to the experiences of practitioners in the field of student affairs and benefit greater research in the area of free speech. In addition to any intrapersonal or interpersonal insight participants gained by sharing their narratives, they were also compensated for their time with a $20 digital gift card to Amazon. Data Collection The specific data collection method utilized for this study was face-to-face interviews. Specifically, participants engaged in three in-depth semi-structured interviews that moved from introduction/rapport development (interview one) to narrative exploration of free speech events (interview two). Then, consistent with constructivist approaches, a third interview engaged participants in a member checking process. In order to interview participants about their sensemaking about free speech events, I developed a semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix D). The benefit of using a semi-structured protocol stems from the fact that it provided a consistent framework for each interview, but also allowed me to ask follow-up questions and explore salient topics as they emerged (Brinkmann, 2018; Cohen & Crabtree, 2006; Jones et al., 2014). Interviews were initiated in the fall (2019) and concluded by the winter (2020). Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes in length. Participants were offered the option to select an interview location that was most comfortable to them (e.g., professional office, library study), and all interviews were recorded with Otter.ai software which generated interview transcripts in real time. When face-to-face interviews were not possible due to scheduling conflicts, interviews were conducted online using Zoom software. During the screening process, I gave participants the opportunity to select a pseudonym that was used during data transcription and subsequent reporting of results found in Chapter Four. As the primary researcher, audio recordings and notes from the interviews were protected with password encryption software; additionally, I notified participants that the audio files would remain on file for five years before being completely deleted in accordance with data storage protocol. In order to analyze interviews quickly, all transcripts were reviewed and cleaned with Otter.ai to ensure accuracy of the data. With the sophisticated rise in digital hacking, there is no way to ensure complete protection for participants; however, every step was taken to protect the identity of participants during each phase of the data collection and analysis process.
36
Data Analysis In order to organize and secure research materials throughout the project, I selected Dedoose as my qualitative data analysis software. Dedoose allows researchers to store transcript materials, apply a variety of qualitative codes, and craft analytic memos. Following the transcription process, I first conducted a thorough reading of the transcripts after each round of interviews to look for individual stories as well as emergent narrative patterns (Jones et al., 2014). During this process, I crafted analytic memos (Saldaña, 2016) as a way to organize my insights as the researcher. For example, the term “we support students” consistently appeared across interview transcripts; noting these types of codes in memos aided in the development of analytic themes. Chase (2018) highlighted the point that qualitative researchers engaged in narrative inquiry have a variety of analytical techniques in which to examine data. Many scholars contend there is no uniform analytical technique in narrative methodology (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Jones et al., 2014; Riessman, 2008). Although the number of analytical techniques available to narrative researchers are numerous, all narrative inquiry is concerned with what is said (Riessman, 2008). This study implemented the common technique of thematic analysis. Josselson (2011) outlined a thorough process for identifying themes through narrative analysis coding; this practice includes: an overall reading to glean general themes, multiple readings between transcripts to look for both patterns and differences, and comparing the themes to relevant literature to ascertain greater contextual meaning. Table 2 provides an example of the coding process used in the generation of themes. Table 2 Sample Code Process Excerpt Code Category Theme “In the South” Region “the Bible Belt” Region Geographic Context “District of Columbia” City Thematic analysis concerns capturing how participants experience and interpret specific phenomena (Riessman, 2008), which in this study involved free speech events. In reading the transcripts, I looked for themes that aligned with principles of sensemaking along with other themes that emerged during the data collection process. I analyzed the interviews both
37
individually and across participants to generate themes for overall analysis. Because narrative inquiry relies on thick description, I extracted participants’ stories and used long direct quotations to give voice to the results. Not only did vivid descriptions place the participant’s voice in the forefront of analysis, but they contributed to the transferability of the data. Ultimately these stories created the foundation for the individual participant narrative profiles found in the next chapter. Trustworthiness Conversations about rigor in qualitative research are often framed as a response to positivist research critiques (Morse, 2018). In their formative work, Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified four major components for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative data: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. First, it is important for the findings to be deemed credible. Lincoln and Guba (1985) described credibility as the way to establish the ‘truth value’ of data. To establish credibility of the data, this study implemented multiple strategies. For example, this project utilized member checking, one of the most common and important techniques in qualitative credibility (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). During the data analysis stage, starting with the numerous readings of the transcripts, I followed up with participants to receive feedback on emerging themes to ensure the analytical description rang true for the participant. A portion of the final interview focused on discussion of these themes for clarity and refinement purposes. The three-interview format also accomplished the aims of member checking; I was able to check concepts or themes that emerged in the first two interviews with participants during the final interview. Next, Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified the concept of transferability as a way to strengthen the trustworthiness of research findings. Transferability is the analogous response to positivist claims of external validity. In naturalistic inquiry, transferability is concerned with the ways in which researchers can transfer the results from one context to another. In this study, selecting participants from two distinct institutions strengthened the transferability of data by reducing the potential of bias that results from a singular institutional context; this sampling technique improved the transferability of the results. Additionally, the present study’s use of thick descriptions for analysis was another way to enhance data transferability. Third, qualitative inquiry must attend to issues of dependability. Guba (1981) argued that although the establishment of credibility presupposes dependability, qualitative researchers
38
should strengthen their claims and address dependability directly. Lincoln and Guba (1985) posited that dependability shows that research findings are consistent and can be repeated. This study similarly attended to dependability by ensuring that data analysis processes were explicit (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), through the use of analytic memos to keep track of research procedures. Finally, the last standard of trustworthiness is confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Because the emphasis in narrative inquiry is on the stories of participants, confirmability seeks to neutralize potential researcher bias, motivation, or interest. Therefore, disclosure of researcher bias and positionality enhance the confirmability of data (Miles et al., 2014). Although this type of reflective commentary on researcher positionality is common in qualitative research, all research—including quantitative paradigms—would benefit from these disclosures. Positionality Since this study used qualitative inquiry, it is important to discuss my role as the researcher (Jones et al., 2014). Because the analysis of interview transcripts was through my own lens, I must reflect on identities and experiences that potentially shaped how I read and analyzed the data. I was initially drawn to this topic through my work as an Assistant Director in a college union; I believe these types of campus spaces are important sites of learning in the collegiate environment (Strange & Banning, 2015). As I watched social movements like #BlackLivesMatter manifest into campus protests and demonstrations, I was struck by the potential of college unions to serve as a site where people exercise their right to free speech, find community with others, and raise awareness about a variety of societal issues. I also work at a school, Miami University—a historically white institution—that has a history of protests and controversial speakers (Ellison, 2009). However, as a cisgender, gay, white man, I recognize many of my identities are less often the target of incendiary campus speakers, and my lived experience is different from those commonly targeted by police brutality. Moreover, I recognize I do not experience free speech events the same way my peers of color do. A growing body of literature speaks to the racial battle fatigue professionals of color experience when tending to the health and safety of students and themselves (Douglas et al., 2020; Gorski, 2019; Husband, 2016; Quaye et al., 2019; Smith, 2009; Williams & Williams-Norris, 2000). All of these factors played a role in how I read and analyzed the data; it is impossible for me as a white practitioner to truly understand the lived experience of Black colleagues. Therefore, there was great intentionality
39
around the recruitment of a diverse pool of participants who brought a broad range of experiences to this topic and presenting authentic stories in the voice of each practitioner. As a researcher, my role was not to steer participants toward a universal definition of free speech events; instead, this study sought to understand how new student affairs professionals engaged in sensemaking around these campus events. Genuinely reflecting and disclosing my researcher subjectivities allows readers to view the data as more trustworthy and authentic (Miles et al., 2014). To truly engage participants through narrative inquiry, I find this emphasis on positionality necessary. Conclusion This narrative study adds to the growing literature by bringing the voices of new student affairs professionals experiencing free speech events to the forefront. To date, much of the research on this topic has utilized quantitative survey research (Leffers, 2000; Oglethorpe, 2018), case study (Klepper & Bakken, 1997; Mason, 2001), or historical analysis (Freeman, 2009; Gerardin, 2009; Hutchens, 2012). With a topic as nuanced as free speech, narrative inquiry was well suited to capture the rich experiences of new student affairs practitioners. Based on this research protocol, the next chapter explores the narrative data collected from the 10 participants.
40
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS Consistent with the chosen methodology for this study, narrative inquiry, this chapter features individual narratives for each of the 10 participants. The data collected from each participant was both rich and voluminous, and the stories presented below are merely truncated versions of broader responses shared over the course of three interviews. In an effort to provide a broad structure to the chapter, the participants are grouped together by campus affiliation; the first five participants are from University of the Midwest followed by the five participants from City University. Because participants on each campus referenced common events (e.g., protests, controversial speakers, presidential elections), this format allows readers to view narratives individually as well as within a bounded institutional context. The thematic results presented in the back half of the chapter represent broad themes that emerged from participants that answer the following research questions regardless of campus affiliation: RQ1: How do new student affairs professionals describe their experience with free speech events at public institutions of higher education? RQ2: At public institutions of higher education, what are the personal, professional, and institutional characteristics that affect new student affairs professionals’ sensemaking about free speech events on campus? RQ3: What role do student affairs professionals play in responding to free speech events on campus? In order to honor the voice of each participant, I valued presenting long quotes that reflect their authentic style and language. My aim is to present participant stories faithfully. Occasionally, the participants divulged sensitive information or used graphic language to share their experiences. As the researcher, my role is not to present sanitized stories that conform to notions of social decorum. Instead, I endeavored to tell participant’s stories openly and honestly; which requires researchers to embrace some level of messiness in the process. Each section opens with pertinent information that allows the reader to become oriented with a brief history of each participant. In constructing their narratives, I identified key stories and quotations that informed the stated research questions above. Aside from minor structural modifications that improve the readability of a quotation such as the removal of linguistic fillers (e.g., “like” and “um”), the narratives rely heavily on the answers provided by the participants with minor researcher editorializing.
41
Each participant had the opportunity to select their own pseudonym. Additionally, information that could potentially compromise participant identities or institution locations was intentionally obfuscated. For example, large student protest movements took place on each campus and the names of those groups were completely altered in a consistent manner across all narratives. Although some participant narratives vary in length, this does not reflect their individual level of contribution. Instead, every effort was made to provide equal space in this study for each participant. To open this chapter, let us first visit University of the Midwest. University of the Midwest (UM) As an introduction to the first five participants, it is prudent to share institutional context about University of the Midwest. UM is a picturesque campus of carefully designed quadrangles, meticulously manicured landscapes, and Georgian Revival architecture that conjures images of the classic residential campus tucked away in a rural location. Located approximately an hour away from the nearest metropolitan area, UM brands itself as a premier public institution that has a long history of producing graduates who become leading scientists, government officials, and lawyers—among many other prominent occupations. Their Division of Student Affairs employs approximately 180 full-time and graduate staff across 16 departments. As an institution, University of the Midwest has a storied legacy of activism involving free speech which includes a student rebellion in the mid-1800s, racial activism during the Civil Rights era, and campus protests during the conflict in Vietnam. In the last five years, UM has experienced numerous events that would be classified as a free speech event under the definition used in this study. The campus community saw conservative speakers like columnist George Will, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Milo Yiannopoulos visit for lectures; they also had a student activist group formed called Concerned Black Students (CBS), a pseudonym, who pressured the administration to address long-standing issues with the campus climate. Several other examples are presented by the five participants below, but controversial speakers and the formation of CBS are prominently featured across each participant’s narrative. Keeping this context in mind, let us meet the first UM participant, Jennifer. Jennifer (she/her) Jennifer is a professional who works in the functional area of student activities. She has worked at University of the Midwest for four years and her job in student activities was her first full-time position out of graduate school. Jennifer studied Psychology during her undergraduate
42
years at a private, religiously affiliated, residential university in a major metropolitan area. She then transitioned to the South for graduate school in a metropolitan area where she worked in student activities as a graduate assistant. Jennifer described her graduate program as less focused on higher education and more counseling based. Following graduate school, Jennifer joined the staff at UM where she has professional responsibilities over student organizations and campus programming. Having attended a private religious institution during her undergraduate years, Jennifer had some unique experiences that shaped her view on free speech. Her campus’ proximity to the District of Columbia offered numerous opportunities for student engagement and highlights how the formal boundaries of an urban campus often blend into the city. As she recounted, I remember being on campus the time Osama bin Laden was shot and thinking about those kinds of things. How we took those things into the city, showing up at the White House after bin Laden had been killed we took those things off campus because we saw that as a city thing to participate in. Also being at a Catholic institution we had easy access to things like the annual pro-life March in D.C. There wasn’t much that happened on campus formally with respect to free speech, and as a private institution you know what kind of school you’re applying to. But being near Washington [D.C.] there was always something happening to get involved with. Jennifer was one of the few participants in this study who had experience being on a private college campus as either a student or staff member. When asked to reflect on the differences she noticed between her public and private institution experiences, she shared that, When I started working here [UM], and we started having a lot of public displays around freedom of speech I was surprised how willing staff was to work with the students to make sure it was successful. And so I think that that's something where, you know, this just might have been my perception of being an undergrad student and not a staff member, but I feel like at my undergrad institution, it wouldn't have been the case. It would be “How do we get in front of it before it becomes a thing that draws publicity?” Here, it's how do we make sure that they know the rules around public speech and freedom of speech rights. How do we make sure that what they're doing is successful. And that's something that I appreciate working here.
43
This moment crystalized for Jennifer the important role public institutions play in supporting free speech. As someone who works in student activities, Jennifer is responsible for reviewing all campus events registered by recognized student organizations. This includes any external lecturers brought in by a student group. Their office sees an average of eight to ten events registered each day, and beginning in 2016, they developed a new process for reviewing campus events. Jennifer explained, Just thinking about it from a liability standpoint I'm put in a different role when it comes to who's the final judge on whether something is risky or whether something will impede on somebody’s right to free speech. I think the general consensus is, if you're not sure bump it to campus police. So when our students register events the ask from campus police has been if there's any external speaker that is not a UM faculty or student they want to know. So it's not my job to necessarily know exactly who is or isn’t controversial. They are responsible for researching that. Reviewing events is a common everyday task for Jennifer; everything from information tables to inflatable obstacle courses, she reviews them all. However, one prominent free speech event stands out to her as a particularly significant event in her professional development—a Milo Yiannopoulos lecture sponsored by a registered student organization: So in thinking about when Milo came to campus I was tapped to attend his talk on campus just to make sure everything was going well and to be in an area where I could report issues if they arose. Going into that event I didn’t feel particularly prepared. What is my job there? If something happens, do I need to step in? I'm not going to talk anybody out of throwing a tomato because it's a room of 700 people and campus police are already there. So I think that there just wasn't a lot of purpose other than being face-y so that students didn't feel like they could act out if they wanted to. From her perspective, Jennifer noticed that senior administrators also in attendance were “on edge” about this specific event, even though only 50 people ultimately showed up for the lecture. She also felt that the event itself was “significantly overstaffed” with student affairs professionals leading to additional role confusion as to why her presence was deemed necessary. At the time, Jennifer recalls not seeking greater clarity from her supervisor as to the purpose of her attending the Yiannopoulos lecture, but upon reflection noted,
44
Within the division, we make connections with students that other faculty and staff don’t necessarily develop, and are often vulnerable with us. So, by being a familiar face to students we are better positioned to reinforce policies or have developmental conversations with students. Further, Jennifer stated that there was not a post-event meeting for staff who attended to provide feedback to the student affairs leadership team. Although she offered feedback to her supervisor about the event following the lecture, Jennifer thought that staff members should be brought together after these types of events in order to debrief and apply lessons learned for the future. During her interview, Jennifer made reference to concepts such as “time, place, manner”, public endangerment, and case law out of the Sixth Circuit Court. Noting that she had never taken a higher education law class, I inquired about how she came to learn about these issues. Interestingly Jennifer commented that she frequently processes campus experiences and events with her husband who is attending law school. Specifically, she mentioned how they discuss whether or not college prepares students for the consequences that result from breaking the law, invoking the scenario that there are legal ramifications if you yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Collectively, they frequently discuss what opportunities exist to provide students a forum to learn and possibly make mistakes that can be corrected while on campus. Additionally, Jennifer also spoke at length about her observational skills. Referencing events like Milo, Jennifer offered, As a new professional I used those experiences of being asked to be at those things as a developmental opportunity. I don't know if I have the tools to like fix something that might be going wrong at this but if I can watch that Director across the room handle a situation I'm going to learn something about how I handle those situations in the future. So I think that there's opportunity around developmental conversations of let's bring the team back together and say ‘hey, I noticed that you pulled two students aside, how did you respond to that?’ In addition to her observing those in senior administrative positions, Jennifer attributed her background in Psychology as playing a role in addressing free speech events. She explained, Being a Psychology major I think I pull it out of my back pocket more than I think that I do. So while I lament the fact that I didn't have enough higher education classes in my master's program I think back to all the times I've studied human behavior. And I think that has been really helpful. I’ve folded that into my advising style which is probably why
45
I get tapped to be in those events, I’ve formed individual relationships with people who are so vastly different from one another. Conversely, when asked about what topics or skill sets would have been useful in addressing free speech events, Jennifer offered this unique perspective, I wish that we had spent more time learning about intersectionality in graduate school. I think it’s a topic that would help me navigate a lot of these conversations. I think often it's easy to fall in the trap and look at people on a single identity dimension. When you look at things like Concerned Black Students quickly without thinking about it you see students of color who are mad at white administration but there are so many other things happening there. Like you're bringing Milo to campus and so you must like the far-right. And so I think that looking at intersectionality with a little bit more education and a little bit more theory would help me pull apart those students’ experiences and understand those things better. As a white cisgender woman, Jennifer wished that her graduate preparation program would have been more attentive to matters of intersecting identities, which in turn would have equipped her to better handle these situations. After processing the Yiannopoulos lecture, Jennifer offered insights into the role student affairs plays in supporting free speech events on campus. She shared a poignant story of when she came to a realization while meeting with an Assistant Vice President: I was meeting with our AVP around the topic of an upcoming protest and I think that I was very much prepared for the conversation to be like, “Do we need to sit one-on-one with those students and talk through the things that they're unhappy about?” If you don't feel like your identities are being valued on campus and you don’t see yourself in the programming that's being brought here, those are all things that are part of my job. But the conversation was, “How do we support these students in expressing their feelings and beliefs in a safe and approved way?” And so I think that's when I had that moment of like, oh, this is something that we foster and support—the ability to promote freedom of speech and allowing them to express their concerns. Ultimately, Jennifer sees these events as opportunities for students to “express their passions”, “hone their belief systems”, and “explore opportunities to create change locally and globally.” Jennifer spoke in detail how free speech events are part of the larger holistic experience that
46
college provides students. She described how it fits within the larger mission of student affairs work by mentioning, I think it goes back to my understanding of how we are preparing students to be holistically developed to enter into the real world. So we are developing students who feel comfortable advocating for their needs and feel comfortable when they need to express discontent in a system, or a structure, or experience. Their experience at UM prepares them to question and form their identities, their values, and their beliefs in the real world. It empowers them to question systems or structures and hopefully serve as a vessel for change, and we gave them that opportunity during their college years. As a practitioner working in the functional area of student activities, Jennifer is uniquely positioned to encounter free speech events on a frequent basis. Although she has never received formal training or academic coursework on the topic, she relies on previous experience frameworks, observational learning from senior administrators, and reflective processing with friends, colleagues, and family members to make sense of these campus events. She hopes as a future supervisor of full-time professional staff members that she can engage in more “transparent dialogue” and provide professional development opportunities for staff members to be prepared for future events because she anticipates an increase in activity leading up to the 2020 U.S. General Election. Although Jennifer works in student activities, it is important to note that at University of the Midwest, the student activities office and college union office are separate departments within student affairs. The next participant, Emma, will provide insights into free speech as a new professional working in the college union. Emma (she/her) Emma recently finished her second year as a new student affairs professional at UM where she works in the student union office. Emma completed a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology during her undergraduate years at a public regional university located in the mid-Atlantic area. As an undergraduate student, she was actively involved in her social sorority and worked in several paraprofessional staff roles in her campus student center. After completing her undergraduate program, Emma transitioned to the deep South for graduate school in a rural area where she worked in a combined student center/recreation center as an event operations graduate assistant. Emma’s graduate program was primarily designed as a counseling curriculum, but offered higher education courses taught by senior student affairs administrators at the institution.
47
Notably, a course in higher education law was removed from the course curriculum for her cohort, but was added back in the wake of the 2016 U.S. General Election; ultimately Emma was never able to take this course. Following graduate school Emma joined the staff at UM where she has professional responsibilities for student organizations who have reserved space in the student center and are in the process of planning their events. Like Jennifer, University of the Midwest was also Emma’s first full-time professional position in a student affairs role. Emma’s work in the college union functional area figures prominently in many of the stories she shared. In her second year of graduate school, Emma was exposed to her first campus protest inside a student center. She commented, When I was in grad school that was the year [2016] when Trump was elected. By working in our student union, and also working in the Bible Belt, I was exposed to a lot of various free speech issues. There was a tension across campus because you would have a lot of folks on the right, being from the South, but also the campus drew heavily from the Atlanta area so we had a lot of diverse student populations on our campus. And there happened to be a lot of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests on campus my second year, one even happened to come through our student center. I remember a lot of my cohort members wanted to be a part of the protests but we weren't allowed to because at the end of the day, we had a paycheck coming from the institution. So as grad students we were trying to navigate “if I can’t wear a BLM t-shirt, can I wear a plain black shirt in solidarity?” For me it was how do I balance my own beliefs and support my students, while also working in the student center where all the eyes are on that building? As a graduate student, Emma was introduced early on to a central tension that many student affairs practitioners grapple with: supporting student free speech but also being concerned about job security (in this instance, losing a graduate assistantship) and the personal financial impact that could create. Consistent with the literature about college unions serving as a forum where free speech events often occur (Butts et al., 2012; Thelin, 2011), Emma shared a perspective that began to form during her undergraduate years, evolved during graduate school, and then served as a foundation in her current role at UM. Specifically, she believed that, The student center is, in its purest sense, the hub of student life and the living room for students. If you think about the living room, and bring it back to your own home and your
48
own family, that's where conversations happen. I want to encourage students to explore their ideas and that could be challenging them whether it be politically or socially. I think if we're creating spaces that are supposed to encourage conversation, then I want them to have that in a student center and I want them to feel supported. She expressed a desire to support students in their endeavors to advocate for change, but also a professional requirement to make sure that they followed policies and procedures in order to keep others on campus, or in the building, safe. Even for seasoned professionals, it is challenging to find the correct balance between free speech and student safety. These experiences in graduate school were formative for Emma and helped prepare her for a flurry of free speech activity she would encounter in her role at UM. Emma recalled hearing stories about the Yiannopoulos lecture and how staff at Midwest handled that situation during her campus interview. When she started her position, she remembered being “eager to learn what the campus policies were at UM, how to navigate controversial lectures, and what types of advertising could be approved or denied.” Emma shared the importance of “constantly educating herself” and “leaning on the experience of those above her” in order to make sure she could support students the best she could within the spirit of university policy. One free speech event at UM was particularly salient for Emma: So it was a week where we had several high profile admissions events in the Midwest Student Center, and there were a lot of potential students, families, and faculty/staff visiting throughout the week. There were a lot of issues around Title IX and sexual assault on campus that semester. We had received so many campus alerts it was like “not another one.” Well, a group of students decided they wanted to make incoming students and families aware of the sexual assault issue on campus so they went to the large atrium in the student center where they know people would pass by and started to protest. They started to put large posters and signs on the wall creating a tunnel of imagery that you had to walk past in order to get to the ballroom in the building. Well our building policy says you can’t post things on the walls, and we also had the admissions staff members freaking out, so what do you do? I remember trying to navigate that as a young professional and really leaned on my supervisor about how to handle it. Ultimately, we encouraged the protestors to hold the signs instead of taping them to the walls. I think
49
that was a beautiful way for us to allow students to share their feelings but still be within building policy. The prevalence of sexual assault on college campus remains a particularly troublesome issue for many institutions, and during this semester, the students at UM felt compelled to use their free speech rights to demand that their school do better. For Emma, this topic was particularly personal as she disclosed that she was a survivor of sexual assault. She felt hurt that other divisional colleagues and senior administrators barely acknowledged the issue that the students were protesting. During the protest, Emma felt torn because she wanted to “pick up a sign and join them in the protest” but remembered “as a professional staff member I’m representing the institution too, I could lose my job if I do that.” This tension is a parallel experience to the dilemma she faced in graduate school in wanting to wear a Black Lives Matter t-shirt. In reflecting on the institutional response to this protest, Emma recalled feeling disappointed with the lack of transparency from her Vice President for Student Affairs (VPSA). As she explained, I think a lot of things were happening on Twitter but there was never a formal email that came out, and I was immensely disappointed in that. I don't want a Twitter response; I want a letter response that details how the institution is going to handle Title IX cases moving forward. I was hoping in a Student Affairs divisional staff meeting that the VPSA would come forward and share that the administration acknowledges it is an issue on campus and this is how we want to start changing it, but it never came. I was sitting and holding my breath for months on end. This situation stood in contrast to her experience in graduate school where the VPSA, who taught her introduction to student affairs course, was very honest about issues on campus. Additionally, Emma spoke at length about the importance of the relationship with her supervisor; he created a safe environment where they could process complex events. She shared that her supervisor often used one-on-one meetings to explore organizational complexity, debrief how free speech events were handled, and reflect on how the events impacted her personally and professionally. With the strained political environment in the United States, Emma acknowledged feeling cognizant of her role as an administrator during free speech events. Concerned about how those on the far-right ideologically often “weaponized” free speech, Emma tries to keep students, as well as student safety, at the center of her work. Her view is that “student protests are for the
50
students, my role as a staff member is to supervise the event and make sure everyone is safe.” Ultimately, during her time at UM, Emma was able to understand free speech events in a more nuanced way. She found herself asking questions like: “What is the purpose of this protest?”; “What is the core issue that the students are concerned about?”; and “What are effective strategies to support them?” Interestingly, Emma noted that it was also during this time at UM when she became more aware of the political culture around her. She joked that her parents were “children of the ‘60s,” and that it was her mother that encouraged her to think critically, challenge the process, and fight for what you believe in ideologically. It was the national moments such as the annual Women’s Marches (following the U.S. General Election of 2016) and the Supreme Court hearing for Justice Brett Kavanaugh that encouraged her to become a more engaged citizen; however, she acknowledged the challenges she faces in enacting her own free speech rights as an employee working at a public institution of higher education. Overall, Emma’s position in the functional area of college unions provided her with a wide array of experiences with free speech events in both graduate school and working professionally at UM. Although she never took a formal course on higher education law, her practitioner experience provided ample opportunities to debrief these situations with those higher in the student affairs organizational chart. Similar to Jennifer, she shared a desire to cultivate experiences that support holistic student development and promote student voice. Finally, Emma spoke about the importance of supervisor engagement when handling these complex events. Supervisors are often able to provide historical context and can provide cues that a supervisee can extract when handling issues if they arise. Emma aspires to become the Director of a college union someday and hopes she can continue “providing safe forums where students can engage with complicated issues of the day in the living room of campus.” Collectively, Jennifer and Emma represent two narratives of early student affairs professionals in functional areas that are frequently called on in free speech events. The next three participants from UM are from another functional area that also commonly wrestle with issues of free speech—residence life. Julio (he/him) As an introduction to Julio, I find it important to note that he often used what some consider profane language during the interview; in order to remain true to his story, I have chosen not to filter out profanity in the presentation of his narrative. My hope is that readers are not distracted by the profanity and appreciate his candor in response to interview questions. Julio
51
described himself as someone who is “doing res life for life,” a term commonly used by student affairs practitioners who anticipate staying within the functional area of residence life for the duration of their career. His path into the profession started as a Resident Assistant (RA) during his undergraduate years at a school on the West Coast. His non-traditional six-year path to a baccalaureate degree saw him attempt a diverse array of majors including Music, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Geology. With mentorship and encouragement from his Resident Director (RD), Julio was encouraged to look into UM for graduate school because his RD had a positive experience working with a professional who went through the UM graduate program. Having never really left the West Coast, he humorously shared that he thought his flight to University of the Midwest would “only be 45 minutes… not five hours!” Julio recalled being confused during his graduate school interview because “everyone kept referring to two of the faculty like celebrities and I thought, damn, who are these people? This must be some type of an elite program.” Ultimately, he decided to attend UM because they offered him an assistantship in residence life and seemed committed to providing students with a strong theory-to-practice education. After graduate school, Julio saw continued opportunities for growth and development within the residence life department at UM and was hired on as a full-time Resident Director. In total, Julio has spent six years at Midwest, with over four years as a full-time staff member. His experience as both a graduate student and staff member provided unique insights into how UM managed free speech events during his time living on campus. Because the graduate program at UM is known for its focus on student development theory and research, Julio acknowledged that the curriculum at times “lacked practical courses in the areas of higher education finance or the law.” However, he felt comfortable in being able to address a variety of situations on campus because the program also equipped him with an ability to think critically about these issues. It was not until he ascended into his role as a full-time staff member that he began to see the complexity of free speech issues on campus. He stated the following: I think I was a Resident Director the first time I saw a student protest break out on campus… yeah it was Concerned Black Students. But I always wondered like why couldn't we join them as student affairs professionals? Like, why do we have to be restricted in terms of what we do and don't do versus like faculty who can do whatever the fuck they want? I'm like that's dumb, and so like, to be honest I don't think that I still
52
have a very clear answer to that to be 100% transparent. I'm sure there's some legality to it. This honest response from Julio reflects a recognition that although he cannot protest as a staff member, he is unaware of how academic freedom grants tenured faculty greater speech freedoms on a college campus. Similar to Emma, Julio made a direct connection between free speech events and how they could potentially impact his position as a staff member at the university. While admitting to being “shaky in terms of what I can and can’t do,” he shared this anecdote during his interview: Even if I were to go out to New York City, not wear any UM attire or anything, and go protest against Trump… if I made CNN’s headline page I’m not confident that I'd continue to have a job here. Someone would Google my name, see UM, and associate that with the university and I don't think I'd be having employment much longer. Personally, which I think it sucks in some ways, but working here has engrained in me the idea that you kind of trade your free speech for company image at least in my eyes. I sold my free speech for a paycheck. In addition to anxieties about income, Julio had the added concern as a residence life staff member about protecting his living situation. If he lost his job, he would immediately lose where he lives. Julio acknowledged these pressures create a level of trepidation when it comes to personal engagement with free speech events on campus. During his time at UM, Julio experienced many of the similar events as both Jennifer and Emma; however, his role in residence life exposed him to other free speech events that were smaller in scale but often a catalyst for larger movements on campus. For example, he recalled, There was a case here at UM where a guy said the n-word on a group chat. It was in a residence hall GroupMe where everyone in the hall could see it. Well, obviously someone took a screenshot of the text and sent it to administrators in student affairs. It then got put on Twitter and organizers for Concerned Black Students began demanding that the school expel him immediately. I thought well there could be an opportunity for it to be a learning moment, because realistically the university is not going to expel him. But then weeks later he was bragging on Tinder [a dating app] that he was edgy because he was the guy who used the n-word and got away with it. Again, that was screenshot and sent out over Snapchat and that really contributed to some of the major campus protests.
53
Although the student was not living in Julio’s residence hall at the time, he recalled some rather animated conversations about the incident during departmental meetings: And so we talked about the situation in meetings trying to gain some understanding of what information was accurate, what was rumor; I mean we were getting asked by residents and RA’s alike about what happened since everyone seemed to know about it. For me it was trying to figure out what our role was as professionals, as an office, as a university. This was also the time when the graduate students in the department began questioning senior staff about why they couldn’t go out and protest with the students. I think that's when I first started learning most about this idea of free speech on campus too. I definitely had questions, I remember seeing one my former faculty members in a picture in the school newspaper during the protests and thinking “like wait, so that's seen as cool, and in fact helped their career; I do that and it could cost me my career—this doesn't seem right.” The role confusion about what graduate students could or couldn’t do during the time became a major source of strain in the department, the Division of Student Affairs, and the graduate program. As Julio explained, So graduate students at the time were seen as professional staff members in the department. We very much treated our graduate students as professional staff. You can supervise your own set of RA’s, advise student organizations, etc. Well, when the CBS movement came along, the graduate students wanted to protest, but couldn’t because we consider them professional staff members. The university stance on staff members in general is don't do it [protest], or you lose your job. I think that is where graduate students had an issue because they said, “Well we're still students so we shouldn't be held to that standard.” They wanted both though. They wanted to wear the student hat when they were students, and they wanted to wear the professional hat when they were professionals, and that just doesn't work. You can't be both. So that became the catalyst for the role of our graduate students now. They can no longer write student evaluations or run their own buildings. They are just assistants and now lose out on all the experiences that their predecessors received. So now they're more than welcome to go protest, and they definitely do, but now they have lost a lot of responsibility in our office.
54
Being a product of the UM graduate program in student affairs, Julio recognized that the program had evolved from a curriculum grounded in student development theory to one centering social justice, diversity, and equity. He believes the change in curriculum created the conditions where the current students now place a higher value on their student role and are less concerned about experiences that enhance professional preparation into the field. His story highlights how free speech events create a ripple effect that often spreads far beyond the event itself. In this instance, a residential student’s use of a racial slur on social media was additional fodder for campus-wide protests that would ultimately impact the organizational structure in residence life and the role of their graduate students. It also served as the first time that Julio began to think more deeply about free speech on campus and his role in it. Julio also viewed issues around free speech events from a racialized lens. As one of the few Latinx staff members at the university, Julio acutely feels “too Mexican when in the Midwest, but not Mexican enough back home.” He viewed the system of higher education as frequently “complicit” in maintaining the status quo of oppressing those with marginalized identities. In addition to code switching, Julio shared, I know if I were to outright say something versus my white colleague who would outright say something, we're going to get two different looks and I know that has a lot to do with my tone and how I present myself. In one story, Julio talked about how his white colleagues wanted to write a letter protesting unequal pay among RD salaries; though he agreed with his colleagues that unequal pay was problematic, he felt uncomfortable as a staff member of color rocking the boat. His identity also proved salient when reflecting on the event where the student used the racial slur over GroupMe. His insight was particularly telling: “Like, you know, it was some white kid at this predominantly white institution, no way they are going to do anything to him. And if he was the child of a major donor or legacy, forget about it.” Unlike Jennifer and Emma, Julio’s experience as a person of color working at UM informed his understanding of campus events. Although he was not in attendance for the Yiannopoulos lecture, Julio recalled how angry his campus colleagues were about the event. He explained, People in my circle, and the majority people I talked to, were upset that he was even allowed come on campus and give any sort of talk. They saw it as University of the Midwest is bringing him to campus and not a student organization. I'm like,
55
“That's not how that works because then you have to flip that on the other side. You have to be open to the equal and opposite, you know, if we bring in Michelle Obama, you better be ready to bring in Mike Pence, just saying. You can't have one without the other.” And you could tell they were still frustrated because they believed the university should have responded in a certain way, but the student organization is the one that brought him to campus. Sometimes people just don’t understand that nuance. Again, though Julio have never received any formal training on issues related to free speech, he was keenly aware of the importance of providing balanced forums on a college campus. He then went on to discuss how he viewed his role in managing free speech on campus, noting, I try to the best of my ability to help educate our students about not just one side but both sides of the equation. And I think especially with the 2020 U.S. General Election coming up, I think our job is to come in and have neutral honest conversations with our residents and students we supervise. He added, I personally feel a lot of the times some student affairs folks have it one-sided. It is a very liberal stance on it, that any speech that doesn't align with their values or opinions is automatically not free speech it's hate speech, and I think that that's where people get misconstrued. It requires you to swallow your own emotions and know that you're not trying to sway them to one side or another, you’re trying to engage them in a way that makes them think critically about their choices, values, and beliefs. You're going to get challenged at some point, and you have to be ok with that. Julio attributed his expanded knowledge about free speech events to having experienced a wide array of events on campus over his six years. Further, he saw supervisors as playing a pivotal part in helping train new student affairs professionals because they often come from diverse graduate preparation programs. He described how recently in a residence life department meeting that their Director shared an article on understanding College Republicans. Julio found himself looking back at that article and realizing “wow, there’s a lot of things I did not understand about this very particular subset of students we have on campus—I refer back to it a lot.” This type of professional development exercise proved to be a valuable teaching moment that helped promote notions of free speech and how to support
56
all students. In summary, Julio’s narrative provides important insights into how free speech events can create a cascading effect across student affairs, and highlight how even without formal academic training on the topic there are multiple opportunities for practitioners to learn more about free speech. As we concluded, he shared this important word of caution to everyone in higher education: The environment is only going to continue to grow more tense, we have to make sure that we as professionals engage in critical reflection and ensure that we are providing spaces for students to grow and explore their ideas in a safe way. Jordyn (she/her) The second residence life professional from UM was the most seasoned participant in the study. She was in her fourth year at University of the Midwest and also worked for one year professionally at a private, religiously affiliated, Hispanic-serving institution. Similar to Julio, Jordyn is following a student affairs career path heavily influenced by residence life as a functional area. Jordyn is a first-generation Black American; she is quick to note with great pride that her family immigrated to the United States from Central America. As an undergraduate student, Jordyn used public transportation to attend a private religiously affiliated school located in the center of a major Midwestern city. She shared that some days it took “an hour and a half” to get to campus. After working as a student employee in the Dean of Students office for three years, Jordyn decided in her senior year to apply for an RA position on campus. Ultimately, that RA position was her springboard into the profession of student affairs. From there, Jordyn stayed in-state for graduate school where she completed a degree in College Student Personnel from a public comprehensive regional institution. After attaining her graduate degree, Jordyn moved back to the city and worked for a year as a Resident Director before transitioning to a similar position at UM. Her broad range of institutional experiences as a young professional exposed Jordyn to a variety of free speech events. During her graduate program, Jordyn did take a course in higher education law, a class that she described as “incredibly impactful.” In working with other professionals at UM, she detailed how important that class was for her development noting, “some people get a legal class and some don’t, but I think that definitely shapes how you view experiences or how you approach different situations.” She believed that kind of course should be mandatory in a program, stating,
57
Big picture thinking is really important, so many people want to move up in the field of student affairs or higher education but don't always have the ability to think big picture about organizations. You want to be able to think big picture about how what we do impacts another area, or how what we do potentially challenges the landscape of higher education in general. And through that legal lens, you understand that things are a lot bigger than you. You also understand how to navigate certain spaces; that doesn't mean conform to it, but you have to learn how to navigate it. Because a big issue when you become a new professional is, you are now an employee of your institution—we're no longer student activists. Being a student activist is something that Jordyn was no stranger to personally. When she was in undergrad, she described herself as a “feisty Black feminist.” She recalled a time when she wanted to bring Elaine Brown, former Chair of the Black Panther Party, to campus for a lecture. However, another student who was a member of the campus-based College Republicans organization wrote to the Student Government Association to complain about Jordyn inviting this speaker to campus. Jordyn commented on the situation by saying, This student didn’t know anything about Elaine Brown, so I wrote out this entire long statement, and I took it to the Student Government Association, and I read it. We have to be open to hearing other perspectives, but also open to doing our own research and the fact is this person did not even do their own research. We're celebrating the fact that this woman at a time in the ‘70s was a leader and used her voice to advocate for her people. It was really important for me as a young Black woman. I don’t think he was prepared for me to advocate in such a forceful way in front of student government. Her undergraduate experience hosting Elaine Brown on campus and graduate coursework which included a class in legal issues prepared Jordyn to address issues of free speech on campus in a nuanced way as a young professional. She specifically recalled how her legal issues class wrestled with institutional context with respect to topics like: students displaying the confederate flag in a residence hall room, the protections given to student newspapers, and student organizations inviting controversial speakers to campus. Jordyn’s background equipped her to address a variety of events during her time at UM. Like Julio, Jordyn was not asked to attend the Yiannopoulos lecture but recalled talking with students and colleagues about the importance of allowing him on campus:
58
I deeply believe that free speech should be encouraged on college campuses, I do. I don't feel like growth comes without challenge, growth comes with struggle. I think it’s critical we reflect on where we actually stand and why we feel that way. If we are coming to college, and the whole goal is to encourage global citizenship, then that's the space to be able to do it. So when someone like Milo Yiannopoulos comes to campus, how does that make you feel? Why do you feel that way? There needs to be an opportunity to really be confronted with these difficult conversations; not a lot of people are confronted with difficult conversations in life, depending on the identities they have. So I think it's something that needs to be put at the forefront and I think higher education is the space to do that. If we're going to push critical thinking, what better way to make me critically think than having a human that fundamentally does not share my beliefs on campus? In talking about the uproar created on campus because of the lecture, Jordyn drew on her previous experience of being criticized for bringing Elaine Brown to her undergraduate institution; though their identities, beliefs, and perspectives were different, she saw parallels between the conservative ire toward Brown and the liberal frustration with Yiannopoulos. For Jordyn, the biggest free speech event she has engaged with in her time at UM was a campus march organized by the Concerned Black Students group. Julio’s narrative introduced important historical context for the march and some of the tension that was created for the residence life department; however, Jordyn was more directly engaged with the event as a Black female staff member supervising a queer Black graduate student at the time. She mentioned, At the time I vividly remember my Resident Assistants saying “We want to go. Can we go?” And I have my grad student at the time saying “I want to go. Why can’t I go?” People felt like they really need to be a part of this, which is totally understandable. My grad student he was struggling to figure out, “What do I do? Because I’m a student, but I’m also employed and highly compensated by the university in the form of tuition, room, and board.” I recall the Maya Angelou quote, “You don’t always remember what happened but you remember how it made you feel.” In this instance, I just remember feeling uncertain, but I was committed to doing the best for my students, both undergraduate and graduate. Ultimately, the undergraduate RAs were allowed to participate in the march if they chose, because they were not acting in their capacity as a Resident Assistant. For graduate students,
59
however, Jordyn shared the answer was more “murky” at the time. They were encouraged not to attend unless they were planning to serve in a student affairs capacity of ensuring the safety and security of the students participating. Similar to the narrative shared by Julio, Jordyn faced difficult conversations with her graduate student: The grads had to come face-to-face with having to really define their professional identity, outside of the classroom, outside of any philosophy statement, outside of any reflection paper, they had to really define their practice and how they were going to go about the work that they were going to do. What does it mean? Are you a student? Are you a professional? I think that was tough for them to deal with. And I think it's always going to be tough for folks, but there comes a time where you have to deal with that. I think people came with different experiences where some folks knew what it meant to have to make difficult decisions and ultimately to be like, “This is my check, I'm not going to mess up my check regardless of whatever perspective people had.” For Jordyn, she reconciled this notion of “not messing up my check” during her undergraduate years. As a first-generation college student, her family instilled a work ethic of not engaging in activities that could jeopardize flows of income; this principle informs how she moves through the field as a student affairs practitioner. She personally attended the march as a professional observer to make sure students were safe, but was also aware that being “a familiar Black face created a sense of solidarity for students too.” As a Black woman, she remembered feeling a sense of “pride” about the march. She recalled her residents and RA’s returning to the building “feeling empowered” and that “they felt a sense of community again around this shared space.” She said the following about how she felt in that moment: I was proud because so many people are always talking about the different generations and or the generations below them and how they don't add value to society. And it's so funny how every generation says that, right? But to see these Gen Z folks engaging in a way that they felt empowered to do so. I felt proud! Jordyn also revealed insights into how staff of color at UM viewed the march on campus. She described racial caucusing that occurred after department meetings or in private with other staff of color. During these caucuses, the faculty and staff of color would strategize about how to support students from the sidelines, being cognizant that they could not openly protest with the students. Additionally, during these caucuses, staff would share observations of how it was
60
frequently the white full-time staff members who were angry that they could not participate in the march. Similar to Julio’s observation that white folks have more cultural capital to speak out publicly, Jordyn expanded, It's so common for some white people, depending on your multiple identities, to feel empowered to speak, even when not spoken to. To feel emboldened to say things and to request things in a way that people of color don't because they see a different gravity of how this will affect them professionally, those types of things run through your mind. I think that depending on your multiple identities you really think about what is the risk versus the reward. Jordyn’s story above highlights the racialized conundrum that exercising free speech on campus can come at a great cost to staff of color, an experience that white professionals are often oblivious to because of their social location. Overall, Jordyn credited these experiences for honing her own language and philosophy in working with students during free speech events. It encouraged her “to want to always understand where the university is coming from; not in a way to just explain to the students, but more being able to provide broader perspectives.” Ultimately, student voice and student advocacy is something that excites Jordyn as a newer professional. She has aspirations of becoming a Dean of Students someday. She believes it is important that all newer professionals recognize that our job first and foremost is to “support all students and give them space to explore their beliefs and identities.” Jordyn offered the imagery of a bridge, that we as student affairs need to be comfortable with our “own stuff” so we can helpfully serve as support guides for students on campus: “Sometimes they are going to say things that really frustrate or offend you personally, you have to be able to take it, be comfortable with you, and keep it moving.” Rose (she/her) The final University of the Midwest participant was also in residence life, and like Julio, went to graduate school at UM and stayed at the institution following the completion of her master’s degree. Now in her third year as a full-time practitioner at Midwest, and fifth overall at UM, she followed a less traditional path into the field. Rose attended a tiny private liberal arts college for her undergraduate experience. The school was so small she estimated there were probably two people on campus working in student affairs and neither had a formal degree in the subject area. For Rose, one of the major selling points of the institution was their commitment to
61
community service. Because she had little familiarity with student affairs, and no formal mentors who could guide her, she was rejected from all five student affairs graduate programs that she applied to in her senior year. Rose always has a back-up plan though, and because she was really drawn to service, she was admitted into the AmeriCorps VISTA program (a national service program designed to support impoverished areas). Her VISTA placement was on the branch campus of a public university where she helped coordinate learning assistance programs and promote civic engagement in the community. It was there that a former graduate of the UM program supervised her, and with the additional two years of experience and mentorship, she was accepted into the student affairs graduate program at Midwest; the acceptance also included a graduate assistantship in the residence life department. For Rose, this was her first introduction to the functional area of residence life, as she shared “I only lived in a residence hall. I didn’t know what a program or collateral was. There was just a bunch of jargon that went over my head initially.” She learned a lot about herself during her graduate school experience and believed there was great opportunities for continued growth and development as a generalist through residence life which influenced her decision to stay at UM following degree completion. It was during her years at Midwest when she first became exposed to issues of free speech on campus. As she explained, “It was not something you would ever see at my teeny tiny college.” In her first year in graduate school, a student protest and hunger strike formed by Concerned Student 1950 took place at the University of Missouri. This protest and hunger strike garnered national headlines and placed a large spotlight on the issues of race and employment benefits at Mizzou. It also sparked solidarity protests on campuses across the country, including at Midwest. In a desire to show support for students of color on campus, Rose decided to attend the protest at UM which took place in the student center. She described, So there was an undergraduate student led protest of predominantly Black students. And so the request was for everyone to wear Black and show up in the student center to show solidarity for Mizzou. They intentionally picked a location in the building that was central and where the acoustics amplified any sound in the space. I remember there were some student speeches, and some chants, but I had never participated in anything like that before so I didn't know any of the chants so I was learning as we went along. But lots of members of my graduate cohort were there too so I felt like something we should be doing.
62
At the time, Rose was unaware that this protest in the student center would be a precursor of things to come; the “Midwest4Mizzou” protest took place two years before the formation of Concerned Black Students at UM. Following the protest, Rose recalled attending her graduate seminar where they debriefed the event and explored the underlying concerns shared by the undergraduate students. It was not until Rose transitioned into a full-time position at UM that she began to consider the impact that participation in those types of events could result in losing her job. When she transitioned into her role as a Resident Director in 2017, the national environment began to change quite a bit. She remembered there being a lot more conversations in staff and department meetings about “whether you would get fired or not if you participate, or what is appropriate or inappropriate as a staff member? Is my role to just support students?” Rose recalled a lot of role ambiguity in how she should proceed as a full-time professional. In particular, she shared this moment of frustration regarding mixed messages she was receiving from her Vice President for Student Affairs: My departmental Director made a great comment that “you know as a leader you have to decide, everything you do has a consequence, whether it's a good consequence or not, it has a consequence. It has an outcome, and you have to decide whether you're willing to accept the consequence.” I hold on to that because I think it speaks a lot of truths. But then the Vice President says we can go to protests, but only if we are there in a supportive role, but make sure it is clear that you are not participating. It honestly just became a lot of mixed messages. Rose clamored for clarity from her supervisors and the university as a whole. She expressed feeling comfortable if a consequence of participation was a written reprimanded, but that “I don't know where that line is, so I don't know if I'm risking my, you know, not just my job but my home.” In that same divisional meeting, Rose mentioned that she looked toward other colleagues in the room who had been at UM for several years. Specifically, she confided in someone who had been at Midwest for 12 years: I was really troubled that we were in this meeting talking about the first-year summer reading book that calls for people to fight for equity, yet at the same time we're being told we should steer clear from getting involved in campus protests. But as a second year full- time staff member, I didn’t feel like I could stand up and say anything to the Vice
63
President. I don't have the agency or the job protection. Then Sam said “I’ve worked here for 12 years. They're not going to fire me.” So he stood up and essentially shared my concerns, which I appreciated. Although Rose still was unsure about how she could best support students in free speech events as a new student affairs professional, she feels comfortable seeking clear and honest answers from leadership in her department. In some respects, these conversations crafted an operating foundation from which to work from when later that academic year, the campus-wide movement created by the Concerned Black Students group came to fruition. The previous narratives of Julio and Jordyn detailed events leading up to the CBS march across campus, as well as the protest itself; however, Rose was present for one of the earlier events produced by the group in the student center. As she explained, It was interesting to see the difference between the 2015 Mizzou protest as a student compared to the 2017 CBS protest as a staff member. Both took place in the same location in the student center, but the vibe felt different, there was definitely more anger in 2017. Back in 2015 there were no police officers present, not many staff members from student affairs standing around and monitoring, but I don’t think the students then were really pushing hard for change. But in 2017, there was a new university President and lots of racist episodes happening on campus, so I think the student leaders were smart in putting together a list of reasonable/actionable demands. Rose remembered having spirited conversations with students in the building who were annoyed that a protest was happening in the building while they tried to study for exams: So really if you look at every space in the student center it’s community—it's set up for community. It’s also the geographic center of campus, so of all the locations this is the place where stuff should happen. If you’re a student centered institution your student center should be used in that way. That doesn’t mean it's also not an academic space because it absolutely is, but I think demonstrations and student dissent are also academic. My response to students complaining was ‘yea it's a student center, it's not a library’. For Rose, as a white student affairs professional, she believes it is important to be present at those types of events as a sign of solidarity to students and colleagues. She shared, “I can’t imagine what it’s like as a person of color to walk around and always be in a sea of white people,
64
that must be incredibly challenging for a variety of reasons. Especially with the lack of representation on campus.” She stressed how vital she thought it was to show up and be present for students of color, to show that other people care about them and want to support them too. Although she was unsure how to best support students creating free speech events, she remained committed to showing up for the students. As she continued to navigate mixed messages from student affairs leadership, Rose was confident that her supervisors try their best to provide clear answers and historical context. Although she did not have the benefit of taking a legal class in graduate school, she was quick to point out that campus legal counsel, though conservative and risk adverse, are usually quite clear in their guidance of what you can and cannot do as a staff member. Frustratingly, for Rose, that answer is usually some variation of “no” or “don’t do it.” Though she often found herself not agreeing with the campus attorneys, she appreciated their direct and honest approach. These clear responses stand in contrast to the often muddled messages she received from student affairs leadership. Additionally, she appreciated that the Director of her department ensures that the entire office is one of the best trained functional areas on campus with respect to regulations around FERPA, Title IX, and free speech on campus. In reflecting on her experiences as both a graduate student and full-time staff member at UM, Rose offered thoughtful insights into what she believed her role should be in supporting campus free speech on a public campus. Specifically, she shared, I think what's hard about a public university is that public piece, and public is everything. And so I in no way believe the university should not allow street preachers or controversial speakers. Now, that doesn't mean I like them; I would like for that not to exist, but I think for a public university to remain public it needs to allow those things to happen. And that can be hard. Like most of the participants in this study, Rose has an unwavering commitment to supporting students when free speech events occur on campus. As she described, My job is to support students. If I know the street preachers who say awful things are coming to campus I'm on my GroupMe's letting people know, so they can let my students or colleagues know so they can avoid the area if they need to. I also have conversations with my RA’s about how are they feeling about an incident and allow them to ask
65
questions to see what information I can provide. Fundamentally I believe it's important to allow all sides to have a voice, like it hurts to say that, but I believe it—I just don't like it. Rose had a clear articulation of how public institutions play an important part in providing space for discussion and dissent. Because she remains committed to community service and civic engagement, she sees free speech as a crucial component of public higher education, even if she is personally uneasy with controversial speakers or street preachers. Like Julio and Jordyn, she believes residence life as a functional area, specifically at UM, has prepared her well as a student affairs practitioner to skillfully manage free speech events in the future. Although she recognizes that institutional context is incredibly important, Rose is glad she had the opportunity to attend and work at University of the Midwest because it exposed her broadly to the topic of free speech. City University (CU) Similar to the introductory context provided for University of the Midwest, this section serves as context for the final five participants employed by City University. In contrast to rural UM, City is the quintessential urban campus located in a metropolitan city in the Midwest region. The campus landscape stands as an architectural marvel, creatively cramming 62 buildings into one city block. With an undergraduate enrollment of 25,000 on its main campus, City is a large research-intensive institution. Comparable with their size, the Division of Student Affairs employs over 250 full-time and graduate staff across 22 departments. Unlike University of the Midwest, City does not offer a stand-alone graduate program in student affairs, or college student personnel; students have the option to enroll in a student affairs concentration within an educational studies program, but many of their graduate students are enrolled in a wide variety of post-baccalaureate programs. Similar to UM, the campus has experienced numerous events that would be classified as a free speech event in this study. Most notably, the campus was rocked following the shooting of an unarmed Black man by a campus police officer. In the aftermath of that event, students formed the pseudonymous group Mobilizing Black Anger (MBA) to address longstanding issues of racial injustice on campus. MBA figured prominently in the narratives shared below. Additionally, the campus was selected to be the site of a lecture by prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer; although the lecture was ultimately cancelled, the campus community had to confront what it meant to have that type of speaker on a public campus. More recently, the school was attempting to seek solutions around campus building names linked with former slaveholders associated with the university. Keeping this context in mind, let’s meet the
66
first CU participant: Derek, a Black student affairs professional who was in his first year as a part-time graduate student when the officer-involved shooting occurred at City University. Derek (he/him) As I introduce Derek, I again want to alert readers that certain passages in this narrative contain profanity. Similar to University of the Midwest participant Julio, Derek has worked predominantly in the functional area of residence life. As an undergraduate student, he attended a mid-sized public university located in the suburbs of a major city on the East coast. This geographic distinction is important with respect to residence life because the campus of 17,000 was comprised of mostly commuter students; as a result, the residence life program at his institution was significantly smaller in size and scope. Like many student affairs practitioners, Derek was actively involved in campus life serving as President of his National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) fraternity and was one of the few individuals selected to serve as a Resident Assistant. Unsure of what he wanted to do following graduation, Derek realized he was always passionate about education and went to work for a charter school system. After a few years of working in a K-8 environment as a paraprofessional, Derek sought opportunities to begin the transition into the field of higher education. Drawing on his experiences as a RA, combined with his interest in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Derek returned to the collegiate environment as a Resident Director at a HBCU. Although Derek loved his experience, in order to advance in the field, he needed to obtain a post-baccalaureate degree. That search ultimately led him to making a lateral move to City University where he would work as a graduate-level RD. Now in his fifth year at CU, two years of graduate school and three years working full-time in residence life, Derek’s narrative revealed some of the most tumultuous times in the history of City University. He recalled with great clarity the moment he heard about the officer-involved shooting during the summer between his first and second year of graduate school: I remember I was in the residence hall at the time when I received a campus security alert on my phone. I didn’t think much about it at the time because they’re a somewhat common occurrence being near downtown, but it did seem a bit unusual because it was the middle of the summer. Later that night I was watching the news and saw that it was a CU police officer who shot an unarmed Black man. In that moment I knew things were going to get real bad.
67
In the weeks following the incident, several prominent Black Lives Matter protests took place throughout the city, but because CU was in the middle of their summer term, not much formal activity took place on campus in that period of time. There were periods of time between the shooting and the fall semester that even the quiet summer campus was on edge. Derek remembered the campus closing on a couple of occasions out of concern for riots being spun up because of grand jury announcements. Ultimately, no protests or demonstrations materialized on campus, but the seeds of future discontent were sown. When the students returned for the fall semester, a collective of students quickly made their presence known and the Mobilizing Black Anger movement emerged. Derek shared some of his memories of those emerging days when MBA became known to the campus: It was the very first week of class, and you know our President at the time was well known for his social media presence, and so students took to Twitter and flooded his social media feed with hashtags about the incident and demanding answers from the administration. Initially no one knew who was behind the hashtags but then the next day the MBA rolled out a website and social media pages introducing themselves and bringing general awareness to racial injustices on campus. As word about which students were involved with MBA spread, Derek quickly learned that one of his RA’s was a founding member of the group. Though he was proud of how engaged his RA was in bringing attention to the issue, he felt conflicted in how to best support her cause moving forward: In the aftermath of the shooting, and in the early days of MBA, me and many of the other Black identified student affairs professionals across the institution ended up taking on the responsibility of supporting students and helping them process the frustration, the pain. We had to shoulder a lot of that emotional labor while also processing our own feelings too. So I personally was proud to learn that one of my RAs was fighting for a better future at CU, but I also had to make sure senior administrators didn’t think I was directly involved as an employee. His proximity to one of the leaders of the group gave Derek insider knowledge about what other things were planned. For example, he knew that the group would soon be issuing a list of 10 demands and would hold a weeklong demonstration in order to pressure the administration into action. As someone who had never experienced these types of events on campus at either his
68
undergraduate institution or working at an HBCU, Derek was impressed with how savvy the students were: Mobilizing Black Anger was very clever in how they utilized available tools to amplify their voice and generate support for their cause. They used Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, all of it; they held rallies and teach-in’s in public spots on campus and encouraged supporters to wear black to events in a sign of solidarity with the movement. I tried to stay on the sidelines, but as a Black man, it’s my life on the line too. Derek’s story highlights a tension that can exist for many student affairs professionals with respect to free speech events—reconciling personal impact and professional responsibility. As a Black professional on campus, Derek was committed to supporting his students (especially his RA), but on a personal level saw himself as part of the MBA movement too. Unfortunately, Derek did not feel support from his supervisor at the time, as he stated, I was wrestling with trying to find my own professional voice while all this crazy shit was going down. My supervisor at the time was nice but she was just another white woman who really couldn’t understand what was happening or how to best support me. Thankfully, there were a lot of other seasoned Black administrators on campus who I sought out and really provided me with great mentorship. One of the pieces of advice Derek received from these mentors was “keep your head down, because none of our jobs are guaranteed at the end of the day.” As a graduate student, relying on mentors was a crucial outlet for Derek to process the events unfolding on campus. As noted in the introduction to CU, the institution does not have a formal student affairs graduate program so the opportunities to process campus events in the classroom was lacking for Derek. In the spring of that academic year, Derek’s RA asked him to attend a forum hosted by MBA as an “ally” to the group. In that moment, Derek felt torn about what his role should be in this situation. As a supervisor, he wanted to support his RA, but he also hoped to make sure that other colleagues from student affairs would also be in attendance as an external cue that it would make sense for him to attend. When he arrived for the forum, he was pleasantly surprised by what he saw: I couldn’t believe how well organized it was. They invited all the senior administration to attend, and most of them did. They also provided opportunities for those in attendance to ask questions anonymously if folks worried about possible retaliation. I tell you, some of
69
the questions were tough, uncomfortable even, but none of them were a surprise. We know that so many of these institutions protect whiteness. For me though it was nice to just be in company with other professionals; not only were we supporting students, but it was therapeutic for us too. After completing his graduate program in general education studies, Derek made the intentional choice to stay on as a full-time professional in residence life at CU. As the weeks transitioned into months, and months turned into years, the campus climate around City began to change. The President left City for another appointment at a different institution. The MBA movement saw progress on behalf of the administration in accomplishing many of their stated demands. From Derek’s perspective, the institutional response to the incident was “neither awful nor great. They made some changes, but were able to skillfully coast by in other areas.” Another dimension to the student response that Derek was unprepared for was how the white students responded to MBA. He noted, You’ll always have people who have something to say, that’s just life in general. But all students, regardless of race, seemed to be aware that change was necessary. I think because the students in MBA used unconventional tactics in exercising their free speech powers, and were not unreasonable in their demands, they were respected by most segments of campus. Obviously the Black students rallied behind the cause, but any student willing to center Blackness and ask for administrative accountability was welcomed by the group. As he wrapped up his fifth year, Derek shared that he learned a lot about himself personally and professionally working at CU. He described himself as “cautiously hopeful” that City really was changing for the better. It would have been easy for Derek to leave after graduate school and find a full-time residence life job anywhere in the country, but he said the incident “strengthened his resolve to stick around and be part of the change.” One of the biggest challenges for any student- generated movement is sustainability; students naturally leave the collegiate environment with each passing commencement ceremony. That is why practitioners like Derek play an important role in advocating for equitable environments in the aftermath of free speech events; they serve as vessels of institutional memory that provide context to future generations of student advocates. As we wrapped up our time together, Derek imparted this observation that framed the free speech events at City within a broader historical view. He shared,
70
You know, colleges really have been a site for activism in promoting social change. Often the progress is uneven and sometimes you have to drag the administrators kicking and screaming into change, but it’s like King said, “The arc of moral justice is long but bends towards justice.” I like to think our field helps keep that arc bending in the right direction, and the right to free speech on campus has been key to that. Although contemporary notions of free speech in higher education often evoke politically conservative ideologies, Derek’s invocation of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. serves as a reminder that free speech events play an important role in social change movements historically. Aria (they/them) Unlike Derek who experienced the campus unrest as a graduate student, Aria joined the staff at CU the following year. Aria followed a unique path into the field of student affairs. As someone who is self-described as a “history nerd,” they completed a baccalaureate degree in History, as well as a certificate in LGBTQ+ studies, at a large public school on the East coast for undergraduate studies. During their undergraduate years, they were also actively involved in working with the Human Rights Campaign and even served as an intern for a United States Senator; Aria noted that this work in the political arena greatly influences their views on free speech, the First Amendment, and collective activism. Although they love politics, Aria attributed their own personal growth and development to student affairs practitioners who invested in their success. Aria then moved to the Midwest region where they were admitted into a prominent student affairs graduate program. Their graduate experience was truly transformational. Aria credited the program’s critical self-reflection for helping “dig up the shit you bury and deal with it.” After graduate school, Aria chose to stay in the same region and accepted their first full-time position working in multicultural affairs at City University. As a third-year professional at City, Aria has navigated several prominent free speech events with their students who are often the target of controversial speakers or demonstrations. It is also prudent to note that although Aria works in multicultural affairs, CU’s Division of Student Affairs also operates a Black cultural center on campus that is separate from the multicultural affairs office. As illustrated in Derek’s narrative, the entire campus and community went through a period of turmoil in the aftermath of the officer-involved shooting. When Aria became employed
71
by CU the following year, their office was tasked with developing ways to support students in the shadow of the ensuing judicial case. As they shared, So the trial began in the fall of my first semester. There was a lot happening on campus in anticipation of what the verdict would be. Mobilizing Black Anger really poured a lot of time and energy into pressuring the administration to change a lot of their long-standing policies and procedures. Our office was trying to prepare for a variety of outcomes, but we were genuinely concerned that there would be a riot on campus if the verdict was not guilty. But if I’m being completely transparent the institution did very little to prepare; a majority of the logistical and emotional labor really fell on the multicultural center and the Black cultural center. Thankfully the Directors of both offices had been at CU for twenty plus years so they brought in a lot of institutional history. For Aria, their first semester as a full-time professional saw them quickly thrust into the maelstrom of a campus crisis. They recall their office developing extensive plans for who should be in the office to support students if the verdict came out on a weekend, where they should be if a large-scale protest broke out, and how to best communicate with their student populations. During these planning sessions, Aria recalled this anecdote that shaped how they were preparing for a potential protest that could evolve into a riot: City University is interesting because CU is oftentimes a reflection of the larger metropolitan city it is situated in. Apparently there used to be a saying that if there was a race riot that was going to happen anywhere in the state it was going to start in our city, and that would ultimately trickle onto the City University campus. This framing illustrates how interwoven the campus and the city are with one another, and how complex it can become to manage free speech events in an urban setting. Ultimately, no riot occurred on campus after a mistrial was declared as the verdict in the case. Aria observed that after news of the mistrial broke, the student response was generally “flat.” The students, particularly the students of color, saw it as just “more of the same,” especially when placed in the larger national context of several prominent not guilty or mistrial verdicts for officer involved shootings of unarmed Black men. The incident also raised Aria’s awareness of their own positionality as an Asian staff member at CU, as they explained, As a newcomer, and also as a non-Black individual, my race put me in a really interesting position. As the only Asian in the entire Division of Student Affairs, I was very much
72
accepted by students and colleagues in affinity spaces as a person of color. However, it was also very evident that I was never going to fully be able relate to the Black community at CU—which is very powerful and a very strong force on campus. In going through this experience during their first year, Aria felt well equipped in their second year when rumors began to surface that a prominent white supremacist identified the CU campus as his preferred venue for a future lecture. Richard Spencer is an American neo-Nazi commonly recognized for his headlining speech at the white supremacist rally that took place in Charlottesville on the University of Virginia campus in 2017. Similar to the national campus tour that Yiannopoulos embarked on, Spencer attempted to speak at several public colleges during the 2017–2018 academic term citing free speech rights. City University was one of several institutions targeted by Spencer during this time period. Aria detailed the first time they heard about the potential lecture coming to CU: Like with all good things on campus, it started as a rumor. Which of course students always hear stuff before staff—I don't know how it happens that way. But a student came into my office furious that Richard Spencer was coming to campus. Not going to lie. I had no idea who he was so I had to Google it after that conversation. The student asked me if I thought that City would say okay to allowing him on campus. Because this was my first time hearing about it I said, “Let me talk to my boss and see if I can get more information.” It turned out the rumor was in fact true. City University, by virtue of their status as a public institution, felt compelled to allow the Spencer lecture to take place if all standard guidelines and policies were met. Even more troubling for Aria and their colleagues was that representatives for Spencer identified the student union as their preferred location for the talk. Although not located in the student center, the multicultural affairs office, LGBTQ+ center, and women’s center were adjacent to the college union and had large banks of windows facing the building. For Aria and their colleagues, concerns about student safety became their top priority. CU had just experienced a campus march months earlier that involved community members openly carrying guns through the campus to promote the Second Amendment. Faculty and staff became increasingly concerned that the location of the lecture, combined with the possibility that attendees may also carry guns, presented a safety concern for students who utilize the
73
multicultural affairs office because they are frequently the targets of Spencer’s vitriolic discourse. Unlike the officer-involved shooting incident, Aria noticed that City University’s institutional response was very different in this case. CU openly shared messages about their dual commitments to free speech and a culture of inclusion. As Aria explained, One of the major things the institution did was develop a video that stressed the message that City University is a community that loves and cherishes their diverse student populations. And they strategically picked faculty and staff for the video who work in the different areas of equity and inclusion on campus. It felt like one of the first times the institution was being proactive in espousing their commitment to diversity. That certainly didn’t happen back in my first year at City. Despite these efforts, Aria recounted several “heated conversations” with students who felt the university was simply “hiding behind free speech” in allowing Spencer to speak on campus. In their second year, Aria felt more equipped to have developmental conversations with students because they “developed more rapport with students by then.” They also felt the experiences in their first year navigating protest movements prepared them to create spaces that fostered honest conversations. In the end, Spencer did not visit CU because a common day could not be selected between the university and Spencer. Though the announcement was met with a tremendous sense of relief, some students still felt a sense of betrayal from their university. Aria recalled how the new President was transparent afterwards reiterating to the campus community that “although the incident tested their commitment to free speech, it prompted important conversations about the ways in which free speech and a commitment to equity and inclusion often intersect in higher education.” In reflecting on their role in helping support students navigate these challenging events, Aria described the time as one of tremendous “professional growth and clarity.” As they shared, Something I realized when I became a full-time professional was that my graduate program did a beautiful job in teaching me how to be really smart and developmental from a very textbook standpoint. If there's one thing I learned real quick it’s that you can’t throw the formal language of development theory at students, there’s a mismatch. I sometimes joke they don’t care where they are on some model. They just know that they're struggling or experiencing an inner conflict.
74
They also view functional areas like multicultural affairs as integral to helping students cope and process through free speech events. “Our work is highly nuanced,” explained Aria. According to them, “We’re not the counseling office, and we’re not the office of general counsel, but we are still the holders of all that student emotion.” They also acknowledged that there is perennial discussion at City about moving offices like multicultural affairs out of student affairs and into a broader area of diversity initiatives. However, as Aria mentioned, Student affairs professionals are front lines people. We’re the ones who remind students that they’re valued, they belong, that they're significant, and that their voices have the actual power to create change. You know institutions will oftentimes send out large emails after an incident saying like, “This is the time where we should all come together as a community.” And yes, that is true, but the reality is that student affairs practitioners provide the emotional labor that keep folks feeling like they are still a part of the community. When it comes to managing free speech events on campus, Aria believed that student affairs is integral in helping maintain campus community in times of tumult. Aria’s biggest factor in understanding campus events, and the underlying institutional context, was the relationships they cultivated with campus mentors. They had a close working relationship with the Vice President for Equity & Inclusion who was an alumna of City University. She provided Aria with valuable insights around navigating campus politics and how to move through the historically driven context of the institution. For Aria, this guidance was significant because with a large public institution like CU, “there’s so much red tape and so much gets lost in the sauce.” In addition to this Vice President, Aria leaned heavily on support from their supervisor who was the Director of the multicultural affairs office. As a supervisor, she modeled for Aria a style of open communication that facilitated a sense of trust and rapport in both interpersonal and group settings. Aria joked that year one was “super challenging” as they struggled with role negotiation in the transition from graduate school to full-time work; however, their supervisor always provided space for venting frustrations behind closed doors or making mistakes that would serve as learning opportunities. Aria credited these mentors for providing them the necessary foundation to become a better student affairs professional in addressing campus controversy.
75
Aria’s three years at CU provided them with invaluable experiences as a new professional. Their background in history allowed Aria to reflect on the significant role free speech plays with respect to social justice. They noted, “Many of our offices on campus wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for students using their voice to advocate for their needs.” In taking a broader institutional view, Aria shared, As much as it pains me to say it like I understand why City made many of the decisions they did, but I also understand why the students were upset. Do I disagree with their decisions? No. Do I wish I did? Sure. But I think there is profound beauty in supporting free speech in public higher education because it serves an important democratic social function. In working through these events on campus, Aria was able to reflect on how free speech impacted their work as a new student affairs practitioner. Ultimately, the experiences helped Aria develop a greater appreciation for the role of free speech in public higher education. Molly (she/her) Molly was one of the newest staff members in the Division of Student Affairs at CU. Though she recently finished her first year at City in the functional area of fraternity and sorority life, she is in her fifth year of professional work post-master’s degree. She completed her bachelor’s degree in English Education at a mid-sized public institution located near CU. Molly described herself as the classic “over-involved student leader” participating in student government, leadership societies, and her social sorority as an undergraduate student. These involvement experiences inspired Molly to join her national sorority headquarters after graduation as a leadership consultant. These positions are common among fraternity and sorority headquarter staffing models; national fraternal organizations frequently hire recent graduates to travel the country and visit various campuses as a liaison to support the mission of the national organization. After traveling to 34 college campuses in one year, Molly decided to take the plunge into student affairs and was admitted into a student affairs graduate program at a public institution located in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountain range. After graduation, Molly landed her first full-time student affairs position working with student organizations at a major state flagship school in the South. That following year Molly returned to work for her national sorority; this time, she developed leadership curriculums that would be implemented nationally by the organization. Although she loved the work, Molly realized she missed the energy and
76
impact she had working on a college campus and accepted the fraternity and sorority life position at City. Unlike the other participants from CU in this study, Molly was not around for the major free speech events over the last five years. However, in her previous work, she was confronted with these types of events, and her status as the newest CU staff member provided fresh insights regarding the campus environment in the years following the officer involved shooting, the MBA movement, and the attempted Richard Spencer lecture. Molly vividly recalled it was during her graduate school years that she started to become aware of student protests on college campuses nationwide. Although her graduate curriculum was counseling based, in a stroke of providential timing, she was enrolled in a higher education law class the year that the Board of Visitors at the University of Virginia attempted the forced resignation of President Teresa Sullivan. Molly’s instructor had the foresight to use the ensuring protests at UVA, a school located several hours away, as an opportunity to interrogate notions of free speech on campus. As Molly explained, It was really great timing because it provided a lot of opportunity to explore the topic as a case study evolving in real time. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni of UVA were outraged at the potential ouster and took to protesting on campus for weeks on end. So in class we discussed what rights students had during protests or sit-ins, and policies about where on campus they could occur—it was really informative. These conversations proved beneficial for Molly when she entered her first full-time position in student affairs working with student organizations. Although she was only there for a year, it happened to be the academic year that the campus revised their student handbook policies and established a free speech zone on campus. Because her position worked with registered student organizations, she had to become familiar with this new policy quickly in order to support student groups. She named one student in particular who was extremely vocal in his opposition to the establishment of a free speech zone: There was this one student, and I think he actually went on to study law, that was really angry about the decision. He was very passionate about free speech, wrote for the student newspaper, and even worked with FIRE [Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]. He thought the decision was unconstitutional and a violation of student rights. There were other groups that protested that year and didn’t think anything of it, but he was very vocal
77
and wrote to the President of the university. I just made sure that when I was working with student organizations that I made them aware of the policies and procedures. Molly recalled it being confusing to implement the policy at times because it was an open question whether the university was allowed to establish a free speech zone or not. Students were also confused because there was a lack of clarity about what the consequences would be if they protested outside of that established zone. Although no longer employed by that institution, Molly shared that “in 2019, the state legislature passed a bill that prohibited free speech zones on college campuses, so they had to rewrite the policy again in the last year.” In the few years between that position working with student organizations and her current role at City, Molly returned to work at the national headquarters for her sorority. Her time with this private organization revealed some of the more complicated and nuanced perspectives regarding the role of free speech in higher education: An issue that comes up all the time is when there is a Confederate flag hanging in a chapter house or outside a window. As someone who cares about the experience of my students, and understands history, I absolutely don’t think that is right, you can't have that hanging out your window. But then you have to get into the details of who does the house belong to? Is it just the headquarters or housing corporation that owns it? Is it on university property? The school has more tools available to have it taken down if the house is university owned. But we would field phone calls occasionally at headquarters regarding confederate flags or inappropriate banner signs hanging off of houses. According to Molly, within the functional area of fraternity and sorority life, there are a variety of stakeholders who can have at times have divergent interests. The student affairs professionals who work on campus typically have student development as their primary concern. For national headquarters staff, concerns about image and public relations are usually at the forefront. As Molly explained, Our national sorority has chapters all over the country, from Cornell up north to Alabama in the South. We have wealthy alumnae that are influential in the governance of the organization so we can’t afford to ruffle any feathers or piss anyone off. So if a sister on campus tweets something controversial, or wants to hang a political sign in their window, it is less about what might be best for an individual student and their development and more about how to do damage control while appealing to a broad constituency.
78
Everything is about PR and how it makes the organization look nationally. Whereas at a public institution, the job is to encourage student growth and engage in restorative practices or developmental conversations when necessary. Molly emphasized that the concern around public relations is understandable since no headquarters wants to be the next Sigma Alpha Epsilon, a reference to the University of Oklahoma incident involving racist chants back in 2015. The ability to work with students individually on campus and see their growth is what prompted Molly to transition into her current student affairs position at City University. In her year at CU, Molly had not seen free speech events of the size and scope as participants like Derek and Aria; however, she still had encountered free speech events in a more localized way working in the fraternity and sorority life office. In a recent incident, people overheard members of a local fraternity at a local restaurant joking about sexual assault and interpersonal violence— a vexing issue plaguing college campuses. Molly made meaning of the incidents by saying, Almost instantly news about what the fraternity men said spread over social media quickly. We started to receive phone calls from concerned parents asking, “My son is attending CU next year. Should he avoid that chapter?” We also had sorority women share their discomfort with the situation. Being in fraternity and sorority life, we have numerous options available for individual and organizational accountability. Ultimately our office, in consultation with the chapter and the governing council, met with the students and the issue was handled internally. So much of what we try and teach our student leaders when they are on campus is that their words and actions have consequences. You can certainly enact your own free speech, but you have to recognize that you also represent your organization and there are consequences for those words. This story illustrates the balancing act student affairs practitioners face in managing even small scale free speech events on campus. As a result of the social media uproar, Molly and her office found themselves having to work with the students involved in the incident, the Interfraternity Council, the national headquarters of that chapter, concerned sorority leaders, apprehensive parents/families, and the campus community as a whole. Molly credited her counseling degree, along with her previous experience working with headquarters staff, as important components in recognizing how to manage the situation.
79
As someone new to City, Molly spoke to how CU broadly, and the Division of Student Affairs specifically, applied lessons learned from MBA and how new full-time staff are socialized into the organizational environment. In reflecting on what she heard about those incidents, Molly shared, Honestly, I am aware that they happened, but people really don’t talk too much about it. It’s also complicated because our whole office is entirely new and we’re not located in the core of campus with the other divisional offices. That’s the interesting thing about City. Half the staff turn over every two years, and the other half got their undergrad degree here and have never left. So we lean heavily on the Assistant VP and the Director of student activities to provide that necessary context because they were here during those years. Even among the students, Molly observed a loss of institutional memory surrounding the incidents over the previous five years. She commented, “Students on campus are generally aware of the officer-involved shooting incident, but those involved with MBA have graduated and moved on; at some point the student energy is different because they have no direct connection to the past.” This observation confirms a trend noticed by Aria (another participant) that by their third year working at CU students were becoming more removed from events of the past as a function of temporal proximity. Additionally, because Molly worked for her sorority headquarters during the 2016 U.S. General Election, she was acutely aware of how issues of free speech sparked controversy on college campuses nationwide. As of the conclusion of her first year, City had not offered staff in the Division of Student Affairs any training or professional development opportunities to prepare for the upcoming 2020 election season. Molly suggested that, especially with so many new staff members, “the Division should really offer some type of training to equip us with the historical context of the student environment we’re working in.” She even honestly admitted that although she was familiar with the free speech policies from her first student affairs position working with student organization, she was unsure what the policies were at City. In reflecting on her role as a student affairs practitioner in managing free speech events on campus, Molly offered, College campuses truly are a microcosm of society. It’s a place where we let students try a lot of things and prepare them for the world after. College is such a mesh of ideas
80
where people from all different walks of life come together and try to wrestle with big ideas. To a degree I think it's important for students to be exposed to things that make them uncomfortable and we support them in figuring out how to respond to that discomfort. Instead of calling it a safe space, I think we in student affairs provide a ‘productive learning environment’. So in that sense we play an important role in protecting free speech on campus. Overall, Molly indicated she felt prepared if another major free speech event were to occur at City again in the near future, especially in the area of supporting students. Like nearly every participant in the study, she too anticipates a surge of issues around free speech on campus in the run up to the 2020 U.S. General Election. In our final follow-up, she pointed to the ongoing national protests around the COVID-19 global pandemic as a possible prelude of things to come in the fall semester. Much like Molly’s area of fraternity and sorority life, student conduct also requires a high degree of familiarity with laws, policies, and regulations. In order to include the perspective of this functional area in the study, I next spoke with Aaron who served as an Assistant Director in the judicial office. Aaron (he/him) Now in his second year at City, Aaron’s journey into the field began at a large state school in the middle of the country. Similar to Molly, Aaron was actively involved in campus life as an undergraduate student and always loved the energy of a college campus. When he transitioned into a graduate program in student affairs down South, he kept an open mind about what functional areas he wanted to pursue in his career. As a former Resident Assistant, Aaron was already familiar with residence life but was also passionate about creating inclusive environments that promoted student involvement. He used his time in graduate school to explore the areas of multicultural affairs and LGBTQ+ services. Though these experiences were personally fulfilling for Aaron, he missed the “team environment” created in residential communities and took a Resident Director position following graduate school. It was during this first full-time residence life position that managing conduct cases became part of his job responsibilities. He joked that, “Conduct is something that a lot of student affairs folks try to run away from, but I think there is such a powerful restorative piece to it that I personally find fulfilling.” After two years of living in a residence hall full-time, Aaron was eager to move off
81
campus for his next position. Ultimately, that job search led him to City where he is one of three full-time staff in the conduct office. Nearly every participant in the study referenced the ubiquitous “street preacher” phenomenon that is common on public campuses across the country. Frequently associated in popular culture with the Westboro Baptist Church, these preachers travel across the country (usually armed with large colorful signs) looking to stir up controversy at every campus they visit. Aaron recalled the stress one of these street preacher events caused him during his time in graduate school: At the time I was working in the LGBTQ+ Center on campus and a student ran into the office frantic because there was a preacher in the plaza with an eight-foot-tall sign that listed everyone who was going to hell for their sins—which was pretty much everyone. I really didn’t think much about it at first since they show up 2–3 times a semester and spew their hate, but the student wanted to know if we were going to call campus police and force them to leave. I remember in that moment having to share with them that while their words and signs were awful, we can’t force them to leave unless they break a university policy. In that moment, Aaron realized there were three things he had to do simultaneously: support the student who was upset about the preachers, let others know to avoid that part of campus for the day if they did not want to see it, and provide guidance to other students who wanted to stage their own demonstration of love and equality next to the preachers. For those who have never seen the swarm of humanity that frequently accompanies street preacher visits, Aaron described it this way: I think of it almost like a hurricane. It’s usually two or three older gentleman who come armed with megaphones and huge billboard size signs. If they let the campus know they are coming ahead of time they usually put up metal barricades to keep everyone separated. So you have the preachers in the center, a fenced circle around them, and hundreds of students surrounding the fence. Usually the students will try to start chants or drown out the sound of the preachers’ megaphone. It can all seem pretty chaotic if you’ve never seen it before.
82
Aaron could tell that this was the first time that this particular student had been confronted with this type of imagery before, and although he couldn’t ask the preachers to leave campus, Aaron provided space for the student to process what they saw: It was actually a great conversation because the student, he was a first-year, thought the university endorsed those messages of hate. We had a pretty long conversation about how public colleges are different from private ones, and how we have to allow them to speak on campus so long as they abide by campus policies. It also served as an opportunity to talk about services that our office offers, and how we do pride marches or visibility events to counterprogram hateful messages. Similar to Aria, Aaron referred to himself as someone who enjoys history and has a bit of an “activist streak” himself. He attributed a lot of his understanding about free speech on campus to reading history and staying engaged politically. Working in residence life full-time after graduate school, Aaron gained exposure to what he described as “low-level garden variety” free speech issues. Being in the South, “the confederate flag was always an issue,” along with “the occasional profanity or slur written on a white board attached to someone’s door.” Aaron discovered that when he had conduct follow- ups with students about these types of issues, they were quick to point to free speech as the reason they should not be in trouble. Emphasizing this point, Aaron stated, They would often come in defensive, but my approach was to learn more about the students and understand where they were coming from. They felt like the university would ‘hide behind’ statements of diversity and anti-discrimination as a way to get them in trouble. I would engage them in conversations about what it meant to live in a learning community and how their actions, even free speech actions, can have consequences. I truly think some of them understood the point which to me feels like a win. The scenario described above by Aaron is not an uncommon experience for professionals in residence life. They are frequently confronted with thorny issues that, although localized in nature, require a strong understanding of university policies in order to artfully engage in developmental conversations with students. Further, this situation highlights how notions of free speech on campus can be challenged in smaller interpersonal settings. When Aaron took the job at City doing conduct, he quickly learned that his role in working with students looked vastly different when compared to his residence life experience.
83
“The essence would be the same,” he explained, “but now I had no pre-established relationship with the students coming in for a judicial hearing because we don’t live in a residence hall together.” His role in campus protests functioned differently too: In residence life if there was some type of protest or demonstration on campus we would frequently be asked by the leadership team in student affairs to be present on the sidelines so students could perhaps see a familiar face. That looks completely different now in student conduct because we potentially have to hear judicial cases that come out of a protest situation if things go sideways. This notion of being a face for the students has been a theme woven through several of the narratives in this study; however, Aaron’s position in conduct revealed that his future involvement in student code of conduct adjudication precluded his attendance at major free speech events at CU. During his first year at City, Aaron recalled an event that from his perspective “combined both the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution.” He described a time in the spring semester of that year receiving an email from the Vice President of Student Affairs indicating that an announcement was forthcoming about an open carry march that would take place on campus sometime the following week. An open carry march involves a group of people moving through a college campus with long guns and other firearms. The patchwork of state laws that clarify who can carry firearms, and where, varies by state and municipality. In this case, because City University is in a state that permits open carry, Second Amendment enthusiasts view these regulations as an opportunity to exercise their First Amendment right to march through any public university brandishing their weaponry. Since this was not the first time the group has been on the City campus, the university has established a protocol for how to notify the campus about the impending event. As Aaron explained, Apparently this isn’t the first time they’ve been on campus, so the President typically sends out an e-mail to the campus community about the march, when it will take place, and what their intended route is. They usually post a couple of university police officers with the group too because the biggest fear is the incitement of panic if a member of the campus community sees a group with guns on campus and is unaware of the march. I remember staff in the areas of residence life, multicultural affairs, and the Black cultural center were particularly concerned about student safety because guns are terrifying to so
84
many people—especially with the bloody history of school shootings in the United States. With memories of the officer-involved shooting still fresh in the minds of many faculty, staff, and students, Aaron could sense an event like the open carry march put many of his student affairs colleagues on edge. He noted that “so many communities deal with the impact of gun violence and to see a group marching through your campus with guns, that has to be challenging.” Ultimately, only a handful of non-campus affiliated individuals attended the march through campus. Many simply chose to avoid the route out of an abundance of caution for their own safety. Because Aaron never experienced this type of demonstration on campus, he appreciated the clear communication from university leaders and the established protocol for how to manage the event. Aaron described his work in conduct as “both fun and challenging.” He saw his role as a balance between advancing student development and ensuring student safety across the CU community. He also viewed himself as a potential partner to students and colleagues alike because his position requires intimate knowledge of the law as well as university policies and procedures. As he mentioned, “When you read a student handbook outlining policies it can be dense and confusing. I like to think I can help bring those policies to life!” He did acknowledge that although his office is responsible for the enforcement of the student code of conduct, they offer annual trainings for their partners in the Division of Student Affairs to discuss relevant policies and considerations when working with student activists. The general approach is “if your students are going to protest, we’d rather our colleagues be equipped with the knowledge to set their students up for success by making sure everyone knows the rules and regulations.” Aaron’s willingness to engage campus partners and students helped soften the adversarial image that can be associated with a campus conduct office. His narrative demonstrates that practitioners in conduct can play a developmental role working with students before and after a free speech event on campus. Destiny (she/her) The final participant from City University is Destiny, an energetic young professional with a fierce passion for diversity and equity. A self-described Black feminist, Destiny is in her second year as an advisor at CU. During her undergraduate years at a mid-sized public university in the Great Lakes region, she was actively involved with groups that advocated for equity and
85
inclusion on campus. In addition to serving as a Resident Assistant, Destiny served in leadership roles for student organizations that “centered Blackness and were not afraid of bold leadership from women.” Additionally, she commented, “If there was going to be a protest or demonstration on campus, I was likely going to be there.” Like Rose from University of the Midwest, she took a gap year following graduation and worked as an AmeriCorps VISTA. After some reflection and pressuring from student affairs mentors at her undergraduate institution, Destiny decided to enroll in a student affairs master’s program. One of the major selling points of her graduate program was their focus on social justice and commitment to diversity. She joked that “the only reason I plan on staying in higher education, or student affairs, is because I know college is one of the best places to imagine future possibilities; lord knows I’d be paid better in the private sector.” This clarity of purpose led Destiny to engage in an intentional job search following graduate school that ultimately resulted in her accepting a position at City working to enhance diversity and inclusion efforts at the university. Wanting to learn more about her previous experiences with free speech events, we spent some time exploring her comment about always being present for protests or demonstrations. One of the first confrontational issues she recalled was a display on campus called “the cemetery of the innocents” set up by the pro-life student organization. As Destiny explained, I remember I was on my way to class and there out in the middle of the quad were all these miniature crosses lined up in neat rows. As I got closer I saw a sign that read something along the lines that every cross represented 10 lives lost to an abortion that year. Now, as someone who is vocally pro-choice, I wanted to make sure women on campus who may have had an abortion are not silenced or shamed. So I went back to my women’s empowerment student group and we organized a panel in just three days as counter-programming. These anti-abortion displays, organized by local campus-based groups, receive significant coordination and support from the national Students for Life organization. Designed to evoke a visceral reaction, this specific display has stirred controversy on several campuses nationwide. Destiny, however, channeled her frustration with the display into a successful program that ultimately had 150 people attend. That following year, in response to a series of high profile Title IX (sexual assault) incidents that some perceived to be mishandled by the university, Destiny and some members of
86
her organization planned a protest. As she described, this protest borrowed from the anti-abortion display playbook: I remember we were so sick and tired of women coming forward to campus administrators with their heart-wrenching stories only for nothing to happen to the perpetrators. You have to remember this was before the #MeToo movement took place. So we were able to rustle-up some old mattresses and we placed them in the quad; each mattress represented an unresolved sexual assault case at the university. There were 12 in total. Needless to say that got quite a lot of attention on campus, but we wanted to lend our voice to those who had been silenced. Being an activist, Destiny described how she became intimately familiar with the policies of her institution and developed a good working relationship with the professionals in the student activities office. “Although they never encouraged me to protest,” she said, “they always made sure to provide me with all the information I needed to make safe decisions that didn’t violate university policies.” When Destiny transitioned on to graduate school at a new institution, she further refined how she thought about the role of free speech with respect to activism. Because of the graduate program’s curricular focus on social justice through student affairs, she began to think more deeply about the role of administrators as institutional scaffolds. She shared this imagery about how she thinks about the role of student affairs in supporting student activists: Think of it like an iceberg. At the top you have the visible part, and that usually gets all the attention because it’s the thing you see. But the reality is that iceberg is so much bigger below the water and that’s where the support is. When I think about student affairs and how we support students it’s that invisible labor—the part of the iceberg under the water. And it’s more than just public displays of support. It’s checking on a student’s mental, physical, and spiritual well-being. Fighting every day for equity is emotionally taxing for students because they have so many other things going on; that’s where student affairs has to step up to the plate and care for the whole student. Destiny credited her graduate program for instilling in her a professional sense of “how to do right by students.” Even though her program did not include a traditional class in legal issues, she pointed to courses in history of higher education and intersectional approaches to race, gender, and sexuality to be useful in how she thought about free speech on campus.
87
When Destiny came to City, she was aware that positions like hers were created partially in response to the MBA movement. During her on-campus interview process, she saw how open and transparent everyone was about the contemporary, as well as historic, tensions about race on CU’s campus. This transparency is what sold her on taking this position as her first out of graduate school. Serving as a full-time employee on a college campus, Destiny saw parts of herself represented in the vocal student activists with whom she interacted: Gone are the days where I can take the lead on behalf of the students and pressure the administration to change because I am now part of the ‘administration’ so to speak. But when I work with students, I can guide them in directions where I think they can leverage their student voice from a position of strength. Students are not always going to know the right way to engage on an issue, but I know how to play the politics so I can recommend who might be key stakeholders to talk to—or who to avoid. Destiny spoke at length about this concept of political capital on campus, the notion that different individuals on campus hold varying levels of power to enact real change. “I keep it real with students,” Destiny shared, “I tell them the things that are realistic within the realm of my job, but also the things that are way above my pay grade.” One of the biggest challenges she viewed at CU is that as an institution, City staff are either “here for 2 years and gone, or they are here for 20, there’s very little in-between.” She noted how that lack of longevity makes it challenging to create sustained collaborative efforts to enact change, especially when those who have political power are the ones who have been there for 20 years. Recently, Destiny encountered a free speech event on the City campus that was reminiscent of her experience at her undergraduate institution when she encountered the cemetery of the innocents display, only this was more jarring. On her way to lunch in the student center, she traversed through the major plaza on campus which serves as a primary thoroughfare for pedestrian traffic. As she approached the building, she noticed a larger than usual crowd assembled on the plaza. When she got closer to the scene, she saw a series of 10 large display boards that showed graphic images of fetuses following an abortion. Destiny quickly realized the students surrounding the display were furious with the images. She stated the following: I have to tell you, it was one of the most upsetting things I’ve seen in my time on a college campus. This was worse than the crosses in the ground because the images were just so graphic. Again, they go for shock value with displays like this. Even worse is they
88
were set up outside the building with the Women’s Center that has all glass windows facing the plaza. Obviously I know they have a right to be there, but that didn’t make me any less pissed. I decided to skip lunch that day and offer support to students in the Women’s Center. As seen in Destiny’s story, along with Aaron and Aria’s, it is again the functional areas of multicultural affairs, diversity initiatives, LGBTQ+ centers, and women’s centers that commonly carry the weight of emotional support when free speech events become hateful or graphic. Being a Black feminist, Destiny described this emotional toll by sharing, I’m a Black woman with a lot of opinions, and I know society out there views that as dangerous. My Black brothers and sisters, we struggle with this racist society. Women, but especially Black women, are told what they can or can’t do with their bodies. So yeah, it’s personally exhausting to see displays like that, even if they are allowed to be on campus. But I know as a professional, I need to also be able to go support students impacted by that speech too. They aren’t some liberal snowflakes trying to hide in a safe space. Deep down, we are all people with feelings. Her salient identities as a Black woman sensitizes Destiny to the emotional impact of these events. One of the best parts about her job at CU was that she is supervised by a Black woman whom she described as “seeing it all” during her 22-year career at City. She relied on her supervisor to provide institutional context. Apparently, her supervisor had a saying that “you can thrive in the garden when you know where the snakes are.” This expression connotes an organizational notion that employees can be successful if they can navigate politically perilous situations. In the aftermath of the MBA movement, there was a renewed commitment on campus to tackle long-term systemic issues that operated for years below the surface. As she wrapped up her second year at City, I asked Destiny what was one of the biggest differences she noticed between graduate school and full-time employment. She responded, No textbook or any level of dialogue can prepare you for negotiating and thinking through complex free speech events. Everyone will have a different positionality or role to play in the situation, and I think it will look different campus to campus. There is no one size fits all solution. It really requires knowing your stuff, being flexible, and adapting quickly because sometimes the situations evolve quickly.
89
This idea of contextualizing is important to keep in mind when analyzing any free speech event on a college campus. Because of Destiny’s previous experience as a student activist, she brought a unique perspective when viewing protests or demonstrations on campus. Although she had no problem with conservative causes espousing their beliefs on a public campus, she encouraged students to offer alternative perspectives and programs to serve as a counterweight. Overall, Destiny was cautiously optimistic about the future of diversity and equity initiatives on campus. Although it is impossible to change the past, she felt like the campus was committed to turning the page and move toward a more equitable future. Narrative Themes The stories shared above represent a variety of lived experiences with free speech events encountered by new student affairs professionals. This portion of the chapter will explicate significant themes that were present in their narratives that answer the research questions posed in this study. Utilizing analysis procedures consistent with narrative inquiry detailed in Chapter Three, these themes pull together concepts across participants and represent the major findings that emerged from analyzing the data. In total, there are five themes that inform how student affairs professionals make sense of free speech events at public institutions: 1) Pathways into the profession, 2) Identity salience, 3) Context, 4) Supervision and mentorship, as well as the 5) Role of higher education and student affairs. Within each sub-section, I reference examples from the participants’ narratives above in order to provide clarity to the thematic concept. Additionally, it is important to note that the order in which the themes are presented below do not imply degrees of importance or relevancy; each concept appeared consistently across the data and should be viewed holistically. Pathways into the Profession Each participant in this study had their own unique path into the profession of student affairs that frequently began during their undergraduate years. Participants like Jennifer and Jordyn attended private institutions for their undergraduate experience and reflected on how private institutions operate differently than public ones. Practitioners such as Rose and Destiny took a gap year between their undergraduate and graduate programs to participate in the AmeriCorps VISTA program, and Derek worked as a full-time Resident Director at a HBCU before entering into a master’s program. This theme acknowledges that the professional pathway
90
each student affairs practitioner traveled influences how they comprehend and experience free speech events on campus. Undergraduate Experiences Several of the participants mentioned their undergraduate experiences as a crucial factor that informed their understanding of free speech events as a professional. Jordyn, Aria, Aaron, and Destiny all referenced experiences during their undergraduate years where they either participated in campus protests or played a leadership role in bringing a speaker to campus that some would consider controversial. This involvement is exemplified by Destiny when she noted, “I was a bit of an activist in undergrad so it definitely shapes how I think about it.” Destiny expanded upon this point when she said the following about seeing demonstrations or displays popped up on City’s campus: “It takes me back to my days as an undergraduate student.” If participants were able to engage in free speech work as undergraduate students, they were able to apply lessons learned from these experiences as new professionals. Jordyn’s experience receiving pushback from Associated Student Government when she wanted to bring Elaine Brown to campus for a lecture is another exemplar in this instance. That experience sharpened her awareness to the institutional forces that may be resistant to controversial lectures. This type of retrospection demonstrates one way that student affairs practitioners make sense of free speech events when they occur on campus. Being an activist, however, is not the only meaningful undergraduate experience. Jennifer referenced attending a private religiously-affiliated institution as shaping her thinking about free speech events. Specifically, Jennifer recalled being “surprised” when she started working at the University of the Midwest about how willing administrators were to work with the students seeking to protest; this was a stark departure from her undergraduate experience at a private school. For Jennifer, her undergraduate experience led to her narrow view of how student affairs professionals should interact with students, which was then expanded during her time at UM. Additionally, Jennifer credited her proximity to the District of Columbia as an influence that exposed her to a variety of protests and demonstrations sharing, “Even though I never participated as a student, it was something that was pretty hard to avoid. If there was something happening nationally, there would be some sort of protest.” Additionally, participants like Jordyn credited their undergraduate experience for sparking their interest in student affairs:
91
I really attribute my entry into the field to those formative years working in the Dean of Students office. I had people who mentored me and showed me the way which is why I want to becoming a Dean someday. It really just started off as a job to pay some bills, I never could have imagined that it would turn out to be the beginning of my actual career. Watching her Dean of Students office manage a variety of student crises was influential in shaping how she would make sense of future events as a professional staff member. Collectively, the unprompted connections to undergraduate experiences suggests that a professional’s exposure to free speech events during that stage of their academic journey plays a role in how they make sense of events today. Graduate Experiences One of the key factors that shaped how new student affairs professionals made sense of free speech events involved their graduate curriculum. Diversity in the types of graduate programs offered across the country, combined with a broad interpretation on behalf of universities about what type post-baccalaureate degrees are acceptable for full-time professional employment in student affairs, creates a less than standardized graduate experience among many new student affairs practitioners. Participants like Jennifer, Emma, and Molly attended graduate programs that were more counseling-based in nature; others like Julio, Jordyn, Rose, Aria, Aaron, and Destiny attended student affairs/college student personnel programs. Derek’s experience provides interesting insight because he worked as a full-time professional at a HBCU before starting a non-student affairs program working at City. Recognizing that a post-baccalaureate degree of any kind was essential for career mobility, he enrolled in an educational studies program to attain his master’s degree. Looking back on that experience, Derek lamented, I think one of the major pieces I missed out on was having the opportunity to talk about these experiences in the classroom during graduate school. My program had folks who were superintendents, K-12 teachers, and those in the non-profit sector so we talked about education theory broadly. I was hoping we would talk about what happened on campus but it just never happened. The lack of curricular engagement in graduate school forced Derek to seek out other venues for processing and mentorship.
92
Even within student affairs programs, the curricular offerings varied by institution. For example, Jordyn and Aaron both had a class in higher education law that they found to be invaluable in their work as a student affairs professional whereas Julio, Rose, Aria, and Destiny did not have a law class offered as part of their student affairs preparation program. Emma even frustratingly recalled the following: It was actually during my cohort that they took the higher ed law course out of the counseling curriculum. And then after everything that happened on campus, and in the country that year, they brought the course back because the faculty realized they couldn’t send us out into the profession without some type of legal coursework. Emma expressed her belief that a higher education law course would have provided her with more knowledge about how to approach free speech events. Although her cohort missed out on the opportunity to take such a class, Emma did share that one of her greatest learning opportunities in graduate school was when the Vice President for Student Affairs taught her practicum class. That course was particularly valuable because the Vice President used issues like campus demonstrations as opportunities to discuss how senior administrators think through and address those topics. Emma’s example mimics the experience Molly had in graduate school when her faculty member used the presidential crisis at the University of Virginia as an opportunity to explore the legal responsibilities at public universities, which in turn prompted Molly to reflect on her role as a student affairs professional. Julio, however, provided a counter-perspective regarding the utility of a legal class specifically. He offered, I don’t think I missed out too much not taking a course in higher ed law. The most valuable thing my graduate program taught me was how to think critically and how to find the answer to a question. There’s no way we can be experts in this without attending law school, so I think I would rely on supervisors first to provide guidance in how to handle a situation. In this excerpt, Julio described how his graduate preparation program instilled in him the skills necessary to critically analyze issues like attending to free speech events, even if his courses did not directly address the topic of free speech. Similar to undergraduate sub-theme, some participants engaged in non-curricular activities that shaped their understanding of free speech on campus during graduate school.
93
Participants such as Emma, Rose, Derek, Aria, and Aaron all experienced free speech events through the course of their work at graduate assistantship sites. Emma’s experience in the college union during graduate school was particularly relevant to her current role. She shared that it was during her assistantship when she realized, “The student center is, in its purest sense, the hub of student life and the living room for students.” This meant that her role as an administrator in that kind of space was, To encourage students to explore their ideas and that could be challenging them whether it be politically or socially. I think if we're creating spaces that are supposed to encourage conversation, then I want them to have that in a student center and I want them to feel supported. Going through this type of experience as a graduate student prepared Emma to address similar issues when she started at Midwest. Similarly, Aarons work supporting students in the LGBTQ+ center, and Derek’s experience with the officer-involved shooting at City were impactful moments that shape their current professional practice. Overall, this theme highlights that new student affairs professionals bring a variety of undergraduate and graduate experiences to a full-time position, and those backgrounds inherently shape and influence how they make sense of free speech events on campus. As a result of these professional pathways, participants like Jordyn, Aria, Aaron and Destiny each expressed a high level of comfort in supporting these events because of their previous involvement as undergraduate students. Ultimately, there is no linear path into the profession of student affairs, and it is crucial to recognize that these multiple routes create varying degrees of comfort and familiarity with managing or supporting free speech events on campus. Identity Salience When asked about what coursework or training would have been beneficial in managing free speech events, one particular quote from Jennifer stood out from the rest: “Intersectionality would have been helpful!” Intersectionality, a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), raises collective awareness about how systems of power and oppression overlap to disproportionately marginalize those with multiple minoritized identities. As a framework, intersectionality brings to mind how structures of inequality impact people differentially based on their social location. Though Jennifer mentioned intersectionality to signal notions of identity, it is crucial to understand that this framework is intended to get at more macro-level issues.
94
Nevertheless, in this instance, it is valuable to highlight that Jennifer inferred that it would have been beneficial to learn more about inequities related to matters of social identities (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, etc.) and inequities in her graduate preparation program. Keeping notions of identity and power in mind, this theme acknowledges that the social identities new student affairs professionals hold play an important part in how they understand and make sense of free speech events on campus. For some participants, the role of race was omnipresent in their experience. However, every participant in this study ascribed multiple social identities as informing how they comprehended free speech events. This theme explores how salient identities, and how they positioned professionals differently along axes of power and oppression, contribute to an understanding of this topic. Race/Ethnicity A particular strength of this study is the racial composition of the participant pool as a whole. Jordyn, Derek, and Destiny all identified as Black, with Jordyn also identifying as Black Central American. Julio identified as Latinx/Mexican-American and Aria identified as Asian- American. The other five participants all identified as white. In reflecting on campus incidents that involved race, such as the officer-involved shooting at City University, Derek made the explicit connection that “It’s my life on the line too.” Concerned about his own safety on campus, Derek’s identity as a Black man made the event proximal to his lived experience and how he encounters racism; as a result, Derek viewed the activities of Mobilizing Black Anger as urgent. Similarly, Jordyn echoed these sentiments when she talked about witnessing the march around campus: As a professional I essentially felt neutral about it, I’m not paid to take a side one way or another. But personally, wow, I can’t tell you the sense of pride I felt as a Black woman seeing students from all different backgrounds coming together for a common cause. It was deeply moving to witness. In this moment, Jordyn underscored how her lens as a Black women made her view the student effort, especially because of the ways they were advocating against systemic inequality. For Jordyn and Destiny, Black feminist epistemologies were deeply intertwined with how they made sense of free speech events on their respective campuses. Because so much of the MBA movement at City centered on combatting anti-Black racism, it was challenging at times for other staff of color to provide support for the students.
95
Aria spoke at length about their struggles as the only Asian-American in the entire Division of Student Affairs at CU, especially during the height of Mobilizing Black Anger. They spoke about this specific tension in creating racial solidarity: So my race, you know, put me in a really interesting position with respect to MBA. The students fully accepted me as a Person of Color (POC) working in multicultural affairs, but it was very evident that I was never going to fully relate to what they were going through on campus because I was not Black. Aria already felt isolated on the City campus, and these instances reinforced that sense of isolation. Though they wanted to assist students, they also felt their status as a non-Black person of color limited their ability to assist with those affiliated with the MBA cause. Julio’s narrative also spoke to the role of race and racism in understanding free speech events on campus. As a first-generation Mexican-American, Julio explicitly shared how his racialized upbringing instilled in him the notion of “working hard and not speaking out of turn for fear of the consequences.” Julio was acutely aware of his race working at Midwest, and his narrative highlighted the privilege his white co-workers had to “speak up” in situations that could have been deemed controversial. Because his actions would come with different consequences as a result of his racial identity, Julio was weary about his role in supporting campus protests. Whiteness also manifested in how participants experienced and made sense of free speech events on campus. Jennifer, Emma, Rose, and Molly all expressed how their whiteness impacted the ways in which they understood events at the time. For example, the quote below from Jennifer crystalizes a tension felt by some white student affairs professionals: As a white cisgender female, students likely view me as part of the ‘administration’, and honestly they may view me as part of the problem. And so knowing that I may be another white administrator, it’s critical for me to establish relationships with students from all backgrounds. For Jennifer, her recognition of her white racial identity served as a catalyst to create connections with students proactively in order to eventually assist them when issues arose. Similarly, other participants, like Rose, viewed attending events organized by Concerned Black Students at the University of the Midwest as an opportunity to show students of color that they are not alone and that white administrators are there to support them. These decisions were made when participants were aware and acknowledged their privilege relative to their students of color. With these
96
examples, it is impossible to ignore the prominent role race plays in new professionals making sense of free speech events on campus. Other Notable Social Identities Although race emerged as the most salient social identity in how new student affairs practitioners experienced these events, it would be imprudent not to take note of the other pertinent social identities held by participants in the study. Again, intersectionality serves as a reminder that multiple systems of oppression influence how people move through the world. For example, Emma identifies with the Judaic religious tradition and spoke at length about how anti- Semitic campus incidents made her cautious in how she discloses her religious identity to others. Events such as the Charlottesville rally in 2017, and the increase in anonymous white supremacy flyers appearing on campuses nationwide, highlighted the dual challenge of supporting free speech on campus and disavowing hateful anti-Semitic speech; this was particularly challenging for staff who practice non-Christian religious traditions. Relatedly, Rose acknowledged the challenges that exist among those who identify as atheist. She shared, Every year we always have those street preachers who come to campus, and inevitably I’ll have students ask me what I think about it. I try to avoid talking too much about being atheist because a lot of people have feelings about it one way or the other, but I try to engage in broader conversations with students about worldviews. Due to the societal perceptions that exist about atheists in a Christian-dominant country, Rose was hyperaware in how this worldview could potentially color her discussions with students. Ultimately, these examples highlight how individuals’ worldviews affected how new student affairs practitioners make sense of free speech. Additionally, the sexual identity of two participants—Aria and Aaron—played a role in sensemaking as well. For Aaron, a gay cisgender man, working in an LGBTQ+ center provided him the opportunity to counsel students impacted by the rhetoric of street preachers. He also had to manage a situation where a community member directed a slur at a student during an annual pride march. As he explained, We host an annual pride march and it’s always a lot of fun and is generally well attended. University leadership usually participates and it helps raise the visibility of LGBTQ+ folks across campus as a whole. One year during the march a member of the local
97
community yelled a slur out the car window as they drove past. That moment was tough because it took me back to all the years I was called a f– as a kid. Aaron shared how this experience strengthened his resolve to make sure the event continues to happen on campus because “people are always going to have something to say, but we have to collectively show up for our students.” It was his personal connection to this matter due to his gay identity that informed his resolve to continue this form of expression on his campus. Similarly, Aria’s identity as sexually fluid was deeply relevant to their work as a student affairs professional. They noted, Even though City University is a large campus it is still pretty conservative. For a lot of people, I’m often the first sexually fluid trans individual they’ve ever met. So it’s always challenging when a speaker is brought to campus who is openly hostile towards my own identities. In this excerpt, Aria captured how their sexually fluid identity had the capacity to shape how they felt handling free speech events as a higher education practitioner even if they still had to allow for such experiences to happen. As professionals, every participant noted that even when free speech events challenged aspects of their identity, they felt it was still critical to protect the notion of free speech on campus. Institutional Employee Status The final salient identity that emerged involved the participants’ status as full-time employees at public institutions. Although it is intuitive to infer that identities such as race would be highly salient, employment status continually appeared across the interviews. This category is best summarized by a witty retort from Jordyn about why she was careful not to get involved with free speech events organized by students: “I’m not messing up my paycheck!” Julio echoed this sentiment when discussing how he reconciled not joining white colleagues in writing a grievance to the Director about unequal pay, saying “I sold my free speech for a paycheck.” For Julio, in addition to his racialized identity, concern for keeping his job and income were more important than exercising any individualized freedom of speech. For those working in the functional area of residence life (i.e., Julio, Jordyn, Rose, Derek), putting their job on the line not only imperils their income but also threatens their immediate living situation. Every participant recognized that their status as a full-time employee, as opposed to graduate or student staff, created very little ambiguity that their actions could directly impact their employment status.
98
Furthermore, a unique facet of the public institution experience is the relative ease with which anyone can view employee salaries. In the case of Julio at UM, his colleagues became angry when they discovered all Resident Directors were not paid the same salary. The discovery of this inequity prompted some of Julio’s peers to seek collective action for fair pay. At CU, Aria pointed to a more insidious reality that public knowledge of salaries created, Because all of our salaries are available and accessible, everyone knows that the three lowest paid Coordinators and three lowest paid Directors in the Division of Student Affairs are people of color. So we know where we stand in terms of pecking order within the division and university. The invisible labor we pour into supporting our students of color isn’t valued; yet we’re the first ones called on when an issue blows up on campus. Paid less than their colleagues, Aria was always aware of their salary when thinking about involving themselves with free speech events on campus. Several participants referenced capitalistic notions of how they are either not paid enough to manage the potential fallout from free speech events or that highly controversial events are the responsibility of someone in a higher salary bracket at the university. The open access to salary data produced the condition where employees were sensitized to organizational hierarchy and potential inequities; as a result, perceived worth to the institution can influence the ways practitioners respond in these situations. Although many of the identities presented in this section were done in a way that appear discrete on the surface, it is necessary to reiterate that identities are complex and multifaceted. It is not enough to simply view Destiny through the lens of Blackness; intersectionality calls for attention to her specific experience as a Black woman. A participant’s different identities exposes them to structural and material realities that they must take into account when they reflect on their roles relative to free speech events. For example, Aaron’s identity as a gay cis- gender white professional affords him privileges with respect to his race and gender, but exposes him to discrimination based on his sexual identity. This nuanced perspective is required when examining the experience of all participants in this study. Racism, sexism, and various other tools of power and oppression manifest at institutions of higher education and impact the experience of new professionals as they navigate free speech events on campus. Context The next theme that influenced how new student affairs professionals made sense of free speech events involved the concept of context. Across their narratives, it was evident that
99
environmental or social factors play a significant role in the sensemaking process. Participants shared how they became better professionals in supporting free speech events when they learned and understood context. This theme consisted of three contextual types featured prominently throughout their stories: institutional, geographic, and sociopolitical. Institutional Context I presented a historiography of free speech on U.S. college campuses in Chapter Two as a broad framework to situate the present study; similarly, every institution has their own unique history that informs how it behaves as a dynamic organization. Institutional context accounts for the qualities and characteristics that are idiosyncratic to a particular campus, which in turn affected how new professionals considered their role in handling free speech events. For example, when Derek spoke about the officer involved shooting near campus, he noted, “It’s no secret City has a long history of racial issues.” Derek’s understanding of the event, and the subsequent formation of Mobilizing Black Anger, stemmed from the institution’s long-standing issues with race relations on campus. City University is not alone in struggling with this racial tension. In fact, the formation of Concerned Black Students at University of the Midwest was the third such iteration of the group over the last 20 years. Though the mission of both MBA and CBS are conceptually aligned, the localized histories of each campus influenced the tactics and demands used by both groups. Further, a campus’ history in managing free speech events is also incredibly relevant to how individuals made sense of free speech. In the introduction to the University of the Midwest, I pointed to the reality that the institution has a long history of allowing student dissent and protests to occur on campus. This philosophical orientation transcends presidential administrations and can become part of an institution’s legacy, informing events in the present day. Institutional memory, the idea that the history of an organization resides with and is transmitted by those employed by it, also plays a role creating unique campus cultures which then informed participants’ thinking. Destiny, Molly, and Aria all spoke about a phenomenon at City where the staff work there for either two years or 20 years. The result of this polarized staffing arrangement is that knowledge of previous events often resides with the folks who have only ever worked at CU. When issues arose at City, the new student affairs staff members relied heavily on staff with longer tenures of employment to transmit local knowledge. As a new staff member at City, Molly spoke clearly to this in her narrative when she stated,
100
It’s also complicated because our whole office is entirely new and we’re not located in the core of campus … So we lean heavily on the Assistant VP and the Director of student activities to provide that necessary context because they were here during those years. A continual turnover of staff, though not uncommon across student affairs, can often stall progress on campus as vocal student cohorts transition each year. This wide gap in years of employment at City was less prevalent when compared to University of the Midwest. At UM, the staff are more evenly distributed in terms of years on campus, and the presence of a student affairs graduate program creates opportunities where participants like Julio and Rose retained institutional knowledge when they transitioned from graduate student to full-time staff. Finally, Rose referenced the legal philosophy of an institution’s Office of General Counsel as a particularly relevant institutional context. During her interview, she commented, Our general counsel takes a really conservative approach with respect to handling situations on campus. I mean I know her job is to assess legal liabilities, but I feel like they are so risk averse that they say “no” to everything. I think students should be allowed to protest inside a building, but the lawyers would point to language that explicitly prohibits it. I have colleagues on other campuses who can’t believe the things our counsel says no to. This extended quote highlights how administrative approaches to a crisis, and the philosophical orientation of a general counsel, can impact new professionals’ perceptions of free speech events on campus. Jennifer echoed this observation, stating that the philosophy among senior leadership at UM is “we are not going to arrest our students for protesting.” Becoming familiar with institutional context was an important way in which new student affairs professionals made sense of these campus events. Geographic Context Although every institution has their own style and history, geographic context is a related but distinct category. The intentionality of crafting participant narratives that carefully include details about geographic regions, states, or cities was by design. Throughout the study, participants were quick to identify institutional location as highly relevant to their experience as a student affairs professional. In the case of Jennifer, being located near the District of Columbia exposed her to numerous marches, protests, and demonstrations, which showed her that free speech events grounded upon different viewpoints should be welcomed. Emma and Rose both
101
mentioned their experiences in, or near, “the Bible belt” which invoked a more conservative or religious ethos at their institution; consequently, they learned how to interact with more conservative speakers and events at their institutions. Julio and Aria spoke about the level of transition that was required when they moved from the west and east coasts respectively into the middle of the country, needing to learn about the cultures and norms that would in turn shape their responses to free speech events. For Jordyn, her experience of living in a major metropolitan city and then transitioning to work at a rural institution required not only a shift in her approach to working with students, but a reimagining of her day-to-day life as a Black woman. This change in approach and awareness of her social identities was apparent as she deconstructed her positionality relevant to campus free speech manifestations. From these examples, it was clear that a participant’s experience in different geographic locations exerts some level of influence in how they understand free speech events. In addition to the individual geographic journeys of each participant, the physical location of both University of the Midwest and City University were highly relevant. Aria’s narrative revealed the anecdote that “CU is a reflection of the larger metropolitan city it is situated in.” This quote underscores the interrelated relationship that urban campuses have with the city they are situated in, meaning that how an institution’s relationship to free speech events is closely related to their geographic contexts. Metropolitan campus boundaries are often less apparent and are more permeable than their clearly delineated rural counterparts. As a result, the five participants from City expressed greater concern about free speech events not affiliated with the university taking place on campus. Specifically, Jennifer and Jordyn both drew on their experiences attending urban institutions to support the notion that blended campus boundaries create conditions where external free speech events flow into the formal campus footprint. Collectively, these examples illustrate that geographic context plays a part in the sensemaking experience for new student affairs professionals. Sociopolitical Context The final emergent context present across participants’ narratives was sociopolitical. As Molly observed, “College is a microcosm of society,” and this contextual frame acknowledges that public colleges and universities are not immune from national currents across society and politics. Consistently, participants referenced presidential elections and national reckonings as the impetus for actions on campus that these practitioners then had to process individually.
102
Emma, Julio, and Molly were particularly explicit is sharing their concerns about tensions on campus growing more tense in the run up to the 2020 U.S. General Election. For Emma specifically, her experience as a graduate student during the 2016 General Election casts a shadow in how she thought about the 2020 election: There were so many free speech events happening in and around campus during the election year of 2016 that I’m truly afraid to think of what 2020 will look like. Every institution needs to start planning now for how they will work with student political groups, or campaigns seeking to use campus venues for rallies, because I think 2020 will be more intense. Although political campaign activity on a college campus is not new, and many public institutions have regulations regarding equal time for political entities, the tone and rhetoric over the last decade has grown vitriolic. Consequently, individuals like Emma reflected on past elections as they prepared for what their roles and responsibilities would be in future cycles. In addition to politics, social movements also played a significant role in campus free speech movements over the last five years. Emma, Jordyn, Rose and Derek all referenced the national Black Lives Matter movement as a formative event they have seen manifest on their respective campuses. What began as #BlackLivesMatter on social media in 2013 evolved into a national movement that shines a light on racial profiling, excessive use of force by police officers, and broader issues of racial inequities across the United States. Participants on both campuses believed the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement served as an impetus for Mobilizing Black Anger (present at City University) and Concerned Black Students (founded at University of the Midwest). In her stories, Rose mentioned how this national movement spurred her participation in a protest during graduate school, With everything happening at Mizzou and with Black Lives Matter, I felt compelled to do something. I wasn’t sure where I should go or what I should do, but when I saw there was going to be a protest in the student center I knew I had to show up and be there for the students. And yet, Rose then had to contend with the potential ramifications that participation in such events would have due to her status as a representative of the institution; consequently, Rose reflected back on this movement as a catalyst for her own sensemaking relative to free speech events and how practitioners themselves can participate (or not). Racial solidarity movements on
103
campus are one social trend impacting the work of student affairs professionals; another involves the increased attention on sexual assault/interpersonal violence. Often seen on social media platforms as the #MeToo movement, Emma, Jordyn, Rose, Aria, Molly, and Destiny all spoke about the growing awareness of sexual assault through provisions under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act. Destiny’s story about finding old mattresses to create a display that pressured administrators into taking action on the issue is one such example of the #MeToo movement. Another involves Emma’s painfully honest disclosure about her status as a survivor. As someone personally impacted by sexual assault, Emma’s frustration with the lack of institutional communication about incidents during her first year left her “holding her breath” in anticipation for a response that ultimately would never come from the Vice President of Student Affairs. By having a personal connection to an issue or cause, participants were able to deeply resonate with the purpose or meaning of a free speech event. To date, the #MeToo movement has impacted many segments of the entertainment industry and politics; higher education is not impervious to this movement as well. Another darker social context that has grown internationally in the last few years is the concerning rise of white supremacy and extreme Alt-Right political ideologies. Several participants in this study addressed this issue directly. Controversial speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer are public manifestations of this alarming global undercurrent. They actively targeted speaking engagements at public universities such as Midwest and City, under the guise of free speech, as a way to spread their extreme beliefs. In addition to controversial lecturers, the deadly 2017 rally at the University of Virginia and the proliferation of neo-Nazi flyers on several college campuses are emblematic of a troublesome trend that student affairs professionals must be attune to. For a practitioner like Emma who actively practices Judaism, these events are both personal and scary, As a Jewish woman, when all the white supremacy stuff started happening on campuses that’s when it became really hard. You’d see swastikas spray painted on campus buildings or on office doors—I know I was cognizant about wearing my Star of David necklace. And I think it is those types of things that make it really hard to separate the personal from the professional. I don’t think I could ever sign up to be a protest monitor if a white supremacy rally showed up on campus.
104
Although Emma supports the concept of free speech, her story illustrates the tensions that emerge when that speech is hateful or targets your own identities. Finally, it is important to note the emerging and ever-changing role of social media applications with respect to free speech events. Movements such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #NeverAgain often gain traction on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram before morphing into larger organized movements. During her interview Rose mentioned how YikYak, a now defunct platform that allowed users to post any anonymous thoughts, raised tensions on campus after the creation of Concerned Black Students. Similarly, Julio’s complex anecdote of the student who used a racial slur in GroupMe, then bragged about it on Tinder (a dating app), and that bragging was screenshot and sent out broadly over Snapchat, reveals the complex and interconnected role of social media with respect to free speech in higher education today. A social media post or incident captured on video can become the embers that spark the next campus protest. The metaphorical ivory tower is not tall enough to inoculate itself from society at-large, and these sociopolitical dynamics shape how student affairs professionals contextualize free speech events. Supervision & Mentorship A notable factor in how new student affairs professionals encountered and worked through these campus events included supervisors and mentors. Participants spoke at length about their role in supervising paraprofessional and graduate staff, as well as the relationship cultivated with their own supervisors or mentors. Additionally, participants also discussed the impact of divisional or institutional leadership as key components in navigating organizational complexity. This theme underscores the important role of supervision and mentorship for new student affairs staff members. Staff Supervision One of the major job responsibilities within many student affairs positions involves the supervision of undergraduate paraprofessionals and graduate level staff. For Julio, Jordyn, Rose, and Derek working in residence life involved the supervision of Resident Assistant staff, which consequently caused them to wrestle with how to support their paraprofessional staff in thinking about their connections to free speech events. Jordyn’s narrative expertly captured the predicament she faced when members of her RA staff, as well as her graduate assistant, wanted to attend a protest march across campus. After consultation with her supervisory chain, the
105
guidance provided by the Director of the office was that undergraduate staff could attend, but graduate staff should only be in attendance if they were acting in their role as student affairs support staff. Before this event, Midwest had no established protocol regarding student staff or graduate staff participation in campus protests. Aaron encountered a similar issue when working in the LGBTQ+ center during graduate school. He noted that, Our office relied heavily on undergraduate student interns to develop programs and facilitate operations in the center. I remember in my first year one of the interns wanted to go protest Westboro Baptist being on campus but didn’t know if they were allowed to because they were a student employee. I honestly had never thought about it myself, so we asked the Director and they gave it the ok. By supervising students who wanted to be involved, Aaron had to search for answers that then caused him to engage in further sensemaking about who can be connected to free speech events. Furthermore, participants like Julio saw controversial events or topics as an opportunity to engage his RAs in staff development: I like to use the situations as a way to get RAs to think about what they say, how they say it, and who they say it to. They have a right to say whatever they want, but I want them to think critically about what their opinion is, and how that aligns with others around them. If the media shows up and interviews you you’re not just Nick, but you’re Nick an RA at Midwest. We’re all ambassadors for the university regardless of our role, and the same is true when they leave here and take a job for a company. For Julio, it was engaging with his staff to think about the possible consequences of free speech in future employment situations that then also helped him to further develop his own thinking. He viewed the paraprofessional Resident Assistant position as a developmental employment opportunity, meaning that he himself was a sensemaking influence for these students. Though there was universal recognition among the participants that undergraduate staff should be allowed to engage in free speech events if they choose, the role of graduate student staff was far more complex. Graduate staff occupy a liminal space where they are betwixt and between their dual identities as neither fully staff nor student. As recent former graduate students themselves, the participants who supervised graduate staff (Jennifer, Jordyn, Julio, and Derek) used their prior experience to help their graduate staff navigate ambiguity. As Jordyn explained,
106
I like to think I’m someone who tries to do right by the students I supervise, undergrad and grad alike. But I had to have some real honest conversations with my grad at the time—do you want to be a student or do you want to be a professional? Because even though you occupy both roles, the university may take away a lot of your professional experiences if you push the issue. I know I wouldn’t be in my role today without the experiences I had in graduate school, and I didn’t want him to miss out on it. In this example, Jordyn stressed how her supervision of graduate students solidified some of the messages she previously received about who student affairs professionals should be loyal to when free speech events occur. Julio’s narrative specifically highlighted the fallout that could follow should student affairs practitioners (in his case, graduate students) challenge their institutional responsibilities. In particular, he recounted an instance at University of the Midwest when the graduate staff wanted to join student protests: I’m not sure they were fully prepared for what fallout would be from that request. Soon after, the Vice President for Student Affairs and the General Counsel of the university started to review their position descriptions and stripped away multiple responsibilities from their assistantships. They can go protest now if they like, but they lose out on so many professional experiences. From Julio’s perspective, as a former graduate of the student affairs program at Midwest, the experience is now significantly diminished but it was seemingly the price graduate students were willing to pay to exercise their free speech rights. For the participants who supervised staff, they were highly aware of the role they played in processing free speech events with their supervisees, which also had an effect on their own sensemaking. Relationship with Supervisor In addition to supervising staff, the relationship that participants cultivated with their supervisor was integral in their sensemaking of free speech events. Participants like Jennifer, Emma, Aria, and Destiny relied on their supervisors to provide institutional context. It was also supervisors who had to inform staff if they had to be in attendance for a controversial lecture or a potential protest. Emma spoke about the importance of her relationship with her supervisor: I’m really lucky to work for an office where my Director and my supervisor communicate with a high-level honesty and transparency. When protests would happen in the building my supervisor was quick to include me in conversations about what was
107
happening and how we were going to handle it. Afterwards he’d always follow-up in 1:1 conversation to debrief the situation, provide context, and process what went well and what didn’t. In Emma’s case, having a transparent supervisor served as a valuable catalyst for her own development as a professional, especially as it pertained to how she conceptualized student affairs professionals’ roles with free speech events. In addition to providing support, Jennifer, Julio, Rose, Aria and Destiny shared that supervisors were important in providing clarity about their role with a potential event. In some instances, it was to be a familiar face; in others, it was to be on site to support students. Regardless of the function, supervisors played a pivotal part in alleviating potential role confusion for new student affairs staff. Although the examples above highlight positive supervisor engagement, Derek had a particularly negative experience with his supervisor, in which she failed to consider how her racial identity would influence her ability to support Derek through free speech events: I know she tried her best but she didn’t have a damn clue about how to supervise a person of color. I needed someone I could trust and confide in about how I was feeling, how the situation was impacting me personally, professionally, and she could never be that for me. Like I said she tried her best but she just didn’t have the right skill set to support me. Derek was in need of a supervisor who could help him process the officer-involved shooting that occurred at City University, both as it related to his personal well-being as well as his professional development. Thankfully, Derek was able to connect with other staff members on campus who assisted him in a mentoring relationship, but his experience reinforces the notion that supervision style and quality can impact new professionals in both positive and negative ways. Nearly all participants expressed a desire for their supervisors to provide support before/during/after campus incidents, and to engage in honest/transparent/open communication as a way of establishing trust and rapport. Administrative Leaders and Mentors The final category under supervision and mentorship involves non-supervisory institutional leaders and mentors who support new student affairs professionals. As seen in Derek’s story above, when he was not receiving the support from his supervisor, he sought out other staff members of color at City University who could support him processing the campus-
108
wide fallout following the officer-involved shooting. This category acknowledges the broad network of institutional figures that influenced the participants in this study. In talking about the Yiannopoulos lecture, Jennifer shared that one of her takeaways from that event was, “I can learn a lot from watching other Director’s in a space, by seeing how they handle disruptions or angry students, I feel much more confident if I had to address this type of situation in the future.” By reflecting on those experiences and engaging in sensemaking about how to address those situations, Jennifer is able to apply those lessons as an employee in the future. Similarly, every participant from Midwest noted the influence that seeing strong leadership from directors in their functional area, or from other parts of the division, had on their sensemaking. For example, Julio, Jordyn, and Rose all spoke highly of their Director in residence life. Directors play an instrumental role in shaping the mission of a functional area and influence overall office culture. With many participants in this study aspiring to be future Directors, these events become seminal moments where young professionals synthesize the performance of Directors and infer lessons they hope to apply in future practice. At a higher level, participants also mentioned the impact of university leadership, specifically the university President, or a divisional Vice President, as meaningful in their understanding of free speech on campus. Emma’s expectation of a university response from the Vice President of Student Affairs (VPSA) at Midwest regarding the numerous Title IX incidents left her disappointed when a statement was never issued. Rose also expressed frustration with the same VPSA for their consistent mixed messaging regarding graduate student participation in free speech events; she was so fearful of being reprimanded that she enlisted the help of a more seasoned professional in a meeting to voice the concern instead. An opaque approach from executive leaders creates the condition where new student affairs professionals closely rely on their supervisors for clarity. Further, both Midwest and City saw changes in their chief executive role over the last three years. For the participants who experienced these presidential transitions (i.e., Jennifer, Julio, Jordyn, Rose, Derek, and Aria), there was a renewed sense that these new institutional leaders were more open to working with student protestors than their predecessors. At Midwest, Rose noted “having seen two presidents, it’s clear the new president is more willing to sit down and talk with the students.” Aria’s narrative highlights how the new president openly stated his commitment to both free speech and creating an inclusive campus culture—a welcome
109
change from the previous administration. Presidential messaging had a tremendous impact in shaping how these student affairs professionals experienced the campus environment. In addition to directors and executive team leadership, participants also identified other key stakeholders as influential mentors. For example, Aria shared how they bonded with the Chief Diversity Officer at City because they were a former student of a multicultural program that Aria oversaw. This administrator was the classic example of spending their entire career at City. Aria pointed to the mentoring relationship they forged as influential in shaping their approach to diversity against the backdrop of controversial campus events. Derek also relied on colleagues and mentors of color at City to provide institutional insight about what administrators to avoid or what events he should attend. As a pattern that was present across participants’ narratives, it is evident that supervision and mentorship inform how new student affairs practitioners understand free speech events. Role of Higher Education & Student Affairs The final theme that accounts for how new professionals experience free speech on campus involves their axiological perspectives about higher education broadly and student affairs specifically. As participants shared their stories, it was clear that omnipresent values about the purpose of public higher education, the core of student affairs work, and the individual role that functional areas play in protecting free speech on campus were all relevant in how they made sense of these events. This theme explores the notable tenets that comprise these philosophical underpinnings. Public Higher Education Within Aria’s narrative, there is a line that strikingly encapsulates the role of public higher education: “I think there is profound beauty in supporting free speech in public higher education because it serves an important democratic social function.” By making a direct connection to democratic aims of higher education, Aria sees free speech as a critical component of the education enterprise that should be protected. This aesthetic idea of finding beauty in free speech was also shared explicitly by Jennifer, Emma, Rose and Julio. Similarly, a passage in Rose’s narrative spoke to this idea as well, noting that “public is everything” and that even if she personally disapproves of controversial speakers, “a public university needs to allow those things to happen.” Although many of the participants expressed personal frustrations or misgivings about divisive enactments of free speech, all 10 viewed it as essential that public universities
110
provide the necessary forum to wrestle with contested issues. Even Derek who had a strong reaction to events at City struck a hopeful tone that public institutions can be a site in “promoting social change.” These examples reveal a deeply held commitment to protecting free speech at public institutions. In tandem with the idea of providing space for discursive exchange was the belief that college provides the physical space and learning environment for students to explore a variety of ideas, values, and beliefs. Although many of the participants conceded that the general public, through media amplification, views higher education as bastions of social liberalism, some pushed back on this characterization. Julio’s narrative captured this sentiment when he described his colleagues’ frustration about the Yiannopoulos lecture. As a self-described “liberal” himself, his retort that “if we bring in Michelle Obama, you better be ready to bring in Mike Pence” reflects a commitment among professional staff to provide viewpoint diversity. Julio also credited his Director of residence life for providing a professional development reading about the experience of conservative college students as influential in his own thinking about supporting a variety of perspectives on campus. Additionally, Aria relied on their knowledge of higher education history to make this broader observation: Free speech is what helps higher education be what it is. It’s meant to be an exchange of ideas in pursuit of knowledge that may be in conflict. Historically, public higher education has always wrestled with this tension. It is such a vast idea that it allows for a lot of possibilities, but also creates the potential for harm as well. As challenging as it may be for us to navigate, it plays an important role in student development. Overall, all the participants shared a belief that protecting free speech is vital in executing the mission of a public university. Regardless of their personal feelings about content, the participants situated free speech events into a larger philosophical orientation involving the societal role of higher education. Student Affairs Imbedded into the essence of what it means to be a student affairs professional is the foundational core of student support and development. If there was a singular phrase featured prominently across all participant interviews, it was “we support students.” A scan of the interview transcripts revealed this phrase was used 32 times across all 10 participants. Support, however, looked different and was enacted in a variety of ways throughout the participants’
111
narratives. For Jennifer, this meant teaching the grad student she supervised how to enact support: Their graduate program talks about their identities and how they show up in spaces and serve as an advocate, and we’re telling them they can’t do that in those spaces because of the role they occupy on campus so there’s a disconnect. We have to bridge that theory-to- practice gap and talk about how at the end of the day your job is to support students. Now that may not be standing on the front lines with them, so we have to help them think through what support can look like. Jennifer’s example provides valuable insight into how free speech events can be used to engage graduate students in their own sensemaking journey about how to best support students as a future practitioner in the field. Jordyn shared that one of the biggest lessons she has learned as a new professional experiencing free speech events on campus is that “I now have better language to support students, and an enhanced understanding of the variety of perspectives involved.” Engaging in reflection is a critical property of sensemaking, and Jordyn’s quote highlights a shift in her own practice as a professional following these types of events. For participants like Jennifer, Emma, Derek, and Molly, support involved helping undergraduate students plan or implement free speech events on campus. In the functional areas of student activities, the college union, or fraternity and sorority life, it is incumbent on professionals to be familiar with policies and protocols in order to effectively support students in event implementation. Molly’s familiarity with policies was important in working with student organizations when a free speech zone was developed during her first job. Other professionals like Aria, Aaron, and Destiny discussed the role they play in supporting students after a controversial event on campus. For folks like Aria and Destiny, their work in multicultural affairs and diversity initiatives frequently involved supporting marginalized students impacted by an event. Aria spoke with great clarity about the role of student affairs in this instance: We’re the front lines people, we’re the people who help students process or help students cope, we’re the ones who remind students that they are valued, that they belong, that they’re significant, and that their voice has the ability to create change. We empower them to find their voice and use it. This quote from Aria reinforces the important role multicultural spaces play in supporting students. For someone working in the functional area of conduct like Aaron, they may find
112
themselves dealing with potential judicial issues following a free speech event. Although he is aware of restorative role conduct can play in supporting students, elements of free speech events may involve violence, vandalism, and an assortment of other student code of conduct violations. All these examples highlight the centrality of support in student affairs work, but that may look different across incidents, functional areas, and institutions. In addition to supporting students and protecting democratic forums of free speech in higher education, participants also viewed their role as creating a safe environment in which to engage in contested exchanges of ideas. This notion of safety was broader than the often ridiculed “safe space” rhetoric lampooned by conservative ideologues. For participants like Jennifer, Emma, and Aaron, safety involved creating structures and protocols that kept students, faculty, staff, and guests physically safe. Practitioners like Jennifer and Emma spoke about the importance of working with student organizers to ensure issues like space occupancy, fire egress, and event security are covered to protect the physical safety of everyone involved. In residence life, participants like Julio, Jordyn, Rose, and Derek were concerned with making sure the physical home environment for students is kept safe for all students. Collectively, student affairs staff are critical in creating these conditions on any college campus, public and private alike. Role of the College Union One final component that stood out as its own unique category is the role of the college union on a public campus. In Chapters One and Two of this study, I gave careful attention to the college union idea. Even though only one participant in this study worked in a student center, seven of the participants made explicit connections between free speech and this physical campus building. The college union occupies a unique landscape on a college campus physically, metaphorically, and organizationally. One reason for not including a discussion of the college union in the student affairs section above is a result of where this office sits organizationally. There is a great degree of variance of reporting lines from campus-to-campus. At University of the Midwest, the college union is situated in the Division of Student Affairs, whereas at City University, the union is in a Business & Finance Division. Although a central focus of students should be the mission of any higher education institution, a philosophy that puts student development first looks vastly different than a mission focused on customer service and the bottom line. Despite these differences, participants from both campuses referenced their college union as a focal point for free speech on campus. In talking about a protest she attended during
113
graduate school in her student center, Rose had the humorous quip when students complained about the protest noise, “It’s a student center, not a library.” During a follow-up question, she expanded on this idea: I mean, it’s a student center, it’s the exact center of campus designed for student voice and student engagement. If you look around the building you see it is designed as a space where the university wants student life to happen. If you espouse to be a student-centered institution then your student center should be used in that way. It’s not disrupting the delivery of the academic mission. In fact I think it’s the perfect way to bring that mission to life. For Rose, understanding the purpose of the college union, combined with the institutional value of being student-centered, informs her belief that this is the natural location for a free speech event on campus. As someone working in a college union, Emma echoed many of these same sentiments. She believed a student center will always be a focal point for potential student protests because “all eyes are always on that building.” Emma’s familiarity with the role of the college union increased her level of comfort in allowing free speech events to occur in the building. This line of thinking was also evident in Aria’s narrative regarding site selection for the aborted Richard Spencer lecture at City; location and visibility are frequently top of mind in the development of campus free speech events. Participants’ beliefs about the role of a college union, as well as their work as student affairs practitioners within higher education, shaped their understanding of free speech events on campus. Conclusion In summary, this chapter explored in great detail how 10 new student affairs professionals experienced free speech events at University of the Midwest and City University. Their diverse backgrounds and experiences provided rich narratives that explored the various nuances involved with these complex campus events. The second half of the chapter discussed the five themes that explained how these professionals make sense of free speech events. These themes: 1) Pathways into the profession, 2) Identity salience, 3) Context, 4) Supervision and mentorship, and the 5) Role of higher education and student affairs, provide an important framework when thinking about how new professionals engage in complex sensemaking. Free speech events take on many different shapes and sizes at public universities, and the mission of this chapter was to give voice to these experiences. What do these findings mean and why does it
114
matter? The final chapter will situate these findings within the broader landscape of research and offer implications for practice and policy.
115
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION The narratives and themes presented in the previous chapter highlight the nuanced experiences new student affairs professionals have with free speech events at public institutions of higher education. This final chapter will discuss how the findings of this study connect with the stated research questions, as well as how they expand on the growing body of literature regarding free speech relative to the student affairs profession. After exploring the major takeaways from this study, the second half of the chapter offers implications for research and practice within the field of higher education and student affairs. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of limitations as possibilities for future research. Before engaging in a discussion that situates the findings broadly, a brief summary of the study is provided below. Summary Given the increased attention and scrutiny regarding free speech on campus, the purpose of this study was to explore how new student affairs professionals engaged in sensemaking about their roles and experiences with free speech events on campus. By investigating how campus professionals comprehend and navigate free speech events on campus, this study provided clarity and reasserted the important role higher education plays in fostering democratic principles. In order to meet the stated purpose of this study, I posed the following research questions: RQ1: How do new student affairs professionals describe their experience with free speech events at public institutions of higher education? RQ2: At public institutions of higher education, what are the personal, professional, and institutional characteristics that affect new student affairs professionals’ sensemaking about free speech events on campus? RQ3: What role do student affairs professionals play in responding to free speech events on campus? Because free speech events are highly contextualized and experienced in an individualized way, this study used a narrative approach grounded in a constructivist paradigm which allowed participants the opportunity to name and vocalize their experiences (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Additionally, this study utilized sensemaking (Weick, 1995) as the theoretical framework to understand how student affairs practitioners come to make sense of these events as employees within an organizational system. In total, 10 participants from two institutions (University of the Midwest and City University) participated in three semi-structured interviews
116
located in Appendix D. In addition to the individual narrative experiences highlighted in Chapter Four, five distinct narrative themes emerged from their stories: 1) Pathways into the profession, 2) Identity salience, 3) Context, 4) Supervision and mentorship, and the 5) Role of higher education and student affairs. These themes provide an important framework when thinking about how new professionals engage in complex sensemaking. Experiencing Free Speech Events as New Professionals Highlighted in their narratives, participants in this study encountered a wide array of free speech events during their first five years as student affairs professionals. Although some events were major in size and scope such as the Yiannopoulos lecture at the University of the Midwest or the creation of Mobilizing Black Anger (MBA) at City University (CU) following an officer- involved shooting, others were smaller displays or demonstrations that occur annually at colleges and universities across the country. Regardless of their magnitude, participants utilized principles of sensemaking (Weick, 1995) to understand events and their role as a student affairs professional supporting students. In the following sections, I expand upon how these professionals’ stories of free speech events revealed their sensemaking, especially as it relates to their personal, professional, and institutional characteristics. Connection to Sensemaking Throughout Chapter Four, I used language and concepts consistent with Weick’s (1995) principles of sensemaking across the narratives and within the analysis of themes. Although scholars define sensemaking in different ways, it is generally understood as a process through which individuals socially engage to construct meaning regarding ambiguous events and phenomena (Brown et al., 2008; Gioria et al., 1994; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Weick 1995; Weick et al., 2005). As employees, the participants in this study were organizational actors confronted with nuanced and complicated free speech events. This section explicitly teases out how the findings presented in the previous chapter connect back to the literature on sensemaking. Specifically, I articulate how their narratives relate to four principles of sensemaking: grounded in identity construction, retrospective, social, and extracted cues. Grounded in Identity Construction One of the primary properties of sensemaking is that it is grounded in identity construction (Weick, 1995). Organizational actors use events as a way to build and understand their own identities (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003). Consistent with identity development
117
theorizing, adults commonly experience a subject-object shift (Kegan, 2009) as they recognize competing sources of information and expectations. This requires individuals to consider multiple realities, their personal values, and their identity separate from others around them (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Jones & Abes, 2013). Because free speech events are often complex events, participants used these experiences to understand aspects of their identity in deeper ways. A major finding from this study was that a participant’s salient social identities greatly influenced how they experienced a free speech event and made sense of it afterwards. Jordyn’s “pride” as a Black woman seeing students advocate for equitable systems, as well as Derek’s “fear” that his body was on the line as a Black man on campus following an officer-involved shooting, showcase how their racial identities informed how they derived the meaning about protest movements on their respective campuses. Specifically, individuals like Jordyn and Derek needed to navigate their racial identities as they considered their roles relative to these free speech events. Connected to this point, the participants of color were more likely than their white counterparts to express apprehension in attending or speaking out about a free speech event because of the potential impact on their employment status. This is consistent with campus climate research which found that racial/ethnic minorities perceived their campus climate as more racist and less accepting than their white counterparts (Hurtado & Harper, 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005). As Julio pointed out in his comments, student affairs professionals of color may be more prone to material consequences than their white colleagues. This pattern highlights a central tension that emerges for staff of color; although they may personally resonate with campus protests regarding equity because of their racialized or ethnic identity, they also filter it through their restrictive lens as a university employee. Unlike the speech protections afforded to students or faculty, the employment precarity administrative staff face on campus is unique. This reality is also amplified by the open access to employment salaries present at public institutions which communicate a perceived value of worth to the organization. Relatedly, white practitioners in this study also used free speech events to understand their own racialized identities. Critical Whiteness Studies calls attention to the ways in which white people examine their own racial identity (Cabrera et al., 2017; Matias & Mackey, 2016). Reflection on the oppressive nature of whiteness is essential in order to dismantle systemic racism (McIntosh, 1988). Because many of the free speech events in this study involved racial
118
tension, it was notable to see white participants reflect on their own race. For Rose this meant being present for students of color as a sign of solidarity. In the case of Jennifer, she was aware that her status as a white administrator and that her presence at a rally could be more harmful than helpful. Ultimately, these events prompted student affairs practitioners to explore intersections between their racial identities and their role as a university staff member. In addition to race, participants pointed to a variety of other social identities that shaped how they made sense of free speech events. Emma’s concern for her own safety as a Jewish woman following the posting of anti-Semitic flyers on campus represents one such instance. Although the posting of those flyers—depending on campus policy—may be protected as free speech, Emma saw the act as part of a broader history of anti-Semitism around the world. Similarly, Aria and Aaron viewed free speech events hostile to LGBTQ+ individuals as particularly threatening to their own identities as sexually-fluid and gay respectively. These examples highlight that the interpretation of events does not occur in a vacuum; instead individuals’ multiple identities influenced their sensemaking. For some practitioners, the events may serve to reify previously held beliefs as seen in the lack of surprise among staff of color at City regarding the mistrial for the police officer. For others, the events may serve as a shift in their perceived safety on campus based on religious expression, sexual identity, or gender expression. For Emma, this meant using more caution in displaying symbols that communicated her connection to Judaism. Because identity construction is so central to the sensemaking process, it makes Jennifer’s point about intersectionality even more prescient. Not only do student affairs practitioners experience these events through their salient identities, but the students participating in free speech events are also going through a similar process of refining their beliefs and constructing their own identities. Relevant to intersectional thinking (Crenshaw, 1989), it is not only their identities that shape their sensemaking but also how their identities are constituted based on overlapping systems of oppression. Free speech events are rarely one-dimensional, and those who participate in them contain a multitude of identities that expose them to various levels of marginalization. Additionally, institutions of higher education as organizational entities are racialized systems (Ray, 2019). It is not enough to view institutions as race-neutral; in fact many are built to maintain a prevailing culture of whiteness (Bonilla-Silva et al., 2006; Gusa, 2010; Reason & Evans, 2007). The systems, structures, histories, and hierarchies of colleges and
119
universities as organizations are shaped by race (Ray, 2019). Therefore, it is incumbent on student affairs professionals to be cognizant of the interplay across social identities among faculty, staff, and students when navigating free speech events on campus. Retrospective In Weick’s (1995) original interpretation, the retrospective property stated that people derive sense upon later reflection as opposed to deriving meaning in the moment. Individuals rely on existing schemas or previous experiences to guide current and future action (Weick 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Although the stories shared by participants in this study are inherently retrospective in nature as I asked them to reflect on their experiences with previous free speech events, their narratives also showcase a reliance on past experiences as a tool that informs their sensemaking. This type of self-reflection is consistent with Baxter Magolda’s (2001) work with self-authorship. As participants engaged in retrospection, they evaluated these experiences in light of external formulas and their established internal foundations (Baxter Magolda, 2001), in order to make meaning of these events. Jordyn’s organizing of an Elaine Brown lecture during her undergraduate years, and Aaron’s work in graduate school with the LGBTQ+ Center are two such examples. Research has highlighted that graduate assistant experiences in LGBTQ+ Centers shape how future professionals understand dimensions of their identity and their role as professionals in the field (Catalano & Tillapaugh, 2020; Tillapaugh & Catalano, 2019). Notably, several participants drew on their varied pathways into the profession to inform what a free speech event was and their degree of comfort in providing support during one. Retrospection also allowed new student affairs practitioners to reflect on some of the broader lessons they applied to their practice as a result of engagement with free speech events. When encountering complex and nuanced events, it was often challenging for them to understand what was happening in the moment; it was only upon reflection after that true sensemaking occurred. In this study, participants learned more about their approach to supervision or how they navigate role ambiguity. Quality supervision in student affairs roles has the potential to promote employee growth (Berger, 2012; Tull, 2009; Winston & Creamer, 1997, 1998), and reduce attrition of new professionals in the field (Barham & Winston, 2006; Tull 2006). Emma, for example, found herself processing questions after events with her supervisor about “What was the purpose of this protest?”; “What were the core issue that the students were concerned about?”; and “What are effective strategies to support them moving forward?”
120
Discerning deeper answers to these questions often comes from engagement with events and reflection afterwards. Further, enactment of retrospection permitted participants to also draw greater meaning about their role as an institutional employee in working free speech events. Questions of employee worth and job responsibilities are found in the narratives of Jennifer, Julio, and Destiny. Collectively, these examples showcase how the principle of retrospection was used by new student affairs practitioners to make sense of free speech. Social Individuals typically do not make sense of situations or events in isolation; they instead rely on engagement in social activities that serve to refine or clarify their views (Weick, 1995). This property was most apparent in the ways that participants spoke about the role of supervisors and mentors. Based on the discussion above about how supervisors can prompt retrospective thinking, this highlights the interplay that exists across sensemaking principles. Whether through supervising undergraduate or graduate staff, or the relationship they had with their specific supervisor, every participant mentioned that these connections were influential in shaping their understanding and response to free speech events. Supervision is a complex task in student affairs (Perillo, 2011; Tull, 2006, 2009; Winston & Creamer, 1997), but one that was frequently referenced across participant narratives. Julio approached student protests as opportunities to engage his RA staff in professional development activities. When protests happened at Midwest, Julio saw himself as a facilitator in helping his paraprofessional staff make sense of unfolding events on campus. The participants at University of the Midwest who supervised graduate staff (i.e., Jennifer, Jordyn, and Julio) used events like the protests of Concerned Black Students (CBS) to engage in dialogue about socialization into the field of student affairs. Dialogues, specifically intergroup dialogues (Zúñiga, 2003), can be an effective tool that brings together diverse social identity groups to promote diversity, social justice, and student development (Dessel & Rogge, 2008; Quaye & Johnson, 2016; Zúñiga, 2003). These types of dialogues are inherently social in nature and can impact the process of sensemaking. Perhaps the most important social relationship that helped participants make sense of free speech events were their own supervisors and mentors. Supervisors are key vessels in the transmission of institutional memory and can provide critical context that assists in alleviating role confusion for new student affairs professionals (Winston & Creamer, 1997; Winston & Hirt, 2003). Jennifer and Emma cited debriefing events with their supervisors after they occurred as
121
important in their own development as young professionals. For Destiny, she recalled this vivid saying from her supervisor, “You can thrive in the garden when you know where the snakes are.” By sharing this clever maxim, Destiny’s supervisor prepared her to navigate City University as a metaphorical garden replete with institutional actors that would thwart progress on diversity and inclusion efforts following the Mobilizing Black Anger movement. This mindset reflects educational theorizing about organizational cultures as systems designed to exercise power (Giroux, 1983). Quality supervision can help elucidate and make explicit potential barriers to organizational progress. In addition to supervisors, Derek and Aria relied on senior administrators as mentors who provided trusted spaces for processing and support following critical events. This aligns with research by Winston and Hirt (2003) and Gunzburger (2017) that stated staff of color frequently seek non-supervisor mentors as a support system. Several researchers have found that mentorship for entry-level student affairs professionals helps increase satisfaction and provides role clarity (Calhoun & Taub, 2014; Kelly, 1984; Roberts, 2007; Winston & Creamer, 1997). In addition to mentorship, these relationships also provide supportive and restorative spaces for Black student affairs professionals (Quaye et al., 2019). It is important to name and recognize that persistent racism and anti-Blackness experiences create racial battle fatigue for practitioners (Douglas et al., 2020; Quaye et al., 2019; Smith, 2009; Smith et al, 2007). Together, supervisors and mentors play an important social role in helping new professionals make sense of free speech events. Extracted Cues Finally, Weick (1995) defined extracted cues as structures from which people develop a larger sense of what may be happening in a situation. This type of interpretation is reliant on context: institutional, local, national, and global. The focus on context echoes the ecological systems work of Bronfenbrenner (1979). When applied to the findings of this study, participants relied on supervisors and mentors to understand their mesosystem, which are processes that elucidate concepts such as campus culture and job responsibilities (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The narratives presented in Chapter Four underscore how participants relied heavily on different types of context in order to engage in sensemaking. Specifically, characteristics like institutional history, the philosophy of the legal counsel, a campus’ geographic location, and the undercurrents of sociopolitical movements were all cues that participants extracted in order to
122
make sense of a free speech event. This reflects theorizing about higher education institutions as organizational sagas complete with unique histories, stories, and ideologies (Clark, 1972). For example, Rose picked up on the risk-averse legal philosophy at University of the Midwest as a result of engaging with campus protests. These cues also informed how participants contextualized free speech as part of the larger democratic aims of higher education, or what Bronfenbrenner (1979) referred to as the macrosystem. Similarly, participants used their levels of familiarity with current events to situate free speech events against the context of broader sociopolitical movements such as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo. Additionally, participants’ pathways into the profession, and the salience of their social identities, informed their extracted cues and led to differing degrees of comfort in supporting free speech events. Depending on a practitioner’s graduate preparation or previous experiences in the field, they were sensitized to environmental cues differently. The development of a professional identity is formed through meaningful experiences and feedback that establish preferences and refine values (Ibarra, 1999; Liddell, 2014; Schein, 1978). In addition to graduate preparation programs, mentorship, job-training, and membership in professional associations all contribute to practitioner socialization (Adams et al, 2006; Arminio & Ortiz, 2017; Liddell, 2014; Pittman & Foubert, 2016). A practitioner like Julio, who admittedly has little understanding of higher education law, was less attune to the legal ramifications of events when compared to Jordyn who relied heavily on her curricular experience to contextualize free speech events. Destiny’s previous experience as a student activist allowed her to connect with student activists in a way that Jennifer could not as someone who never attended a student protest. These examples emphasized the interconnected role that themes such as pathways into the profession and identity salience created different environments that shaped how new student affairs professionals made sense of free speech events. When viewed in a holistic way, the themes presented in Chapter Four featured the principles of sensemaking actively at work. When combined with the narratives of participants, the themes informed how new student affairs professionals enacted the principles of sensemaking to describe their experience with free speech events at public institutions—the essence of research question one. Personal, Professional, & Institutional Characteristics Although every participant narrative in this study represented a unique experience with
123
free speech events at public institutions, the themes presented in Chapter Four call attention to a variety of personal, professional, and institutional characteristics that affect sensemaking about free speech events. Albeit covered substantially in the prior paragraphs relevant to sensemaking, this section explicitly names some of these characteristics, which directly answers research question two. Personal In reflecting upon the personal characteristics that informed participants’ sensemaking, both social identities and other background experiences played a role. As discussed in the identity construction section above, an individual’s race or ethnicity shaped their experience and interpretation of free speech events. Racial identity development frameworks offer insight into how participants of color (Cross, 1978) and those who are white (Helms, 1990) come to understand their identity. Although these stage approaches fail to account for the complexities of higher education environmental influences and the non-linear nature of development, they still provide foundational understanding of identity development. Recent theorizing encourages scholars to implement critical approaches to student development (Abes et al., 2019). Participants like Jordyn, Julio, Derek, Aria, and Destiny had very different concerns about free speech events than their white counterparts. Jordyn and Destiny utilized their experiences as Black feminists to interpret free speech events on their respective campuses, and Aria noted that at times they were reminded of their isolated status as the only Asian-American staff member in the division. A participant’s racialized experience influenced how they make sense of free speech events. Beyond race, there are unique personalized experiences which played a role as well and that falls outside of how scholars frequently conceptualize the principle of identity construction in sensemaking (Weick, 1995). For Emma, her status as a survivor of sexual assault made the pain of Title IX protests all the more acute. Her personal connection to the topic made the deafening silence from the institution all the more painful. Aligning with the retrospective construct present in sensemaking, Jordyn’s prior experience bringing Elaine Brown to campus informed her understanding regarding the importance of speakers sometimes deemed controversial; specifically, this experience shaped her interpretation of why the Yiannopoulos lecture should be allowed to happen at the University of the Midwest. Every participant brought their own identities and experiences to the table when making sense of free speech events.
124
Therefore, it is important for supervisors to understand that personal experiences actively play a role in interpreting events. Professional Although notions of faculty protections regarding academic freedom are increasingly contested (Cain, 2012; O’Neil, 2008; Rabban, 2014), it is impossible not to acknowledge that practitioners in this study actively felt less job protection when compared to their colleagues in academic affairs. The narratives frequently revealed discussions of professionalism (Arminio & Ortiz, 2017; Ibarra, 1999; Liddell et al., 2014; Schein, 1978), and what boundaries exist in their ability to use their own free speech. From Julio’s awareness that he is the reflection of an institution as an employee, to Jordyn’s concern for financial security, all participants were overtly aware of their status as salaried institutional employees. By extension, these realities made the ambiguous space occupied by graduate students even trickier to navigate because their status as employee was often vague. Julio’s quip about graduate students wearing the “student hat when they were students” and “professional hat when they were professionals” shined a light on this dilemma. The cultivation of a professional identity, as well as refining professional values, contribute to the sensemaking process and job satisfaction (Holland, 1985). Additionally, the varied professional preparation paths taken by the participants created varying degrees of exposure to higher education law, history, or even formal student affairs academic curriculum (Cooper et al., 2016; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Tull & Kuk, 2012; Waple, 2006). Various studies have explored perceived deficiencies among student affairs professionals including: legal knowledge, institutional and campus politics, and supervision (Cuyjet et al., 2009; Herdlein, 2004; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Waple, 2006). When compared to the number of student affairs programs offering coursework regarding these proficiencies only 62% offered coursework on legal knowledge, 15% discussed institutional and campus politics, and 9% covered supervision (Cooper et al, 2016). This study revealed all three of these areas are critical competencies for student affairs professionals navigating free speech events. In addition to these varied paths, Jennifer’s desire for more graduate preparation on intersecting identities and systems of oppression, as well as Derek’s longing for a space to process in the classroom, are simply two additional examples of how professional preparation influences sensemaking. Institutional
125
Even though this study utilized only two sites for data collection, it is important to note the role of institutional context for both University of the Midwest and City University. Participants at UM cited the institution’s history with free speech events as influencing the conservative legal approach by general counsel, together with the general philosophy of not having campus police office arrest protesting students. An institution’s philosophy and approach to free speech may vary greatly across institutional type (Hirt, 2006, 2009). By contrast, the tense racial history of the metropolitan area where CU is located directly informed the culture and approach of the institution. Concerns of a citywide race riot spilling onto campus are not top of mind for administrators at Midwest. Yet, as participants working at CU described, the relationship between the city and the institution were critical for their own sensemaking concerning free speech events. Even the tone and tenor of senior administrators between UM and CU varied greatly. Midwest staff like Emma and Rose felt their Vice President for Student Affairs sent mixed messages, and presidential transitions on both campuses resulted in new approaches to working with student protests. Every institution had their own unique history and organizational structure; as a result, practitioners often considered free speech events with respect to institutional history, administrative leadership/philosophy, and geographic location. In addition to the specific characteristics unique to each campus, it is important to acknowledge the broader role of institutional racism imbedded systemically throughout the history of higher education (Chesler et al., 2005; Wilder, 2013). Institutions of higher education are inherently incapable of being neutral arbiters within a historic framework of white supremacy (Cabrera, 2009). Thelin’s (2011) work carefully detailed the historic origins of U.S. higher education which were designed to prepare white men for future leadership roles. Further, legislation such as the Morrill Land Grant Acts provided access to students of color but also sustained racial inequality (Harper et al., 2009). Similarly, the G. I. Bill after World War II further exacerbated racial inequities on campus (Katznelson, 2005). From an organizational perspective, financial structures, staffing patterns, and even campus iconography must be viewed through a racialized lens (Bonilla-Silva, 2018). Imbedded within the narratives of this study are markers of this systemic racism. For example, the anecdote about how the Black student affairs practitioners at City University are paid less than their white counterparts is a function of systemic racism broadly. Additionally, the racialized experiences of isolation noted under the personal characteristics above for participants like Julio and Aria are a function of historic
126
staffing patterns across higher education and within student affairs specifically. A 2018 report by College and University Professional Association for Human Resources found that within student affairs only 8% of professional identified as Hispanic and only 3% as Asian; these percentages significantly lag in proportion to student enrollment trends nationally (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018). Again, institutions are historic entities, and the legacies of white supremacy and racism can be found across the landscape of higher education. Collectively, new student affairs practitioners have to sift through a variety of environmental inputs as they make sense of free speech events on their campus. There is not one standard formulaic approach for this process, but the findings in this study highlighted the lenses that new student affairs practitioners employ as they make sense of these events. How participants used these inputs and events to understand their role as a student affairs professional is at the heart of the next section in addressing the third research question. Role of the Student Affairs Professional The narratives in this study shed light on the overarching question posed by Magolda et al. (2019), “How can student affairs educators create an equitable climate conducive to learning in a dynamic environment fraught with complexity and a sociopolitical context characterized by increasing intolerance, incivility, and overt discrimination?” (p. xvii). The practitioners in this study all fundamentally grappled with their role in ensuring equity, civility, and safety on campus. One of the key insights from the findings involves the saliency of social identities in making sense of free speech events. The participants from targeted or marginalized social identities spoke to the added invisible labor that free speech events often created for them, a feeling consistent with racial battle fatigue (Evans & Moore, 2015; Quaye et al., 2019). This experience reflects a similar articulation from McElderry and Rivera (2020) which found staff of color often experience isolation, exhaustion, taxation, and invisibility during free speech events. Therefore, it is urgent that the responsibility for supporting students before, during, or after a contentious free speech event not fall exclusively on the shoulders of frequently overburdened multicultural or diversity affairs staff. Additionally, it is incumbent upon senior student affairs staff and colleagues to provide appropriate support for staff of color and those with other marginalized identities as these events can generate feelings of exhaustion or isolation for these professionals. For instance, how less isolated might Derek have felt if his boss engaged in
127
culturally proficient supervision (Gunzburger, 2017; Roper, 2011)? Support in managing free speech events cannot rest solely on the shoulders of staff members of color. NASPA, a leading professional association for student affairs practitioners, developed standards of practice which should guide professionals in their work. Their newly released guide on Free Speech and the Inclusive Campus: How do we Foster the Campus Community we Want? (NASPA, 2020) crystalized a prominent undercurrent throughout this study: how do student affairs professionals navigate the complicated, yet essential, role of balancing free speech and inclusivity? The guide created by NASPA (2020) outlined three potential paths for balancing free speech and inclusion: 1) prioritize student safety and well-being, 2) affirm the educational value of intellectual curiosity and engage with ideas across difference, and 3) uphold the ideals of free speech. Although the guide effectively offered the benefits and drawbacks of each tactic, I would argue student affairs professionals should work toward a blended approach that embraces elements of all three. It is not enough to simply uphold the value of free speech as sacrosanct with a complete disregard for student safety; all three approaches offer value and can be used in combination. Indeed, the narratives presented in this study showcase new professionals grappling with safety, ideas across difference, and free speech simultaneously. Though participants shared a general discomfort with hostile free speech events, they each expressed with great clarity the importance of protecting free speech on a public campus. This pattern is consistent with Miller et al. (2018) who found senior student affairs professionals also believed it was important to protect free speech as well. Balancing free speech and an inclusive campus community is not an either/or proposition—both ideas should be embraced. By working through this tension, student affairs practitioners are integral in protecting free, diverse, and democratic societies (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). This process is inherently messy where mistakes will likely be made, but like Aria stated when they reflected on their own experiences at CU, we as a field of higher education professionals should try to find the “beauty” in free speech. Rodriguez (2019) articulated that student affairs professionals have an important role in preparing students and institutions alike for free speech activism. This study is replete with examples of participants actively engaged in this mission. In order to fulfill this role, Rodriguez (2019) argued student affairs professionals should seek to create spaces where folks “can listen, exchange ideas, construct solutions, and investigate possibilities” (p. 70). Individuals in this
128
study pushed back on the idea that student affairs is only concerned with creating safe spaces as a way to shield students from hateful rhetoric; instead, the collective focus was on creating conditions where student voice is respected, ensuring commitments to diversity and inclusion are upheld, and providing support for students to process events that impact their various identities. Because of the misappropriation of the term safe space (Ali, 2017), Arao and Clemens (2013) offered the term brave space to describe the practice of safely fostering challenging dialogue in an educational setting. Participants viewed public universities as well-equipped to provide an educational environment that promotes active listening and the exchange of contested ideas. Rose’s narrative explicitly drew attention to the role of public institutions providing space for discussion and dissent. Spaces like the college union are uniquely positioned to support the academic mission of an institution, encourage community building, and broadly promote the democratic aims of higher education (Butts et al., 2012; Rouzer et al., 2014; Strange & Banning, 2015). As student affairs practitioners, it is important to be mindful of our professional responsibility to cultivate educational spaces and opportunities that promote learning, growth, and development. This study also featured the important role that new student affairs professionals occupy in supporting graduate student development. A central tension that arose following free speech events at University of the Midwest centered on role confusion for graduate students. Gunzburger (2019) contended that graduate supervision is an adaptive challenge (Heifetz, 1994) that requires practitioners to appropriately scaffold experiences, engage in identity-conscious support, communicate with faculty, and provide quality supervision. These steps require supervisors of graduate staff to assess their own developmental capacities and acknowledge identity-based systems of power and oppression. Recognizing the liminal space graduate staff occupy is critical (Bui, 2019), and new student affairs practitioners are well situated to be good partners in helping graduates push their growth edge (Berger, 2012). Although not all new student affairs professionals are in a position to supervise graduate staff, those that do play an important role in the socialization process of future practitioners (Tull et al., 2009). Finally, and perhaps most centrally, participants stated time and again their role fundamentally was to support students. This reflects assertions by Dalton and Crosby (2011) who argued that the guiding values and core beliefs of the student affairs profession include a concern for student welfare, holistic student development, and the advancement of student success.
129
Jordyn was very explicit that her job was to support all students. This task is not easy, especially when students come to our campuses with a variety of experiences and cultural competencies (Howard-Hamilton et al., 2016). Julio’s observation that if you want to bring Michelle Obama you better be ready to bring Mike Pence is a poignant summation of this potential dilemma. Student affairs practitioners have to be prepared to support both liberal and conservative students. They also have to assist all students regardless of race, gender expression, sexual identity, worldview, and ability status. It involves supporting students who want to hear Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as those that his hurtful rhetoric impacts. Every event will present new dynamics or obstacles to work through, but having a philosophical approach toward helping students will continue to be a guiding north star that orients student affairs work. Implications The rich narratives cultivated by this study generated findings that supported existing literature and pushed the discussion of free speech in new directions. This section engages in a discussion about what the implications of this study are for graduate preparation programs, student affairs practice, and policy. Although I acknowledge these categories do not exist in isolation and influence one another, the goal is to provide implications that spur thought, discussion, and potential plans of action for scholars and practitioners alike. Graduate Preparation Programs Participants in this study affirm previous research about student affairs practitioners entering the profession with varying degrees of comfort and familiarity with higher education law (Leffers, 2000). The lack of standardization among professional preparation programs (Liddell et al., 2014) in student affairs creates a situation where many practitioners never take a course that specifically focuses on legal systems specific to postsecondary education. Although judgment about the necessity or efficacy in offering such a course exceeds the scope of this study, every participant acknowledged that familiarity with basic legal frameworks germane to higher education was important within their respective functional areas. With some participants expressing a desire to ascend into senior leadership positions within student affairs, graduate preparation programs should analyze their academic offerings and create opportunities to discuss higher education law, professional ethics, and crisis management as part of the academic curriculum. Scholars have lamented the notable absence of scholarly research focusing on the development of professional ethics among new student affairs professionals (Janosik et al., 2004;
130
Reybold et al., 2008). Eberhardt and Valente (2007) noted that navigating issues of free speech and institutional/professional values are ethical dilemmas that student affairs practitioners may encounter in their work. Though questions of free speech are often framed by legal frameworks, graduate preparation programs would be well served to incorporate ethical decision making as part of a graduate curriculum. This could take place in pre-established courses on student affairs practice or leadership, or as special topics courses offered on an annual basis. Relatedly, the centrality and importance of culturally competent approaches to supervision and student support cannot be overstated. Research indicates that graduate preparation programs do not adequately prepare future practitioners for supervision (Gunzburger, 2017; Holmes, 2014). In addition to Jennifer’s call for coursework on intersectionality, a central dilemma across the literature involves balancing free speech with inclusive campus environments. Graduate level coursework on diversity and intergroup dialogue are well positioned to prepare students to tackle these challenges as future professionals in the field (Shaw Bonds & Quaye, 2019). Faculty may consider the use of case studies or tabletop exercises that allow students to work through complex scenarios as potential activities that allow students the opportunity to explore these nuanced events. Molly and Emma both provided examples of how faculty used free speech events as opportunities to explore the topic in the classroom. Faculty should not shy away from current events on their local campus or geographic region, they can provide valuable learning opportunities for students in a classroom setting. Although the role of faculty in graduate preparation programs came up infrequently over the course of participant interviews, graduate faculty are well positioned to use their classroom as a space of exploration and community healing following free speech events (Fecho et al., 2010; Garcia & Dutro, 2018). Using a literary lens, Garcia and Dutro (2018) argued that the classroom, as a component of a democratic society, can be used to process and heal following the aftermath of an election. However, faculty should be trained in understanding trauma therapy (Caruth, 2010), professional ethics (Reybold et al., 2008), or intergroup dialogue (Zúñiga, 2003). Emma spoke specifically to the impact this type of forum provided as she processed the 2016 U.S. General Election. Further, faculty should work collaboratively with practitioners to help graduate students navigate their dual roles as students and practitioners; navigating this role negotiation requires skillful partnerships between faculty and staff. Research has highlighted that partnerships between academic affairs and student affairs create seamless and engaged learning
131
environments (Blimling et al., 1999; Kuh et al., 2005; Mayhew et al., 2016; Whitt et al., 2008). Faculty and assistantship supervisors should establish quarterly or semesterly meetings to discuss graduate student experiences in and out of the classroom. Further, opportunities may exist in practicum or internship courses to bring in new professionals to discuss with graduate students how they recently navigated these dual roles. Student Affairs Practice Many of the participants in this study spoke to the importance of being familiar with institutional policies and procedures. As part of the socialization and employee onboarding process of new student affairs practitioners, it is essential that departments and supervisors create appropriate trainings that prepare staff members for potential free speech events. This may include a discussion of previous campus events, a training session that includes general counsel, or using small group case studies to analyze campus responses at peer or aspirational institutions. Clear information helps reduce role ambiguity and provides critical information that allows practitioners to engage in developmental conversations with supervisees or students with whom they may be working. Additionally, purposeful employee orientation contributes to sensemaking within organizational systems (Cotner-Klinger, 2013; Winston & Creamer, 1997). The findings in this research also underscore the critical role supervision plays for new student affairs professionals. Effective supervisors provided opportunities for staff members to debrief stressful events, and also offered vital institutional context for participants in this study. Julio even shared the example of how the Director in his unit provided a professional development opportunity that explored how conservative students may experience the college environment. Supervision is a dynamic and highly individualized task for practitioners, but I would offer the themes presented in Chapter Four as useful guideposts in supporting new student affairs professionals. For example, supervisors can ask reflective questions like the following: “How has their supervisees professional path prepared them to handle free speech events?”; “What salient identities may be impacting their supervisees experience as a professional?”; “What context may be missing that I could potentially provide as a supervisor?”; “How can I develop a supervisory relationship built on trust and mutual respect?”; or “What might be happening locally, nationally, or globally that could impact our collective work?” These types of inquiries spur discussions or provide opportunities for professional development. A poor supervisory experience, such as Derek’s experience with a white supervisor, may exacerbate a
132
situation. Supervisors must be proactive in cultivating positive relationships with new student affairs professionals. Senior leadership across student affairs must also be clear and unequivocal in their commitment to diversity. Institutional stakeholders, as well as community members, frequently misattribute free speech content as a reflection of institutional values. Aria’s example of how City University used a promotional video to be proactive in espousing their commitment to diversity serves as a shining example of how institutions cannot wait until a contentious free speech event to espouse their commitment to diversity—it must be intentional and sustained. Additionally, participants at University of the Midwest spoke to a culture where senior leaders eschewed event debriefing and even outright avoided providing statements regarding sexual assault protests to the dismay of entry-level staff. The narratives provided by participants show that new student affairs staff look to their senior leadership for cues about institutional values; as a result, these leaders should be proactive in the development and communication of divisional responses to free speech events. Policy The narratives in this study reveal that rapidly evolving social media sites continue to play an expanded role in free speech events on campus. Hashtag activism is increasingly used by individuals to raise awareness for a movement or an injustice (Fang, 2015). They also raise important policy questions about what free speech is or is not protected in an online format. Some problematic social media platforms mentioned by participants, such as YikYak, no longer exist, but others such as Facebook and Twitter continue to play an important social role on campus. Institutions need to regularly review their policies with respect to social media usage and potential violations of a student code of conduct. Viral videos and social media postings can wreak havoc on institutional reputations, and student affairs professionals are well situated to offer their insight and expertise in these areas because of their close connection with students. The increase in student activism and free speech events on campuses offer the opportunity for campus professionals to review their policies and procedures before an event occurs on their campus. Richard Spencer took advantage of loose policy language that allowed any member of the public to reserve space on campus. Institutional handbooks that provide definitions for protests and demonstrations may use broad our outdated definitions. Again, a major takeaway from this study is the necessity for campuses to be proactive in their planning for
133
potential free speech events. Campuses should engage in an annual review of their policies to ensure that commitments to free speech and inclusive environments are maintained. Additionally, because the state and federal legal environment continues to shift and evolve, practitioners must remain current with potential adjustments to policies from year-to- year. Molly’s example of how the state legislature passed language that prohibited free speech zones on campus is one such example. As a result, it is vitally important that functional areas such as the college union, student activities, fraternity and sorority life, conduct, and residence life have good working relationships with the office of general counsel at their institutions in order to develop policies and procedures that uphold institutional values without running afoul of new legal rulings. Complete engagement and coordination across departments and divisions is necessary to ensure a campus is prepared for a free speech event, and student affairs professionals are positioned to support institutional leadership with policy recommendations. Finally, public institutions must simultaneously remain clear in their support of free speech protections, and unequivocal in their commitment to inclusive campus environments. Although these dual commitments are seemingly at odds with one another, a campus community that enacts a culture of respect for multiculturalism; actively recruits diverse students, faculty, and staff; and commits financial resources to diversity, is well positioned to address free speech events when they do occur. The American Council on Education (n.d.) has noted the policy implications created by these recent tension between freedom of speech and diversity/inclusion and has cultivated a blog series dedicated to unpacking this issue. One of the blog features was a review of recent surveys of college students and university presidents regarding free speech. Results found overwhelming majorities of both groups viewed free speech rights and inclusive communities as important complementary components of a democratic society (Espinosa et al., 2018). Therefore, it is incumbent on institutions to ensure commitments to diversity and inclusion are continuous and on-going; not empty rhetorical platitudes in the aftermath of a free speech event on campus. Limitations and Future Research Limitations with this study are the natural byproduct of intentional decisions made in the course of designing this study. An honest detailing of limitations allows readers to discern levels of trustworthiness related to the results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It also offers researchers the opportunity to engage in future research opportunities in order to explore dimensions not covered
134
in this study or to pose new research questions. Because I do not view limitations as inherently negative, this section openly embraces a combined discussion about limitations as potential avenues for future research. First and foremost, the intentional site selection of either University of the Midwest or City University inevitably shaped the insights shared by participants in this study. Although both institutions served as information-rich sites because of their sheer volume of free speech events, I recognize that some of the exemplars are more extreme and may be less reflective of practitioner experiences nationwide. Not every campus will have their own 2017 Charlottesville experience like the University of Virginia; however, most public campuses will continue to encounter controversial flyers, editorials, and street preachers in the years to come. However, even with using narrow site selection criteria, the robust findings generated common themes (Creswell & Poth, 2018) across the 10 participants at two institutions. Future research in this area should seek a broader participant pool that attends to different regions in the country to enhance transferability. Doing so would give readers insight into how new student affairs professionals’ sensemaking of free speech events for those working on the West coast, for instance, may differ from those on the East coast—given their unique sociopolitical and state policy contexts. Relatedly, given that this study focused specifically on public institutions, future studies should explore how the topic of free speech is experienced and enacted at private institutions. Although private institutions are not held to the same legal requirements, many do follow the same free speech principles as their public counterparts (LaBanc et al., 2020). A comparative study would provide the opportunity to analyze free speech between institutional type. An additional limitation based on the sampling technique involves the representation of student affairs functional areas. Although a notable strength of this study is the diversity of identities and experiences among participants, the criteria for participation made it challenging to achieve representation across more functional areas. For example, none of the employees working in the multicultural affairs office at Midwest met the criteria for participation due to their years of experience in the field. Relatedly, because the college union at City falls outside of the Division of Student Affairs, I was unable to include a participant that could add their valuable perspective. Achieving balance in participant functional areas between the two sites would have provided opportunities to add an additional layer of comparative analysis in this study. Future studies would benefit from engaging in research that explores free speech through
135
the lens of a singular functional area such as the college union, residence life, or multicultural affairs. Such research would provide a more concerted view of how practitioners in functional areas have to navigate unique policies and trends in their work. Another limitation is the intentionally broad operationalization of free speech event. A growing body of literature has emerged that focuses on events more narrowly through a prism of protest movements or activism (Douglas et al., 2020; Linder et al., 2019). This study attempted to cast a wider frame that also included controversial speakers as part of a broader conceptualization of free speech. Although the findings yielded themes that have broad applicability across event types and institutions, future research is well positioned to take any of the themes and explore the topic of free speech more deeply. For example, a targeted approach that investigates political free speech during an election year, or an examination of the racialized experiences of student affairs practitioners with respect to racially-driven campus protests, are simply two ways in which future studies can expand the literature on this topic even further. The topic of free speech on campus lends itself to a broad array of possible research questions with this study simply representing one approach. I actively encourage others to continue lines of inquiry that push the larger body of literature on free speech in higher education in additional ways. This research has broad applicability for those working as student affairs professionals and can offer standards of best practice that support students and promote democratic aims of higher education. Similar to how this work began with my personal narrative, drawing inspiration from the methodological approach, I would like to conclude with a more recent story. Conclusion Hi Adam, April 26, 2019 I just wanted to write and thank you for being at the Students for Life event last night to see that everything ran smoothly. It was a relief to have you there! Thanks again and have a great weekend. -E Around the time of my dissertation proposal defense last year, I received the above note of thanks via email from an undergraduate student. She is a conservative student activist who months earlier stood on stage at the White House with the 45th President of the United States for an event designed to deride colleges as being hostile to the voices of conservative students. In short, our political beliefs could not be more polar opposite from one another. As the
136
organizational president for the campus-based Students for Life, she was planning an upcoming lecture on campus where the national president of Student for Life would speak about the “Lies Feminists Tell.” Once word about the lecture became public, the feminist student organization on campus decided to hold a counter event across the hall in a smaller auditorium. Based on my previous experience working numerous free speech events on campus, our Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs tapped me to be on site yet again. So, what happened? There was no yelling, both events were well attended, and students in both student organizations amicably shared their perspectives. Though I spent most of that evening standing in the atrium of the business school chatting with students and ensuring general safety for all, I again was reminded of the essence and urgency for this dissertation project. I found myself reflecting on my own identities in the moment and how this event was a reaffirmation of the role higher education can play in supporting free speech. When I received that email from the Students for Life president, I felt like I did my work as a student affairs professional; I contributed to a safe environment where students were able to gather and engage in reflection about their values and beliefs. Based on my liberal political ideology, I also felt like the event was an opportunity to push back against conservative demonization of colleges and universities. This study reasserts that student affairs professionals, especially those early in their career, play an integral role on the frontlines of free speech events. It is important that newer student affairs practitioners receive training and support as they manage a variety of issues before, during, and after an event has occurred. Additionally, it is equally imperative that those who are more senior in the field of higher education learn from how these early-career practitioners make sense of their roles and responsibilities relative to free speech events on campus. In the end, the next campus flashpoint may be just around the corner, which begs the question to all reading: Is your institution prepared?
137
EPILOGUE It is Memorial Day weekend, the traditional start of the summer season, but this is 2020 and nothing is the same anymore. More than 100,000 people have died in the United States from Coronavirus (COVID-19), colleges are grappling with how to move forward with the fall 2020 semester, and ‘uncertainty’ is the word of the month. I have been lucky thus far. The abrupt and unexpected transition in closing college campuses provided me the opportunity to finish this dissertation, but I also find it necessary to share with readers that the majority of the data collection for this study occurred before COVID-19. As a result, Chapters Four and Five include findings and interpretations based on a world before the global pandemic. As numerous colleges are on the precipice of financial insolvency, I have had colleagues laid off or furloughed from their jobs, and the world we are collectively experiencing will never be the same. In some respects, it seems quaint and unimportant to dig into philosophical questions about free speech on campus as friends are watching family members needlessly die. But this is my reality as I head into the sunset of my doctoral journey. As I finish drafting this document I am taken back to Tuesday, March 10, 2020. That day was an interesting crossroad transition from what was into what would be. It was a grey, dreary day in Oxford, OH—not uncommon for that time of year as the seasons transition from winter to spring. I was assigned to be on site for the infamous street preachers who were scheduled to be on campus that day (I am truly hard pressed to find a public institution where they do not make an appearance at least once a year). It was a fairly standard appearance by the preachers—they condemned just about every group to eternal damnation, and they drew the standard number of students sardonically jeering them. Midway through the event, I pulled out my phone to check for any incoming messages I may have missed and I read the subject line “Important COVID-19 Update to the Miami Community” from the President of the University. An emergency community forum was held later that day to provide updates on the rapidly evolving situation. By Friday, all classes were moved online and campus residence halls emptied out in a hurried exodus out of the mile square of Oxford, OH. In the span of four days, I saw the busy campus intersection morph from street preacher protest to one completely devoid of humans. The juxtaposition was truly jarring. So what does all this mean for the future of free speech on campus? Honestly, your guess is as good as mine at this point. The future is naturally uncertain, but even more so in these
138
unprecedented times. I find myself glancing up from my laptop occasionally to see a flurry of protests happening in state capitals demanding that businesses re-open during quarantine; clearly many of the underlying sociopolitical conditions remain intact even in a time of COVID-19. The 2020 U.S. General Election is a mere six months away, and I am left to wonder what will happen on campuses now? So many of the participants in this study cited the election as a major impact for their work in the year ahead. Now? It is questionable how many campuses will exist or be open in the fall. Financial disarray was already bubbling under the surface at many institutions and COVID-19 was the pin that finally pricked that metaphorical bubble. As a researcher, I am even more attune to the ethics of protecting participant identities in an environment where job losses are nearly unavoidable. I am also cognizant that conservative ideologues seeking to further dangerous policy agendas may target and weaponize this type of research. Using a political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017) is unavoidable in this work, but my ultimate goal was to focus on the impact free speech events have on new student affairs professionals—not providing additional oxygen to bad faith political actors. In addition to concerns about COVID-19, the recent deaths of George Floyd, Ahmuad Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and Tony McDade (a small sample of the numerous Black lives lost), have prompted nationwide protests across all 50 states that echo back to protests and riots during the late 1960s Civil Rights Movement. The protests have prompted some college presidents to release university statements that denounce racism and declare publicly Black Lives Matter. Unfortunately, many of the statements thus far are empty platitudes that fail to recognize the historic legacies of racism imbedded in the foundation of higher education. However, this national reckoning has accelerated movements to remove confederate symbols and monuments from southern institutions like University of Alabama, strengthened calls to remove the names of racist individuals from buildings and sports stadiums, and prompted some schools to revoke admission offers to students who posted racist content on social media sites like Instagram. It has also forced institutions like the University of North Carolina Wilmington and Miami University to publicly grapple with free speech protections and inclusion in the aftermath of tenured faculty members expressing racist comments. Based on the findings of this study I have to believe this activism and energy will spill onto campuses across the country this fall regardless of COVID- 19.
139
If and when students do return, will student centers, theaters, or other large communal spaces be open for students to engage in dialogue and debate? What happens if a protest springs up on a campus amidst requirements that everyone remain six feet apart to enforce social distancing? These questions are simply a sampling of the issues confronting practitioners in the near future. In my office, we are already actively working to develop contingency plans for how to manage protests in the student center moving forward. Concerns about safety now include potential threats to public health if there is a mass gathering of people. Our jobs will look different, our roles will look different, and although there is great uncertainty ahead, I am strangely hopeful we can collectively craft a new way forward. Regardless what the future may hold, I remain confident that the issue of free speech on campus will continue to be of great interest to scholars and student affairs practitioners alike. One of the challenges in writing this piece involved the sheer volume of new literature released on a near monthly basis as I completed this dissertation. NASPA’s newly released guide entitled, Free Speech and the Inclusive Campus: How do we Foster the Campus Community we Want?, was just published on Friday, May 22, 2020. In April, Douglas et al. (2020) released Campus Uprisings which advanced a racialized perspective on the topic, and in January, two new texts regarding free speech were released focusing on the approach of student affairs practitioners (see Labanc et al., 2020; Sun & McClellan, 2020). As stated in Chapter One, this topic remains timely and timeless. Based on recent events this work feels even more urgent than when I began this project two years ago. Candidly, it is a time for reflection and adjustment. It is my sincere hope that this study adds another voice to the literature even among the ‘tyranny of the urgent’ that occupies our work in a COVID-19 world.
140
REFERENCES Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D-L. (Eds.). (2019). Rethinking college student development theory using critical frameworks. Stylus. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). ACPA/NASPA. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators. Authors. Adams, K., Hean, S., Sturgis, P., & Clark J. M. (2006). Investigating the factors influencing professional identity of first-year health and social care students. Learning in Health and Social Care, 5(2), 55–68. Alger, J., & Piper, M. (2019). Administration, faculty, and the hard free-speech questions: Working together to defend core principles. In M. Ferguson (Ed.), Academe (Winter 2019, pp. 14–19). American Association of University Professors. Ali, D. (2017). NASPA policy and practice series: Safe spaces and brave spaces, historical context and recommendations for student affairs professionals. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Inc. Altbach, P. G., & Cohen, R. (1990). American student activism: The post-sixties transformation. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(1), 32–49. Alvarado, R. E. (2019). Free expression, civic education, and inclusive campuses. In P. M. Magolda, M. B. Baxter Magolda, & R. Carducci (Eds.), Contested issues in troubled times: Student affairs dialogues on equity, civility, and safety (pp. 109–119). Stylus. American Council on Education. (n.d.). Freedom of speech, diversity, and inclusion. https://www.higheredtoday.org/policy-research/campus-climate-inclusion/freedom- speech-diversity-inclusion/ Amey, M. J., & Ressor, L. M. (2015). Beginning your journey: A guide for new student affairs professionals in student affairs (4th ed.). National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Inc. Applebaum, B. (2003). Social justice, democratic education, and the silencing of words that wound. Journal of Moral Education, 32(2), 151–162. Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus. Arminio, J., & Ortiz, A. M. (2011). Professionalism. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & V. Torres
141
(Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (6th ed., pp. 377–391), Jossey- Bass. Barham, J. D., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (2006). Supervision of new professionals in student affairs: Assessing and addressing needs. The College Student Affairs Journal, 26(1), 64–89. Barr, M. J., McClellan, G. S., & Sandeen, A. (2014). Making change happen in student affairs: Challenges and strategies for professionals. Jossey-Bass. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press. Bausch, P. T. (1995). Constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly, and association in public colleges and universities: Implications for institutional policy towards students (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 9612122). Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Stylus. Ben-Porath, S. R. (2016). Safety, dignity, and the quest for a democratic campus culture. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24(1), 79–85. Ben-Porath, S. R. (2017). Free speech on campus. University of Pennsylvania Press. Berger, J. G. (2012). Changing on the job: Developing leaders for a complex world. Stanford Business Books. Biddix, J. P. (2014). Development through dissent: Campus activism as civic learning. In C. J. Broadhurst & G. L. Martin (Eds.), “Radical academia”? Understanding the climates for campus activists (New Directions for Higher Education, no. 167, pp. 73–85). Jossey- Bass. Biddix, J. P., Somers, P. A., & Polman, J. L. (2009). Protest reconsidered: Activism’s role as civic engagement educator. Innovative Higher Education, 34(3), 133–147. Bilgrami, A., & Cole, J. (2015). Who’s afraid of academic freedom? Columbia University Press. Bird, L. E., Mackin, M. B., & Schuster, S. K. (2006). The First Amendment on campus: A handbook for college and university administrators. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Inc. Blacker, D. J. (2013). The falling rate of learning and the neoliberal endgame. Zero Books. Bledstein, B. J. (1976). The culture of professionalism: The middle class and the development of
142
higher education in America. W. W. Norton & Co. Blimling, G. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1999). Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning. Jossey-Bass. Bok, D. C. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university. Harvard University Press. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2018). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America (5th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Bonilla-Silva, E., Goar, C., & Embrick, D. G. (2006). When whites flock together: The social psychology of white habitus. Critical Sociology, 32(2), 229–253. Braungart, R. C., & Braungart, M. M. (1990). Political generational themes in the American student movements of the 1930s and 1960s. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 18(2), 177–230. Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 576–599). SAGE. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Brown, A. D., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2008). Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human Relations, 61(8), 1035–1062. Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.). Transaction Publishers. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press. Bui, H. (2019). Caught in the middle: A stable anchor for graduate students amid a discursive struggle. In P. M. Magolda, M. B. Baxter Magolda, & R. Carducci (Eds.), Contested issues in troubled times: Student affairs dialogues on equity, civility, and safety (pp. 334– 340). Stylus. Bureau, D. A. (2011). “Making them my own”: Student affairs master’s students socialization to professional values (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 3456444). Butler, J. (2017, December 7). Limits on free speech? [Blog post]. Academe Blog. https://academeblog.org/2017/12/07/free-expression-or-harassment/
143
Butts, P., Beltramini, E., Bourassa, M., Connelly, P., Meyer, R., Mitchell, S., & Willis, T. (2012). The college union idea (2nd ed.). Association of College Unions International. Cabrera, N. L. (2009). Invisible racism: Male, hegemonic whiteness in higher education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California Los Angeles, CA. Cabrera, N. L., Watson, J. S., & Franklin, J. D. (2016). Racial arrested development: A critical whiteness analysis of the campus ecology. Journal of College Student Development, 57(2), 119–134. Cain, T. R. (2012). Establishing academic freedom: Politics, principles, and the development of core values. Palgrave Macmillan. Calhoun, D. W., & Taub, D. J. (2014). Mentor relationships for entry-level men in student affairs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(2), 183–194. Callan, E. (2016). Education in safe and unsafe spaces. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24(1), 64–78. Caruth, C. (2010). Unclaimed experience: Trauma, narrative and history. Johns Hopkins University Press. Catalano, D. C. J., & Tillapaugh, D. (2020). Identity, role, and oppression: Experiences of LGBTQ resource center graduate assistants. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1699104 Chase, S. E. (2005). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 651–680). SAGE. Chase, S. E. (2018). Narrative inquiry: Toward theoretical and methodological maturity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 544–560). SAGE. Chemerinsky, E. (2017). “Free Speech on Campus.” Remarks from the Tobriner Memorial Lecture at University of California, Hastings College of Law, November 2017. Chemerinsky, E., & Gillman, H. (2017). Free speech on campus. Yale University Press. Chesler, M., Lewis, A., & Crowfoot, J. (2005). Challenging racism in higher education: Promoting justice. Rowman & Littlefield. Cilente, K, Henning, G., Jackson, J. S., Kennedy, D., & Sloane, T. (2006). Report on the new professional needs study. American College Personnel Association.
144
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Routledge. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass. Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 178–184. Cohen, J. A. (2017). Psychological harm and free speech on campus. Society, 54(4), 320–325. Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project. http://www.qualres.org/ Cohen, R., & Zelnik, R. E. (2002). The free speech movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s. University of California Press. Collins, D. (2009). The socialization process for new professionals. In A. Tull, J. B. Hirt, & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors (pp. 3–27). Stylus. Coomes, M. D., & Gerda, J. J. (2016). “A long and honorable history”: Student affairs in the United States. In G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (4th ed., pp. 3–23). Jossey-Bass. Cooper, J., Mitchell, Jr., D., Eckerle, K., & Martin, K. (2016). Addressing perceived skill deficiencies in student affairs graduate preparation programs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(2), 107–117. Cotner-Klinger, A. L. (2013). Student affairs new professionals employee orientation programs’ relationship with organizational socialization. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 3557860). Creamer, D. G., Janosik, S. M., Winston, R. B., & Kuk, L. (2001). Quality assurance in student affairs: Role and commitment of NASPA. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 8(1), 139–167. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE. Creswell, J. W., & Poth C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
145
five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. Cross, W. E., Jr. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5(1), 13–31. Cuyjet, M. J., Longwell-Grice, R., & Molina, E. (2009). Perceptions of new student affairs professionals and their supervisors regarding the application of competencies learned in preparation programs. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 104–119. Dalton, J. C., & Crosby, P. C. (2011). A profession in search of a mission: Is there an enduring purpose for student affairs in U.S. higher education? Journal of College & Character, 12(4), 1–7. Davis, T. J., & Cooper, D. L. (2017). “People are messy”: Complex narratives of supervising new professionals in student affairs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(1), 55–68. Delgado, R. (1982). Words that wound: A tort action for racial insults, epithets, and name calling. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Review, 17, 134–182. Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(2), 199–238. Dewey, J. (2008). The social significance of academic freedom. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 11, pp. 136–139). Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1936) Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E. D. Mich. 1989). Dorn, C. (2017). For the common good: A new history of higher education in America. Cornell University Press. Douglas, T.-R., M.O., Shockley, K. G., & Toldson, I. (Eds.). (2020). Campus uprisings: How student activists and collegiate leaders resist racism and create hope. Teachers College Press. Downs, D. A. (2006). Restoring free speech and liberty on campus. Cambridge University Press. Eberhardt, D. M., Jr., & Valente, A. M. (2007). The moral landscape of student affairs work. Journal of College & Character, 9(2), 1–6. Ellingson, A. L. (1965). “Campus Rebellion, 1965, The Instant Mob.” Report of the Proceedings of the Forty-second Annual Conference of the Association of College Unions. Bloomington, IN: Association of College Unions International, 1965.
146
Ellison, C. W. (2009). Miami University 1809–2009: Bicentennial perspectives. Ohio University Press. Espinosa, L. L., Crandall, J. R., & Howard, E. (2018, April 9). For college students and presidents alike, free speech is a balancing act. Higher Education Today. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2018/04/09/college-students-presidents-alike-free- speech-balancing-act/ Evans, L., & Moore, W. L. (2015). Impossible burdens: White institutions, emotional labor, and micro-resistance. Social Problems, 62, 439–454. Evans, M. E., & Lange, A. C. (2019). Supporting student activists: An appreciative inquiry. In G. L. Martin, C. Linder, & B. M. Williams (Eds.), Leadership learning through activism (New Directions for Student Leadership, no. 161, pp. 65–77). Jossey-Bass. Fang, J. (2015). In defense of hashtag activism. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 2(1), 138–141. Fecho, B., Collier, N. D., Friese, E. E. G., & Wilson A. A. (2010). Critical conversations: Tensions and opportunities of the dialogical classroom. English Education, 42(4), 427– 447. Ferguson, R. A. (2017). We demand: The university and student protest. University of California Press. Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 468–483. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299. Fish, S. (2014). Versions of academic freedom. University of Chicago Press. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Mission. (n.d.). https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission/ Free Speech vs. The Inclusive Campus: An Unending Struggle. (n.d.). https://www.naspa.org/events/free-speech-vs.-the-inclusive-campus-an-unending- struggle Freeman, J. P., & Taylor, C. (2009). Changing student characteristics and socialization. In A. Tull, J. B. Hirt, & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs
147
administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors (pp. 67–85). Stylus. Freeman, W. W. (2009). Speech rights in public colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 3385371). Gales, K. E. (1966). A campus revolution. The British Journal of Sociology, 17(1), 1–19. Garcia, A., & Dutro, E. (2018). Electing to heal: Trauma, healing, and politics in classrooms. English Education, 50(4), 375–383. Garner, B. A. (2014). Black’s law dictionary (10th ed.). West Group. George, R. P., & West, C. (2017, March 4). Sign the statement: Truth seeking, democracy, and freedom of thought and expression. http://jmp.princeton.edu/statement Gerardin, M. C. (2009). Student free speech: A historical-legal analysis of First Amendment challenges on college campuses (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 3378814). Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257–293. Golding, M. P. (2000). Free speech on campus. Rowman & Littlefield. Gorski, P. C. (2019). Fighting racism, battling burnout: Causes of activist burnout in US racial justice activists. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(5), 667–687. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75–91. Gunzburger, J. S. (2017). “Get it together, damn it!”: Racism in student affairs supervision (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Miami University, Oxford, OH. Gunzburger, J. S. (2019). Navigating two worlds: Supporting graduate students in their dual roles as students and professionals. In P. M. Magolda, M. B. Baxter Magolda, & R. Carducci (Eds.), Contested issues in troubled times: Student affairs dialogues on equity, civility, and safety (pp. 323–333). Stylus. Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2012). The active/ethical professional: A framework for responsible educators. Continuum. Gusa, D. L. (2010). White institutional presence: The impact of Whiteness on campus climate.
148
Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 464–586. Hammersley, M. (2016). Can academic freedom be justified? Reflections on the arguments of Robert Post and Stanley Fish. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), 108–126. Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, L. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 389–414. Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. In S. R. Harper & L. D. Patton (Eds.), Responding to the realities of race on campus (New Directions for Student Services, no. 120, pp. 7–24). Jossey-Bass. Harris, V. T., & Ray, D. C. (2014). Hate speech and the college campus: Considerations for entry level student affairs practitioners. Race, Gender & Class, 21(1–2), 185–194. Harrison, L. M., & Mather, P. C. (2017). Making meaning of student activism: Student activists and administrator perspectives. Mid-Western Educational Research, 29(2), 117–135. Hassan, T. A. (2015). A historical analysis of the development of free speech justifications. The Journal Jurisprudence, 28, 487–506. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Belknap Press. Helms, J. E. (1990). Toward a model of white racial identity development: Theory, research, and practice. Greenwood Press. Herdlein, R. J. (2004). Survey of chief student affairs officers regarding relevance of graduate preparation of new professionals. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 51–71. Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different types of institutions. University Press of America. Hirt, J. B. (2009). The influence of institutional type on socialization. In A. Tull, J. B. Hirt, & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors (pp. 45–66). Stylus. Hoffman, G. D., & Mitchell, T. D. (2016). Making diversity “everyone’s business”: A discourse analysis of institutional responses to student activism for equity and inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 277–289. Hofstadter, R. (1970). Academic freedom in the age of the college. Transaction Publishers. Holland, J. H. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
149
environments (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall. Holmes, A. C. (2014). Experiences of supervision skill development among new professionals in student affairs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Cuyjet, M. J., & Cooper, D. L. (2016). Understanding multiculturalism and multicultural competence among college students. In M. J. Cuyjet, C. Linder, M. F. Howard-Hamilton & D. L. Cooper (Eds.) Multiculturalism on campus: Theories, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion (pp. 11–22). Stylus. Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 539–567. Hurtado, S. (2003). Institutional diversity in American higher education. In S. Komives & D. Woodard (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp. 23–44). Jossey-Bass. Husband, M. (2016). Racial battle fatigue and the Black student affairs professional in the era of #BlackLivesMatter. The Vermont Connection, 37(1), 91–98. Hutchens, N. (2012). You can’t post that . . . or can you? Legal issues related to college and university students’ online speech. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(1), 1–15. Ibarra, H. (1999). Professional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791. Janosik, S. M. (2005). Anticipating legal issues in higher education. NASPA Journal, 42(4), 401– 414. Janosik, S. M., Creamer, D. G., & Humphrey, E. (2004). An analysis of ethical problems facing student affairs administrators. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 356–374. Jones, S. R., & Abes E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. Jossey-Bass. Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. L. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). Routledge. Josselson, R. (2011). Narrative research: Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing story. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L. M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, & E. McSpadden (Eds.), Five ways of doing qualitative analysis; Phenomenological, psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive
150
inquiry (pp. 224–242). Guilford Press. Kaplin, W. A. (1992). A propose process for managing the first amendment aspects of campus hate speech. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 517–538. Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2014). The law of higher education (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was white: An untold story of racial inequality in the twentieth century. W.W. Norton & Co. Keeling, R. P., & Associates. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, American College Personnel Association. Kegan, R. (2009). What “form” transforms?: A cognitive developmental approach to transformative learning. In T. K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words. (pp. 35–54). Routledge. Kell, G. (2017, February 2). Campus investigates, assesses damage from Feb. 1 violence. http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-investigates-assesses-damage-from-feb-1- violence/ Kelly, K. (1984). Initiating a relationship with a mentor in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 21(1), 49–54. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385, U.S. 589 (1967). Kezar, A. (2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between higher education and society. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 429–259. Kezar, A. (2005). Challenges for higher education in serving the public good. In A. Kezar, A. C. Chambers, & J. C. Burkhardt (Eds.), Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement (pp. 23–42). Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A. (2010). Faculty and staff partnering with student activists: Unexplored terrains of interaction and development. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 451–480. Kezar, A. (2013). Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up. Higher Education, 65(6), 761–780. Kezar, A., Avilez, A. A., Drivalas, Y., Wheaton, M. M. (2017). Building social change oriented leadership capacity among student organizations: Developing students and campuses simultaneously. In D. M. Rosch (Ed.), The role of student organizations in developing leadership (New Directions for Student Leadership, no. 155, pp. 45–57). Jossey-Bass.
151
Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014). Collective action on campus toward student development and democratic engagement. In C. J. Broadhurst, & G. L. Martin (Eds.), “Radical academia”? Understanding the climates for campus activists (New Directions for Higher Education, no. 167, pp. 31–41). Jossey-Bass. Kitrosser, H. (2017). Free speech, higher education, and the pc narrative. Minnesota Law Review, 101(5), 1987–2064. Klepper, W. M., & Bakken, T. (1997). Hate speech: A call to principles. NASPA Journal, 35(1), 38–45. Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2013). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Krantz, L. (2017, March 5). ‘Bell Curve’ author attacked by protesters at Middlebury College. Boston Globe. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/04/middlebury/ hAfpA1Hquh7DIS1doiKbhJ/story.html Kretovics, M. (2002). Entry-level competencies: What student affairs administrators consider when screening candidates. Journal of College Student Development, 43(6), 912–920. Kruger, K. (2018, March). NASPA vice presidents for student affairs institute. Session presented at the 100th annual meeting of the NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education Conference, Philadelphia, PA. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, J. E., & Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass. Kuk, L. (2009). The dynamics of organizational models within student affairs. In G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs Administrators (3rd ed, pp. 313–332). Jossey-Bass. Kuk, L., & Cuyjet, M. J. (2009). Graduate preparation programs: The first step in socialization. In A. Tull, J. B. Hirt, & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors (pp. 89–108). Stylus. Labanc, B. H., Fernandez, F., Hutchens, N., & Melear, K. B. (2020). The contested campus: Aligning professional values, social justice, and free speech. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Inc. Labaree, D. F. (2014). 2013 Dewey lecture: College–what is it good for? Education and Culture, 30(1), 3–15.
152
Lal, S., Suto, M., & Ungar, M. (2012). Examining the potential of combining methods of grounded theory and narrative inquiry: A comparative analysis. The Qualitative Report, 17(21), 1–22. Lawrence, C. R. (1990). He hollers let him go: Regulating racist speech on campus. Duke Law Review, 39(3), 431–483. Lebacqz, K. (1985). Professional ethics: Power and paradox. Abingdon Press. Leffers, R. A. (2000). Student affairs practitioners’ familiarity with First Amendment law at public colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 9975402). Letzring, T. D., & Wolff, L. A. (2009). Student worker free speech on the public campus: A new twist to a constant issue. College Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 5–21. Levine, A. (1981). When dreams and heroes died: A portrait of today’s college student. Jossey- Bass. Levinson, R. (2007, July). Academic freedom and the First Amendment. Session presented at the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Summer Institute, Reno, NV. Liddell, D. L., Wilson, M. E., Pasquesi, K., Hirschy, A. S., & Boyle, K. M. (2014). Development of professional identity through socialization in graduate school. Journal of College Student Development, 51(1), 69–84. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). SAGE. Linder, C. (2018). Sexual violence on campus: Power-conscious approaches to awareness, prevention, and response. Emerald Publishing. Linder, C. (2019). Strategies for supporting student activists as leaders. In G. L. Martin, C. Linder, & B. M. Williams (Eds.), Leadership learning through activism (New Directions for Student Leadership, no. 161, pp. 89–96). Jossey-Bass. Louis, M. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251. Lowery, J. W. (2016). Addressing legal and risk management issues. In G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (4th ed.,
153
pp. 399–416). Jossey-Bass. Magolda, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (Eds.). (2011). Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue. Stylus. Magolda, P. M., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Carducci, R. (Eds.). (2019). Contested issues in troubled times: Student affairs dialogues on equity, civility, and safety. Stylus. Magolda, P. M., & Carnaghi, J. E. (Eds.). (2014). Job one 2.0: Understanding the next generation of student affairs professionals. University Press of America, Inc. Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580. Mangan, K, (2019a, April 2). If there is a free-speech ‘crisis’ on campus, PEN America says, lawmakers are making it worse. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/If-There-Is-a-Free-Speech/246031 Mangan, K. (2019b, April 4). Arizona faculty members want charges against border-patrol protestors dropped. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arizona-Faculty-Members-Want/246061 Manning, K. (2013). Organizational theory in higher education. Routledge. Martin, G. L., Linder, C., & Williams, B. M. (2019). Editors’ notes. In G. L. Martin, C. Linder, & B. M. Williams (Eds.), Leadership learning through activism (New Directions for Student Leadership, no. 161, pp. 5–8). Jossey-Bass. Mason, M. C. (2001). Policies and practices at Arizona State University promoting positive campus climate and student freedom of speech (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 3016030). Matias, C. E., & Mackey, J. (2016). Breakin’ down Whiteness in antiracist teaching: Introducing critical Whiteness pedagogy. Urban Review, 48(1), 32–50. Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Westview Press. Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 3). Jossey-Bass. McElderry, J. A., & Rivera, S. H. (2020). Complexifying the narrative: Campus activism and the impact on professionals of color. In T.-R., M.O. Douglas, K. G. Shockley, & I. Toldson
154
(Eds.), Campus uprisings: How student activists and collegiate leaders resist racism and create hope (pp. 97–115). Teachers College Press. McEwen, M. K., & Talbot, D. M. (1998). Designing the student affairs curriculum. In N. J Evans, & C. E. Phelps Tobin (Eds.), The state of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs: Another look (pp. 125–156). University Press of America. McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies (Working Paper 189). Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. Meiklejohn, A. (1948). Free speech and its relation to self-government. Harper & Brothers. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE. Miller, R. A., Guida, T., Smith, S., Ferguson, S. K., & Medina, E. (2018). Free speech tensions: Responding to bias on college and university campuses. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(1), 27–39. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. SAGE. Morse, A. Q. (2018). The First Amendment and the inclusive campus: Effective strategies for leaders in student affairs. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Inc. NASPA. (2020). Free speech and the inclusive campus: How do we foster the campus community we want? Authors. NASPA New Professionals and Graduate Students Knowledge Community. (n.d.). https://www.naspa.org/constituent-groups/kcs/new-professionals-and-graduate-students Oglethorpe, D. (2018). College student attitudes towards free speech and expression (Doctoral dissertation). Electronic Theses and Dissertations (Accession No. 5772). O’Meara, K., Lounder, A., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). To heaven or hell: Sensemaking about why faculty leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 603–632. O’Neil, R. M. (1966). Reflections on the academic senate resolution. California Law Review, 54(1), 88–106. O’Neil, R. M. (1997). Free speech in the college community. Indiana University Press. O’Neil, R. M. (2000). Academic freedom in retrospect and in prospect. In P. J. Hollingsworth
155
(Ed.), Unfettered expression: Freedom in American intellectual life (pp. 19–30). University of Michigan Press. O’Neil, R. M. (2008). Academic freedom in a wired world: Political extremism, corporate power, and the university. Harvard University Press. Palmer, C. J., Penney, S. W., Gehring, D. D., & Neiger, J. A. (1997). Hate speech and hate crimes: Campus conduct codes and supreme court rulings. NASPA Journal, 34(2), 112– 122. Pascale, C.-M. (2011). Cartographies of knowledge: Exploring qualitative epistemologies. SAGE. Pasquerella, L. (2017). Free expression, liberal education, and inclusive excellence. Association of American Colleges & Universities Presidential Statement. Patel, V. (2019, April 3). In Kentucky, a hunger strike for basic support forces a president’s hand. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/ article/In-Kentucky-a-Hunger-Strike/246054 Patton, M. G. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE. PEN America. (2016). And campus for all: Diversity, inclusion, and freedom of speech at U.S. universities. Authors. PEN America. (2019). Chasm in the classroom: Campus free speech in a divided America. Authors. Perez, R. J. (2016). Exploring developmental differences in students’ sensemaking during the transition to graduate school. Journal of College Student Development, 57(7), 763–777. Perillo, P. A. (2011). Scholar practitioners model inclusive, learning-oriented supervision. In P. M. Magodla & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.), Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue (pp. 427–432). Stylus. Phillips, D. E. (1985). Student protest, 1960–1970: An analysis of the issues and speeches. University Press of America. Pisner, N. B. (2011, October 20). Past tense: A tradition of protest. The Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/10/20/city-protests-history/ Pittman, E. C., & Foubert, J. D. (2016). Predictors of professional identity development for student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(1),
156
13–25. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. SUNY Press. Pomerantz, N. K. (1993). Dialogue and the ethic of responsibility: A new perspective in racial harassment and free speech. NASPA Journal, 31(1), 30–35. Post, R. (2012). Democracy, enterprise, and academic freedom. Yale University Press. Pritchard, A. & McChesney, J. (2018). Focus on student affairs, 2018: Understanding key challenges using CUPA-HR data. (Research report). College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. Quaye, S. J. (2007). Hope and learning: The outcomes of contemporary student activism. About Campus, 12(7), 2–9. Quaye, S. J., & Johnson, M. R. (2016). How intergroup dialogue facilitators understand their role in promoting student development and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 27(2), 29–55. Quaye, S. J., Karikari, S. N., Allen, C. R., Okello, W. K., & Carter, K. D. (2019). Strategies for practicing self-care from racial battle fatigue. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity, 5(2), 95–131. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). Rabban, D. M. (2014) Professors beware: the evolving threat of “institutional” academic freedom. In J. L. Turk (Ed.) Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university (pp. 24–48). James Lorimer & Co. Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61. Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26– 53. Reason, R. D., & Evans, N. J. (2007). The complicated realities of whiteness: From color blind to racially cognizant. In S. R. Harper & L. D. Patton (Eds.), Responding to the realities of race on campus (New Directions for Student Services, no. 120, pp. 67–75). Jossey-Bass. Reason, R, D., & Lutovsky, B. R. (2007). You are not alone: Resources for the college administrator. In J. F. L. Jackson & M. C. Terrell (Eds.), Creating and maintaining safe college campuses: A sourcebook for evaluating and enhancing safety programs (pp. 241–
157
260). Stylus. Renn, K. A., & Jessup-Anger, E. (2008). Preparing new professionals: Lessons for graduate preparation programs from the national study of new professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 319–335. Reybold, L. E., Halx, M.D., & Jimenez, A. L. (2008). Professional integrity in higher education: A study of administrative staff ethics in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(2), 110–124. Rhatigan, J. J. (2009). From the people up: A brief history of student affairs administration. In G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd ed., pp. 3–20). Jossey-Bass. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. SAGE. Roberts, D. M. (2007). Preferred methods of professional development in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(3), 561–577. Rodriguez, S. (2019). Student affairs educators’ brokering role in political activism. In P. M. Magolda, M. B. Baxter Magolda, & R. Carducci (Eds.), Contested issues in troubled times: Student affairs dialogues on equity, civility, and safety (pp. 69–79). Stylus. Roper, L. (2011). Supervising across cultures: Navigating diversity and multiculturalism. In L. D. Roper (Ed.), Supporting and supervising mid-level professionals (New Directions for Student Services, no. 136, pp. 69–80). Jossey-Bass. Rouzer, R. M., DeSawal, D. M., & Yakaboski, T. (2014). Revisiting the role of the college union. In T. Yakaboski & D. M. De Sawal (Eds.), The state of the college union: Contemporary issues and trends (New Directions for Student Services, no. 145, pp. 1– 12). Jossey-Bass. Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. University of Georgia Press. Rutledge, M. (2009). Sensemaking as a tool in working with complexity. OD Practitioner, 41(2), 19–24. Rychlak, R. J. (1992). Civil rights, confederate flags, and political correctness: Free speech and race relations on campus. Tulane Law Review, 66, 1411–1434. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed). SAGE. Savarese, K. A. (2019). Living in the liminal: A phenomenological study of the socialization experience of midlevel managers in student affairs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
158
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Addison- Wesley. Schmidt, P. (2017, April 20). In renting out space, do colleges invite trouble? The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://www.chronicle.com/article/In-Renting-Out-Space-Do/239842 Schrecker, E. (1980). Academic freedom and the cold war. The Antioch Review, 38(3), 313–327. Schroder, J. C. (2013). Electronically transmitted threats and higher education: Oppression, free speech, and Jake Baker. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 295–313. Scott, J. W. (2018, January 7). How the right weaponized free speech. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-the-Right-Weaponized-Free/242142 Shaw Bonds, M. D., & Quaye S. J. (2019). Using dialogue to navigate controversy, civility, and community. In B. A. Nagda & L. D. Roper (Eds.), Centering dialogue in leadership development (New Directions for Student Leadership, no. 163, pp. 87–100). Jossey-Bass. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press. Shupp, M. R., & Arminio, J. L. (2012). Synergistic supervision: A confirmed key to retaining entry-level student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(2), 157–174. Sigg, N. D. (2019). Balancing free speech and inclusive campus environments: A worthy yet complicated commitment. In P. M. Magolda, M. B. Baxter Magolda, & R. Carducci (Eds.), Contested issues in troubled times: Student affairs dialogues on equity, civility, and safety (pp. 120–126). Stylus. Smerek, R. E. (2017). Sensemaking and new college presidents: A conceptual study of the transition process. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 371–403. Smith, C. (2017, March 22). Is this the golden age of college student activism? USA Today. http://college.usatoday.com/2017/03/22/is-this-the-golden-age-of-college-student- activism/ Smith, W. A. (2009). Higher education: Racial battle fatigue. In R. T. Schaefer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (pp. 615–618). SAGE. Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). “Assume the position . . . you fit the description”: Psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American
159
male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551–578. Smyth, C. J. (2016). Where all may meet on common ground: Elements of college unions evident in campus community. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Database (Accession No. 10153280). Sorey, K. C., & Gregory, D. (2010). Protests in the sixties. College Student Affairs Journal, 28(2), 184–206. Staples, B. A. (2019). Making sense of worldview diversity at public universities: An exploration of student encounters using critical sensemaking. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). JAI Press. Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments for student success (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE. Sultana, F. (2018). The false equivalence of academic freedom and free speech: Defending academic integrity in the age of white supremacy, colonial nostalgia, and anti- intellectualism. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 17(2), 228– 257. Sun, J. C., & McClellan, G. S. (2020). Student clashes on campus: A leadership guide to free Speech. Routledge. Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse, and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163–1193. Sweet, S. A. (2001). College and society: Introduction to the sociological imagination. Allyn & Bacon. Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). The Johns Hopkins University Press. Thomason, A. (2019, March 21). Here’s what trump’s executive order on free speech says. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Here-s-What-Trump- s/245943
160
Tillapaugh, D., & Catalano, D. C. J. (2019). Structural challenges affecting the experiences of public university LGBT services graduate assistants. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(2), 126–135. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Traub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (2006). Decision to enter the profession of student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 206–216. Travis, J. E., & Scott, J. A. (2017). Free speech and slurs: Rights vs. respect. College Student Journal, 51(2), 291–297. Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465–480. Tull, A. (2009). Supervision and mentorship in the socialization process. In A. Tull, J. B. Hirt, & S. S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors (pp. 129–151). Stylus. Tull, A., Hirt, J. B., & Saunders, S. A. (Eds.). (2009). Becoming socialized in student affairs administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors. Stylus. Tull, A., & Kuk, L. (2012). New realities in the management of student affairs: Emerging specialist roles and structures for changing times. Stylus. Uecker, T. W. (2011). How do campus administrators go beyond the First Amendment in achieving balance between free speech and civil discourse? In P. M. Magolda & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.), Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue (pp. 354–364). Stylus. Upcraft, M. L. (1998). Do graduate programs really prepare practitioners? In N. J. Evans & C. E. Phelps (Eds.) The state of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs (pp. 235– 237). American College Personnel Association. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Varlotta, L. E. (1997). Invoking a university’s mission statement to promote diversity, civility and free speech. NASPA Journal, 34(2), 113–123. Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press. Waple, J. N. (2006). An assessment of skills and competencies necessary for entry-level student affairs work. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 1–18.
161
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28. Jossey-Bass. Whitt, E. J., Nesheim, B. E., Guentzel, M. J., Kellogg, A. H., McDonald, W. M., & Wells C. A. (2008). “Principles of good practice” for academic and student affairs partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 235–249. Whittington, K. E. (2018). Speak freely: Why universities must defend free speech. Princeton University Press. Wilder, C. S. (2013). Ebony and ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s universities. Bloomsbury Press. Williams, D. R., & Williams-Norris, R. (2000). Racism and mental health: The African American experience. Ethnicity & Health, 5(3/4), 243–268. Williams, P. R., & McGreevey, M. R. (2004). Student activism at Ithaca College: Reflections on management and leadership. In J. B. McLaughlin (Ed.), Leadership and controversy: Presidential perspectives (New Directions for Higher Education, no. 128, pp. 61–72). Jossey-Bass. Winston, R. B., Jr., & Creamer, D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in student affairs. Jossey-Bass. Winston, R. B., Jr., & Creamer, D. G. (1998). Staff supervision and professional development: An integrated approach. In W. A. Bryan & R. A. Schwartz (Eds.), Strategies for staff
development: Personal and professional education in the 21st century (New Directions for Student Service, no. 84, pp. 29–42). Jossey-Bass. Winston, R. B., Jr., & Hirt, J. B. (2003). Activating synergistic supervision approaches: Practical suggestions. In S. A. Saunders, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Supervising new professionals in student affairs: A guide for practitioners (pp. 43–83). Brunner-Routledge. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
162
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93–135. Zdziarski, E. L., Dunkel, N. D., Rollo, J. M., & Associates (2007). Campus crisis management: A comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response, and recovery. Jossey-Bass. Zúñiga, X. (2003). Bridging differences through dialogue. About Campus, 7(6), 8–16.
163
APPENDIX A: CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS My name is Adam Z. Leftin and I am a doctoral candidate currently involved in research for my dissertation. This study is designed to help me better understand how new student affairs professionals engage in sensemaking around free speech events on campus (these can include protests, controversial speakers, campus displays – among others). I hope to use this information to help administrators and faculty better understand their role and responsibilities in managing these complex campus events.
Participation will consist of two interviews with me, the primary researcher, each approximately 1–1.5 hours in length; a third interview will be a follow-up to verify themes that emerge following all initial interviews. These interviews will be spread out during the fall/winter 2019/2020. Additionally, some initial analyses will be provided to you to look through, if you wish, prior to the third interview. As a participant, you will have the opportunity to see the questions and topics of discussion prior to agreeing to participate in the research study.
To participate in the study, you need to meet the following criteria: • Have worked professionally in a student affairs functional area for 5 academic years or less • Have worked with, or participated in, a free speech event* on campus • Be at least 18 years of age * A free speech event is any instance where the notion of free speech is challenged, enacted, or debated on campus. This includes, but is not limited to: campus demonstrations/displays or controversial lecturers speaking on campus.
Participation is voluntary; you may withdraw at any time. There is no penalty if you choose to not participate. Participants will be given a $20 Amazon gift card as compensation.
Please know that I will take great care to treat anything you say during our conversations confidentially, and that whenever I write or talk about this study, I will not use your name. In my final report, I will do my best to describe you in a way that others cannot recognize you.
To participate in this study, or to learn more about it, please email me directly at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Adam Z. Leftin [email protected] Student Affairs in Higher Education Doctoral Candidate Miami University
164
APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT SCREENING SURVEY Contact Information Name:
E-mail Address:
Phone Number:
Preferred Pseudonym (fake name/alias that you will be referred to as):
Demographic Information Age:
Gender Identity:
Preferred Pronouns:
Race:
Ethnicity:
Sexuality:
Worldview (Religiosity/Spirituality):
Student Affairs Experience Current Institution:
Functional Area (e.g., Residence Life, Student Activities):
Job Title:
Academic Years in Current Role:
Academic Years in Student Affairs (post-Masters):
Briefly describe your engagement and role with a free speech event* on campus (e.g., participated in a campus protest, witnessed a free speech event on campus, supported students during a controversial speaker, etc.):
*A free speech event is any instance where the notion of free speech is challenged, enacted, or debated on campus. This includes, but is not limited to: campus demonstrations/displays or controversial lecturers speaking on campus.
165
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM You are invited to participate in a doctoral dissertation research project being conducted by Adam Z. Leftin from Miami University. The purpose of this research is to examine how new student affairs professionals engage in sensemaking around free speech events on campus. Each interview should take approximately 60–90 minutes. Conditions 1. Any information that may reveal the identity of the individual will either be altered or omitted. Names of the participants will be kept confidential at all times. The primary investigator will use pseudonyms in all written reports. Data will only be made available in anonymous form in any publications and presentations resulting from this study.
2. As a participant, you may refuse to answer any questions at any time, without penalty.
3. You may decide whether or not the researcher may audio record the interview. If you agree to be recorded, the audio recordings will be securely stored in electronic format by the primary investigator.
4. As a participant, you may stop the interview or discontinue your participation in the study at any time. Your data will be returned to you at your request.
5. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate.
If you have any questions about this research or you feel you need more information to determine whether you would like to volunteer, you can contact me at [email protected] or Faculty Advisor Dr. David Pérez II ([email protected]). If you have questions or concerns about the rights of research subjects, you may contact our reviewing body: Research Ethics and Integrity Office at Miami University at 513.529.3600 or [email protected]. Please keep a copy of this information for future reference.
Participant Name:______
Participant Signature: Date:______
Contact Information (email) if you would like a summary of the results
166
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONS First Interview: Student Affairs Experiences and Initial Perceptions of Free Speech
Review Consent Form
“[Practitioner name], I appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to talk with me about your experiences as a student affairs professional. As you already know, I am conducting a study on how student affairs professionals come to understand their role in handling free speech events on campus. Over the course of three interviews, I will ask you a range of questions related to your experiences in student affairs, moments that informed your understanding of free speech, and how you have responded to free speech events in the past. Do you have any questions regarding this process?”
1) Please tell me a little bit about yourself. 2) Can you tell me about why you decided to participate in this study? a) Probing question: Are there any particular experiences or moments that you hope to discuss as it relates to free speech?
“The first part of this interview will focus primarily on your student affairs journey and what laid the foundation for your career moving forward.”
3) What were some of the influential moments that caused you to consider a career in student affairs? a) Follow-up question: Talk to me about how you saw legal issues in higher education playing a role in your career in student affairs. 4) When you were looking at graduate programs, what qualities or characteristics were you looking for in a program? a) Follow-up question: What were some major lessons that you learned in your graduate program that inform your practice today? 5) To what extent did your graduate program or experiences in graduate school discuss the role of student affairs professionals in legal issues? a) Follow-up question: Can you share a particular time or moment in your graduate program that stands out to you about the ways that student affairs professionals should engage with legal matters? 6) What are some salient identities that you hold that inform your practice as a student affairs professional? 7) You’re currently in ______functional area. Talk to me about why you chose to work in this area. a) Follow-up question: What were some challenges and issues that you saw yourself encountering in this functional area? b) Probing question: How do these challenges or issues relate to the idea of free speech, if at all?
“The next part of this interview will focus on your perceptions of free speech and higher education.”
167
8) What images come to mind when you hear about free speech on campus? a) Follow-up question: Where do you think these images come from? 9) When you think about free speech in higher education, how would you define the term? a) Follow-up question: Share some experiences or people that have informed your definition of free speech. b) Probing question: How did these individuals or moments inform your definition of free speech? 10) How has your understanding of free speech changed over time? a) Probing question: Tell me about a particular moment that played a role in your understanding of free speech changing. 11) What role do you believe free speech plays in higher education? 12) What are some perceptions that you believe the general public has about free speech in higher education? a) How do you make sense of your own beliefs about free speech in relationship to the perceptions you have about the general public’s?
“These were some initial questions that dealt with the perceptions you had about free speech in higher education. The next interview will focus largely on the experiences that you have had with free speech events as a student affairs professional. Before we conclude the interview, I have a couple more questions to ask you.”
13) Any other questions that you thought I was going to ask that I didn’t? 14) Anything else that you would like to share with me at this time?
“Thank you so much for participating in this first interview. At this time, I would like to schedule our second interview together. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. I look forward to learning more about your experiences next time.”
168
Second Interview: Formative Experiences with Free Speech Events
“Thank you again for continuing on in this research. I greatly appreciate your participation. I like to start off our second interview together by following up about our last time discussing your experiences.”
1) Talk to me about what kind of thoughts have stuck with you since the last time we chatted. a) Follow-up question: What additional ideas are you hoping to discuss during our time together that you did not get a chance to last time? 2) I do have a few follow-up questions from the last time we talked. a) [Insert follow-up questions based on the first interview.]
“As mentioned at the end of our last interview together, this interview will focus primarily on your interaction and engagement with free speech events on campus. For the purposes of this research, free speech events include campus demonstrations/displays or controversial lecturers speaking on campus.
3) Please describe any experiences you’ve had with free speech events in your time as a student affairs professional.
First Event Experiences: “So you discussed one particular that [insert paraphrasing here].”
4) How did the institution manage the event? a) Probing question: What do you think was handled particularly well? b) Probing question: On the flip side, I wonder if you can speak to me about what was not managed well with the event. 5) How would you describe the response from students, faculty, and staff (allow for separate responses by group)? 6) What role did you play in the event? a) Follow-up question: Reflecting upon your role in the event, talk to me about what informed your actions and behaviors. b) Follow-up question: How do you think that the perceptions of others informed how you acted in the event? 7) How might have you been limited in responding to the event? a) Probing ques tion: If you were limited, what do you wish would have happened with the event? 8) How did your social identities play a role in how you responded when the event was happening? a) Follow-up question: How did your professional level inform your actions and behaviors? 9) Based on your story above, describe how you processed the event (during/after). a) Follow-up question: What or who prompted this reflection? b) Follow-up question: What issues arose from the event that caused you to reflect on institutional policies or procedures? 10) What types of conversations did you have with colleagues about the event? a) Follow-up question: How do you think their identities informed their reactions to the event?
169
b) Follow-up question: How do you think their professional level informed their reactions to the event? 11) Based on your education and professional training, describe the experiences that prepared you for this event. a) Follow-up question: What would have better prepared you to engage with the event? 12) Following the event, how did you alter your work as a student affairs professional on campus? a) Probing question: Tell me about what led you to make those changes.
Second Event Experience, if applicable: “In addition, you described another event that involved [insert paraphrasing here].”
13) How did the institution manage the event? a) Probing question: What do you think was handled particularly well? b) Probing question: On the flip side, I wonder if you can speak to me about what was not managed well with the event. 14) How would you describe the response from students, faculty, and staff (allow for separate responses by group)? 15) What role did you play in the event? a) Follow-up question: Reflecting upon your role in the event, talk to me about what informed your actions and behaviors. b) Follow-up question: How do you think that the perceptions of others informed how you acted in the event? 16) How might have you been limited in responding to the event? a) Probing question: If you were limited, what do you wish would have happened with the event? 17) How did your social identities play a role in how you responded when the event was happening? a) Follow-up question: How did your professional level inform your actions and behaviors? 18) Based on your story above, describe how you processed the event (during/after). a) Follow-up question: What or who prompted this reflection? b) Follow-up question: What issues arose from the event that caused you to reflect on institutional policies or procedures? 19) What types of conversations did you have with peers about the event? a) Follow-up question: How do you think their identities informed their reactions to the event? b) Follow-up question: How do you think their professional level informed their reactions to the event? 20) Based on your education and professional training, describe the experiences that prepared you for this event, if any. a) Follow-up question: What would have better prepared you to engage with the event? 21) Following the event, how did you alter your work as a student affairs professional on campus? a) Probing question: Tell me about what led you to make those changes.
170
“These questions dealt with specific free speech events that you dealt with in higher education. The next interview will focus on any follow-ups that I have, as well as getting your thoughts about student affairs professionals and their role in free speech events. Before we conclude the interview, I have a couple more questions to ask you.”
22) Any other questions that you thought I was going to ask that I didn’t? 23) Anything else that you would like to share with me at this time?
“Thank you so much for participating in this second interview. At this time, I would like to schedule our third interview together. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. I look forward to learning more about your experiences next time.”
171
Third Interview: Overall Sensemaking about Free Speech Events
“Thank you again for continuing on in this research. I greatly appreciate your participation. We have officially reached the final interview together. As such, I would like to start off this interview similar to the last time by following up about our second interview discussing your experiences.”
1) Talk to me about what kind of thoughts have stuck with you since the last time we chatted. a) Follow-up question: What additional ideas are you hoping to discuss during our time together that you did not get a chance to last time? 2) I do have a few follow-up questions from the last time we talked. a) [Insert follow-up questions based on the second interview.]
“Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Now I want to move on to hear more about your overall thoughts on student affairs professionals and free speech.
3) After free speech events have occurred, how have you continued to reflect on your role in engaging with free speech events? a) Follow-up question: Tell me about a time when this occurred. 4) What are some external factors that you must attend to in order to determine how you should respond in free speech events? a) Probing question: What are the main stakeholders that you have to be mindful of when responding to free speech events? 5) After discussing your own experiences, what role do you believe student affairs professionals should play in supporting free speech events on campus? a) Follow-up question: How do you think that early-career professionals approach free speech events differently than those on a more senior level? 6) In what ways do you believe that student affairs professionals need to negotiate what they want to do with free speech events versus what they can do realistically? a) Follow-up question: How does this differ based on the institution that you are at (e.g., public versus private)? 7) What do you believe is the role of graduate experiences in preparing student affairs professionals to assist with free speech events? 8) How do you think supervisors of early-career professionals can better support student affairs practitioners to assist with free speech events? 9) What other individuals, groups, or experiences do you think can help early-career student affairs professionals as they make sense of their role with speech events?
“These were some questions that focused on student affairs professionals and their role in free speech events. Before we conclude this final interview, I want to share some themes that emerged from the first two interviews across participants and have you respond with your general thoughts.”
172