The Journal of Students Affairs at New York University The Fourteenth Edition

The 2017-2018 Journal of Student Affairs Editing Team

About Us

Acknowledgements

Letter From the Editor Cassie Kwon

Restorative Justice: An Underutilized Tool in the Student Conduct Administrator’s Toolbox Jason Bewley

Understanding the Experiences of Deaf and Hard of Hearing College Students Alana Crosby

Queering Identities: Muslim American College Students in Higher Education Kevin Franco

Critical Success Factors to aid Black Male Athlete Persistence towards College Graduation Antwon D. Woods & Jillian McNiff

Guidelines for Authors The 2017-2018 Journal of Student Affairs Editing Team

The Executive Editorial Board Editor in Chief – Cassie Kwon Content Editor – Megan Murphy Production Editor – Anthony Campbell Jr. Development and Publicity Manager – Michelle Ng

Internal Editorial Review Board Deanna Clark Carol Dinh Angelica Farin Chelsey Fuller Tom Guarino Megan Hallissy Vanessa Kania Danielle Meirow Alexandra Menzel Dharini Parthasarathy Edwin Raagas Julia Rozell Ariel Tan Kayla Walker

External Editorial Review Board Mark Bauman, Interim Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education, Bloomsburg University Patricia Carey, Associate Dean of Student Affairs, NYU Steinhardt Erin Carlisle, Alumna, New York University Tom Ellett, Senior Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, New York University Daniel Esquivel, Director, Student Life & Events, the Chicago School of Professional Psychology Christopher Giroir, PhD, Associate Professor, Arkansas Tech University Lauren Jordan, Director of Seeding Social Innovation, LearnServe International Debbie Yunker Kail, Executive Director, Hillel Jewish Student Center at Arizona State University Kimberly Kline, Professor and Chair of Higher Education Administration, SUNY Buffalo State Andrew LaVenia, Assistant Director, Undergraduate Student Affairs & Admissions, New York University Qi Li, Professor, Director of Higher Education & Student Affairs, Beijing Normal University Alex Mullin, Administrative Assistant for Admissions and Enrollment Services, New York University Dave Neely, Diversity Education and Training Specialist, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Kelly Nguyen, Program Administrator, Boston University Katie Noe, Executive Assistant to the President, Boston University Molly Ott, Associate Professor of Higher & Postsecondary Education, Arizona State University Carrie Prendergast, Manager for Online Graduate Program Management, New York University Kelsey Simonson, Associate Registrar, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine Niki Sol, Senior Lecturer & Course Leader, Anglia Ruskin University Buffy Stoll Turton, Director of Orientation and Transition Programs, Miami University

Faculty Advisors Gregory Director Stella Flores, Ph.D. Michael Sean Funk, Ed.D.

About Us

Mission JoSA is an annual peer reviewed journal that explores the field of student affairs and addresses contemporary issues and current trends among professionals in higher education. As a student- run publication, JoSA aims to highlight research and scholarship that further develops the practice of student affairs and are of particular relevance to professionals throughout higher education.

Editorial Board The Editorial Board of the Journal of Student Affairs at New York University consists of graduate students in the Higher Education and Student Affairs program in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University. The Board has been established to coordinate and carry out all editorial functions for the Journal and to ensure the continuity of future publications. The Editorial Board of the Journal of Student Affairs at New York University promotes the submission of articles that address issues of critical interest to the NYU community and among the larger community of higher education and student affairs professionals. Articles that explore topical issues, suggest innovative programming, and embark upon original research are encouraged. The opinions and attitudes expressed within the Journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editorial Board.

Acknowledgements We would also like to acknowledge our sponsors as well as the individuals that make up these departments and organizations for their vision, leadership, dedication, and passion for higher education and student affairs—all which make this publication possible: NYU Association of Student Affairs Professionals Leadership Board, 2017 Tim Zhang, Executive Chair Sarah McGough, Communications Chair Karina Sierra, Professional Development Chairs Michelle MacLeod, Academic Support and Advocacy Chairs Tara Ernst, Social Chair Sierra Degale, Social Justice and Community Service Chair Kevin Collymore, Part-time and Alumni Relations Chair Ben Guiliana and Lisa Lim, Recruitment and Orientation Co-Chairs

Leadership Board, 2018 Joseph Washington, Executive Chair Ariel Tan, Communications Chair Dharini Parthasarathy and Kayla Walker, Professional Development Co-Chairs Fatimah Chishti, Academic Support and Advocacy Chair Hannah Thomas, Social Chair Danialie Fertile, Social Justice and Community Service Chair Megan Hallissy, Part-time and Alumni Relations Chair Carol Dinh and Emily Wolschlag, Recruitment and Orientation Co-Chairs

NYU Office of the Vice President for Global Student Affairs Marc Wais, Senior Vice President for Student Affairs Tom Ellett, Senior Associate Vice President, Student Affairs Carlo Ciotoli, Associate Vice President, NYU Student Health - GNU; Executive Director, Student Health Center Bethany Godsoe, Associate Vice President for Career and Leadership Development Christopher Bledsoe, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs; Director of Athletics, Intramurals & Recreation Erin Callihan, Assistant Vice President for Student UX, Technology, and Engagement Monroe France, Associate Vice President for Global Student Engagement and Inclusive Leadership Allen McFarlane, Assistant Vice President for Outreach and Engagement Zoe Ragouzeos, Assistant Vice President, NYU Student Mental Health - GNU; Director, Counseling & Wellness Elizabeth Kuzina, Chief of Staff Guido Ditto, Senior Director, Creative Strategy Charlene Herreid, Director of Research and Assessment Wendy J. Li, Assistant Director, Fiscal Affairs Nick Jensen, Community and Experience Strategist NYU Steinhardt Department of Administration, Leadership & Technology Noel Anderson, Department Chair Lisette Nieves, Program Director, Educational Leadership Teboho Moja, Program Director, Higher and Postsecondary Education Maaike Bouwmeester, Program Director, Educational Communication and Technology

NYU Steinhardt Department of Higher Education and Student Affairs Stella Flores, Associate Professor of Higher Education; Director of Access and Equity, Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy Michael Sean Funk, Clinical Assistant Professor of Higher Education; Program Coordinator, Masters in Higher Education & Student Affairs Ann Marcus, Professor of Higher Education; Director of the Steinhardt Institute of Higher Education Policy Teboho Moja, Clinical Professor of Higher Education; Program Director Frances Stage, Professor of Higher Education Liang Zhang, Professor of Higher Education

NYU Steinhardt Office of the Associate Dean for Student Affairs Patricia M. Carey, Associate Dean Linda Chin, Assistant Director, Undergraduate/Graduate Academic Advising Belkis Baez, Student Advisor Kate Legnetti, Director, Advisement & Registration Services Jeanne Bannon, Director, Counseling and Student Services Justine Kelly-Fierro, Assistant Director for Student Services Nija Leocadio, Graduate Student Services Counselor Nicholas Voelker, Student Services Counselor – International/Diversity Luis Andrew Lopez, Student Services Counselor – Opportunities Programs Paula Lee, Director, Wasserman Center for Career Development Tanya Gary, Executive Assistant to the Associate Dean John Myers, Director of Enrollment Management Andrea Fannelli, Registration Administrator Yvette Brown, Associate Director of Graduate Admissions Nancy Hall, Research and Doctoral Studies Mark Perez, Teacher Certification Officer Letter From the Editor

Dear Colleagues, Academics, Students, and Friends:

On behalf of the 2017-2018 Executive Editorial Board, I am proud to present the fourteenth edition of the Journal of Student Affairs at New York University. This year we had many submissions from authors across the United States that highlighted various issues within higher education and student affairs. After countless hours of review and deliberation from our editorial team, we are beyond excited to present the following four articles. We hope these articles will introduce you to a new topic or further expand your knowledge.

This edition of the Journal of Student Affairs includes topics on student conduct, deaf and hard of hearing students, and student-athletes. These thoroughly researched and well- written works help bring light to many issues that these student populations face and encourage higher education and student affairs professionals to think about how to better serve these students in everyday practice and when making long term change.

The success of this journal would not have been possible without the unyielding commitment of the Executive Editorial Board: Megan Murphy, Anthony Campbell Jr., and Michelle Ng. I thank each and every one of you for your continuous dedication to the team and journal. On behalf of the 2017-2018 Executive Editorial Board, I want to express my gratitude to our outgoing faculty advisor Dr. Gregory Wolniak, new faculty advisor Dr. Stella Flores, and Dr. Michael Funk who have supported the Journal of Student Affairs in various capacities throughout the year. I also would like to thank the Internal Review Board and External Review Board for spending countless hours editing and providing feedback to ensure this journal has quality peer-reviewed articles. Lastly, I would like to thank our wonderful authors for their time and commitment to this process. It was apparent that each author was passionate about their respective topics. We thank you for sharing your insight and congratulate you for your contributions to the field.

On behalf of the 2017-2018 Executive Editorial Board, Internal and External Review Boards, and authors, it is with great pleasure I introduce to you the thirteenth edition of the Journal of Student Affairs at New York University.

Sincerely, Cassie Kwon Editor-in-Chief, JoSA Volume XIV Restorative Justice: An Underutilized Tool in the Student Conduct Administrator’s Toolbox Jason Bewley

Abstract

Many colleges and universities exclusively use a retributive approach with student misconduct. Retributive justice is a punishment-focused approach that views offenses as violations against the institution, not against the victim. Restorative justice is an alternative philosophy for adjudicating offenses that recognizes the harm done to the victim and encourages the offender to make restoration to the victim. Restorative justice seeks to facilitate healing for the victim and learning and growth for the offender, thereby re-integrating offenders as contributing members to the community and reducing recidivism rates. It is an approach that has been used for centuries throughout the world in both criminal justice and educational systems, but one that is relatively new to American higher education institutions. Despite these potential benefits, not all cases of student misconduct are a fit for restorative practices. As such, restorative practices should be implemented alongside retributive practices.

Keywords: restorative justice, restorative practices, retributive justice, student conduct administrator; student misconduct

An Underutilized Tool in the Student Conduct Administrator’s Toolbox

Many colleges and universities use a one-size-fits-all approach with student misconduct. This retributive justice approach is effective at punishing the offender and reinforcing the rules- will-be-enforced message; in fact, punishment is its core concern (Feather, McKee, & Strelan, 2011). This effectiveness, paired with the tendency of universities to maintain status quo, has led to little innovation in how student misconduct is addressed. Even many of the more progressive institutions, with a penchant for the cutting edge, seem to focus more on enhancing retributive systems rather than incorporating restorative principles. This lack of innovation has left student conduct administrators with an antiquated approach that is often not rooted in the core values (i.e. learning, growth, and development) of higher education institutions. That said, retributive justice itself is not antiquated; rather it is the tendency to use it instinctively as the sole approach without regard to fit. While retributive justice is focused on punishing the offender, the values of restorative justice are rooted in restoring the victim, rebuilding the community, and rehabilitating the offender (Armour, 2016). As explored later in this article, these values better align with the core values of higher education institutions in adjudicating student misconduct, thus creating a stronger fit. Student conduct administrators who have access to restorative tools are better equipped to manage the diverse needs of a college campus. Restorative justice has already proven effective in the criminal justice system and in K-12 institutions. Regardless, many colleges and universities have yet to implement restorative justice programs (Conrad & Karp, 2005). Students are better served when universities equip student conduct administrators with a robust toolbox and train them to deploy a situation-specific approach to purposing those tools based upon need. Both societies at large and the U.S. higher education system have favored retributive justice. Calling for the abandonment of retributive practices would be to use a hatchet where a scalpel is needed. Instead, retributive principles should be paired with restorative justice principles.

History of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a philosophy of dealing with crime that recognizes the harm to the victim (Reimund, 2005). Instead of having a myopic focus on punishing the offender, the foci are on making the victim whole again and holding the offender accountable to the victim and the affected community (Reimund, 2005). It shifts the question from “what rule has been broken,” to “who is hurt” (Duncan, 2011, p. 275). It also seeks to reinforce community values, bring about a sense of healing, repair the harm, and reintegrate the offender back as a contributing member of the community (Suvall, 2009). Two conflicting theories exist as to when restorative justice came into existence (Mulligan, 2009). One theory is that restorative justice is a relatively new approach founded in the United States in the 1970s. The other theory is that restorative justice has been the primary criminal justice model used worldwide throughout history. In light of these competing narratives and existing historical facts, Mulligan (2009) concluded that “restorative justice should be seen as a prominent method of conflict resolution that was used alongside harsher punitive approaches throughout history” (Mulligan, p. 148), as opposed to the singular dominant method. By contrast, retributive justice dates back to the rule of William the Conqueror in the twelfth century (Reimund, 2005). Before his rule, crime was viewed as a harm to the victim; the obligation of restoration was owed to the victim. In a move that would grow the King’s wealth and power in newly conquered England, crime became viewed as a “violation of the king’s peace” stealing conflicts from the parties and granting them to the state (Reimund, p. 670). Understanding this history is important because it de-romanticizes the retributive justice that became pervasive in society, eventually influencing higher education institutions, documenting that it gained prominence not due to its ability to reduce crime or to enhance community safety, but because of its ability to enhance the King’s wealth and power (Mulligan, 2009).

Restorative Justice in Practice

According to Duncan (2011), there are five best practices that should be embedded in all restorative justice models. First, the restorative justice process must be voluntary for both the offender and the victim. Second, both the victim and the offender should be encouraged to fully participate in the process. Third, all participating parties must be well informed and prepared. Fourth, those facilitating the process must work to provide an environment that is physically and emotionally safe for all parties. Fifth, the process must be fluid and flexible, but should always result in holding the offender accountable. While restorative principles can be implemented into a variety of campus judicial systems, there are four primary models in the United States: (a) victim-offender mediation; (b) family group conferencing; (c) community reparative boards; and (d) circle sentencing. Common among all four models is the idea that the offender will provide restitution or some form of reparation to repair the harm to the victim and, when appropriate, to the community (Anderson, 2004). Restorative Justice Models

Reimund (2005) described how victim-offender mediation (VOM), the longest and most widely used of the models, gives the victim and offender an opportunity to share their respective stories in an environment controlled by a trained mediator. While restitution is a result of most VOM meetings, the primary objective is to help the victim to heal and the offender to grow. VOM is particularly well suited for this desired outcome because it allows the victim to share how their life was impacted by the offense. The goals are for the offender to take responsibility, answer lingering questions, and willingly agree to repair the harm to the victim and community. In addition to these benefits, the criminal justice system has also experienced reduced recidivism rates from using VOM. For example, in Milwaukee County, Washington, a 2002 legislative audit revealed that of offenders who participated in a model similar to VOM, only 8.8% were arrested again with one year, compared with 27.6% of the control group who did not participate (Reimund, 2005). Family Group Conferencing, like VOM, uses a trained mediator to facilitate a meeting between the victim and the offender (Reimund, 2005). However, according to Anderson (2004), this process expands those who participate to include not only the victim and the offender, but also others who were impacted by the offense, such as friends, family, teachers, and coworkers. This approach is unique in that all parties involved have an almost-equal voice in creating the plan whereby the offender will make reparation. This is a valuable approach in settings where parties will have continued future contact, such as in higher education institutions, where the members of the community share a relatively small community space (Anderson, 2004). Through Community Reparative Boards, members of the community come together for face-to-face meetings with the offender to discuss how the offense has impacted the community (Reimund, 2005). Collectively, they discuss options for restitution and strive to come to a written restitution agreement that would be monitored by the community. The goal of this approach is to intervene with offenders early to prevent the escalation to more serious offenses (Anderson, 2004). Finally, Reimund (2005) discussed Circle Sentencing, in which the participants sit in a circle and are given the opportunity to speak in the order in which they are seated. The participants often include the victim, the offender, friends and family of both the victim and offender, the police, judicial personnel, and members of the community. In addition to providing these interested parties an opportunity to speak “from the heart,” a sentencing agreement is often reached (Reimund, p. 678). This is a more recent approach and one that is usually reserved for more serious offenses (Anderson, 2004).

Benefits of Restorative Practices

Restorative justice can provide benefits for victims, offenders, and community members. It gives victims a voice and is a vehicle for healing and restoration. Duncan (2001) noted that it provides a victim the opportunity to tell the offender how their actions impacted the victim’s life. Restorative practices provide a transparent judicial process, allowing the victim to not only see justice taking place, but to be a part of the process. The process seeks to restore the victim by remedying the harm and to help the victim reach a stage of forgiveness and healing (Lee, 2011). Restorative practices offer the victim an opportunity to understand the ‘why’ behind the offense (Lee, 2011). Victims are empowered by participating in the process of determining how to make restoration for the harm done to them (Duncan, 2011). In fact, in an analysis of seven evaluative studies on restorative justice – specifically looking at the impact on twelve outcomes, such as reductions in fear, accountability, emotional well-being, fairness, and increased respect – restorative justice outperformed traditional court methods on almost every outcome for both victims and offenders (Poulson, 2003). Restorative justice systems recognize that many offenses impact not only the victim, but also the community and are focused on empowering and unifying the community after an offense has occurred (Anderson, 2004). For community members, the opportunity to be involved in the process leads to more effective restoration and healing. For offenders, restorative justice provides them with the opportunity to see that their actions did not just violate a rule, they harmed a person. Offenders are given the opportunity to hear about this impact directly from the victim, increasing the likelihood that they will take responsibility and make corrective change. Restorative justice also provides offenders with the opportunity to apologize and to be included in the process of determining how to take accountability and restore the victim (Duncan, 2011). Finally, restorative justice seeks to help the offender learn and grow from the experience and ultimately reintegrate back into the community (Lee, 2011). This is an important quality in a university setting because the institution has a relationship with and a responsibility to the offender as a student. Additionally, Duncan (2011) stated that restorative justice reduces the rate of recidivism. This not only makes communities safer, but it also reduces the costs that would be associated with adjudicating those avoided offenses. Research is available on restorative justice and recidivism rates in other contexts. In fact, in one meta-analysis reviewing studies of thirty-two different restorative justice programs in the criminal justice context, 72% of those programs showed at least some reduction in recidivism rates (Dowden, Latimer, & Muse, 2005). However, the data on recidivism rates on college campuses is very limited (Conrad & Karp, 2005). This is one key area where additional research is needed.

Potential Challenges As outlined below, student conduct administrators must be aware of some of the potential challenges of implementing restorative practices. Those challenges include (a) re- victimizing the victim, (b) forcing cases through restorative practices that are not a good fit, (c) unfairly coercing offender participation, and (d) dispelling unfounded concerns of cost barriers. First, during this process, there is a possibility of “re-victimizing the victim” (Duncan, 2011, p. 290). In some cases, victims have reported feelings of re-victimization because of the attitude of an offender who felt coerced to attend against their will (Coates, Lightfoot, Umbreit, & Vos, 2007). They found at least two key causes that often lead to this result: improper participant training and preparation and losing sight of the needs of the victim (Coates et al., 2007). However, these concerns can be largely mitigated through employing best practices (Duncan, 2011). Second, according to Duncan (2011), student conduct administrators must be steadfast in their commitment to the underlying principles and values of restorative justice. They must recognize that not all cases are a good fit for restorative practices. Only cases where the offender is willing to accept responsibility should be considered as candidates. Further, it is imperative that all parties involved in the process are well prepared and are provided with support and guidance throughout. Finally, it is important to utilize a restorative justice model that is an appropriate fit, considering the nature of the offense, as well as the needs and characteristics of the victim and offender (Duncan, 2011). Third, in models where the community is involved, student conduct administrators must consider the risk that the offender can feel pressured into volunteering to participate and into accepting responsibility and accountability in a way that is both coerced and unjust. Universities can mitigate this risk through skilled mediators who are trained to identify these issues from the screening process through completion (Haft, 2000). One of the benefits of the bifurcated approach is that when mediators identify any of these issues (such as an offender whose language and demeanor suggests a reluctance to participate in the process) or conclude that an offender is not a strong fit for restorative justice, the student can be transitioned into the traditional retributive model. Finally, the biggest barrier may be the unfounded fear that the implementation of restorative practices could be too costly at a time when many universities are seeking to reduce expenses. However, restorative practices are actually less costly, reducing administrative time and expense (Lee, 2011). That said, Lee (2011) acknowledged that there is still not enough data available to provide decisive support for this conclusion. Indeed, the data on the costs of restorative justice as compared to retributive justice is scarce (Braithwaite, 1999). Additionally, most of the data available is not directly applicable to the implementation in a higher education environment. However, this lack of data is not surprising given the small number of college campuses that have implemented restorative practices. This is another gap in the literature where future research is needed. As compared with the criminal justice system, the university environment is particularly well suited to implement restorative practices with relatively limited up-front costs. In the university environment, the basic infrastructure for implementing restorative practices is already in place. Instead of hiring additional staff to implement restorative practices, campuses can cross-train current student conduct administrators to facilitate parallel systems simultaneously. Those student conduct administrators can make use of existing facilities and equipment, further reducing the costs to implement and maintain restorative practices.

The Fit Between Restorative Justice and the Educational Setting Restorative justice is a strong fit for the educational system for multiple reasons. Restorative concepts align with traditional university values of preparing students to become contributing, capable members of society (Haft, 2000). Change in the criminal justice system is slowed by Constitutional safeguards and philosophical barriers (Reimund, 2005); conversely, student conduct administrators have wide latitude in implementing disciplinary practices (Simson, 2014). The restorative justice process may be better suited for protecting the physical and emotional safety of victims (Duncan, 2011). Finally, restorative justice is more effective at re-integrating offenders into the community.

Alignment with University Values

University administrators should set their goals beyond merely preparing students for post-graduation employment and the granting of diplomas. The university should be a haven of learning, growth, and development. These three values should be embedded into the foundation of any campus, preparing students for the challenges of life. Restorative justice practices have shown to have a more profound impact upon student learning (including accountability, interpersonal competence, and procedural closure) than traditional student conduct hearings in the retributive system (Karp & Sacks, 2013). Retributive practices focus on punishment and isolation (Haft, 2000). In some cases, the offender is not the only one who is isolated; the victim can be isolated as well. Conversely, a restorative justice system seeks to include, rather than to exclude or isolate, all parties impacted by the offense (Haft, 2000). According to Armour (2016), this focus on “inclusion and community-based problem solving not only addresses harm but uses processes that concurrently create a climate that promotes healthy relationships, develops social-emotional understanding and skills, increases social and human capital, and enhances teaching and learning” (p. 1018). The goals of restorative justice practices are aligned with the goals of education as both are focused on preparing students to become more effective, contributing members of society through a focus on accountability and restoration (Haft, 2000).

Flexibility within Campus Judicial System for Implementation

Despite similarities between the criminal justice system and campus judicial systems, there are some key differences. The criminal justice system must adhere to specific Constitutional safeguards and formalities that can make the implementation of restorative justice more complicated (Reimund, 2005). Conversely, while student conduct administrators may still provide due process, they are not concerned with grand jury indictments, bail hearings, plea deals, or motions to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment violations. Furthermore, the Supreme Court grants wide latitude to universities in making student conduct decisions, as long as the justification for that decision was reasonable (Simson, 2014). Additionally, the criminal justice system is not designed to accept change quickly, nor are new ideas and theories encouraged (Reimund, 2005). In the university context, research- based innovation and improvement should continually be encouraged. Unlike a criminal justice system beholden to the Constitution, changes to campus disciplinary practices can be changed through modifications to the code of conduct. This modification process is much easier than the two- thirds majority vote by the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, that is required to modify the U.S. Constitution.

Effectiveness at Protecting Victims

Restorative practices are more effective at protecting the victim, as outlined in the discussion on benefits of restorative practices above. In a university environment, both the victim and offender are often members of the university community, increasing the likelihood that the victim and offender will cross paths after the adjudication of the violation. In a retributive system, the offender may be more inclined to blame the victim for the punishment (Duncan, 2011). Conversely, the restorative process gives the offender the opportunity to understand the harm caused by the offense, discouraging them from rationalizing the offense (Duncan, 2011). Offender Re-integration into the Community

Duncan (2011) further stated that shame is often a component in campus discipline and is often managed differently by retributive and restorative justice models. The retributive model – with a focus on punishment – often does little to help in the management of shame. Shame that is not properly managed (or “bad shame”) can lead to dangerous consequences, including future harm perpetuated by the victim or the offender. On the other hand, in the restorative model, “reintegrative shame” separates the offense from the offender. Processing shame in this way allows the offender to take responsibility, become discharged of the shame, and ultimately be restored back into the community (Duncan, 2011, pp. 286-287). The restorative justice process is better suited for managing this type of reintegrative shame because offenders tend to respond better when the disapproval comes from a peer within the community as opposed to an authority figure (p. 287). This is an important benefit given the university’s relationship with all students, including offenders.

Applying Research to Practice

Change can be difficult in any organization; this can be particularly true in a university environment that is steeped in tradition. For that reason, student conduct administrators who wish to implement restorative practices must be strategic, prepared, and patient. This is not only important to building needed buy-in, but it is also critical in developing and implementing restorative models that are primed for success. Student conduct administrators who wish to integrate restorative practices should follow these five recommendations. First, the campus leadership team must support the initiative. Key leaders should be educated on restorative justice. Information on its history, values, potential benefits and challenges, and costs should be presented. Without the support of key administrators, the endeavor is less likely to be successful. Partnering with others, such as key campus leadership, improves the likelihood of successfully implementing change and can lead to new ideas that further enhance those changes (Bar, McClellan, & Sandeen, 2014). Once this has occurred, an education campaign on restorative justice needs to be extended to the faculty and staff, and then the community at large. Second, a restorative justice committee should be created to implement the restorative practices. The committee should include key stakeholders from across the campus. The committee should be charged with: ● Reading all available literature on restorative justice in the higher education environment ● Meeting with student conduct administrators from campuses that have implemented restorative models ● Determining whether restorative justice fits within the institution’s mission and values ● Creating a plan of implementation ● Educating the campus community and generating buy-in from students, faculty, and staff ● Overseeing the implementation of the restorative model(s) ● Creating and overseeing the implementation of an assessment plan ● Overseeing the implementation for needed changes and updates

Third, the university must ensure that all administrators involved with the implementation and operation of the restorative models are appropriately trained. This may include on-site visits to meet with administrators from other campuses who have implemented restorative models, sending staff to training academies, bringing in consultants with expertise in restorative models, and sending staff members to conferences with sessions on restorative justice. Fourth, the university must provide sufficient financial support to ensure successful implementation. While universities can and should be judicious with campus funds, there are some unavoidable costs. These costs include ensuring staff receive the proper training, educating the campus community, implementing and monitoring an assessment plan, and (in some cases) hiring additional staff members. Fifth, the restorative justice committee must always remain involved after restorative practices have been integrated. They must work with campus student conduct administrators in the continuous assessment of restorative practices. The assessment must not be limited to merely tracking recidivism rates but must also focus on understanding how well restorative practices are staying true to their underlying goals and principles. They must also work to manage the university community expectations as this data becomes available. Restorative practices are not a magic bullet to solve all campus program. There will likely be some hiccups along the way. They must prepare the university community for these challenges. Finally, while the committee must remain steadfast in its commitment to the underlying principles and values of restorative justice, it must remain fluid in making needed changes to the application of those principles, as the data indicates such a need.

Conclusion

U.S. higher education institutions provide excellent environments to implement restorative practices. Pairing retributive justice systems with restorative justice practices offers a more holistic approach to student discipline that is centered on meeting the needs of all involved parties (Coates et al., 2007). Restorative justice has the potential to strengthen the university community and offer meaningful opportunities for growth and learning in ways that retributive justice does not. Restorative justice can be highly effective when student conduct administrators remain committed to its underlying values, design an effective implementation plan, and facilitate proper training. Finally, though restorative justice offers much promise, student conduct administrators must remain careful not to become so infatuated with the idea of restorative justice that they force every student and every student conduct issue into one of the four restorative models. Such an approach could not only lead to re-victimization, but it could lead to unfair criticism and avoidable challenges, undermining an otherwise successful implementation.

References Anderson, C. L. (2004). Double jeopardy: The modern dilemma for juvenile justice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 152, 1181-1219. doi:10.111/ssqu.12549 Armour, M. (2016). Restorative practices: Righting the wrongs of exclusionary school discipline. University of Richmond Law Review, 50, 999-1037. Retrieved from https://lawreview.richmond.edu Barr, M. J., McClellan, G. S., & Sandeen, A. (2014). Making change happen in student affairs: Challenges and strategies. New York, NY: Jossey Bass Ltd. Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 25, 1-127. doi:10.1086/449287 Coates, R. B., Lightfoot, E., Umbreit, M.S., & Vos, B. (2007). Restorative justice: An empirically grounded movement facing many opportunities and pitfalls. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8, 511-564. Retrieved from https://cardozojcr.com Duncan, S. H. (2011). Restorative justice and bullying: A mission solution in the anti-bullying laws. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 37, 267-298. Retrieved from https://student.nesl.edu/students/ne_journal._ccc.cfm Haft, W. (2000). More than zero: The cost of zero tolerance and the case for restorative justice in schools. Denver University Law Review, 77, 795-812. Retrieved from https://www.law.du.edu/denver-law-review Karp, D., & Conrad, S. (2005). Restorative justice and college student misconduct. Public Organization Review, 5, 315-333. doi:10.1007/s11115-005-5094-7 Karp, D. R., & Sacks, C. (2014). Student conduct, restorative justice, and student development: Findings from the STARR project: A student accountability and restorative research project. Contemporary Justice Review, 17(2), 154-172 doi:10.1080/10282580.2014.915140 Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85, 127-144. doi:10.1177/0032885505276969 Lee, C. D. (2011). They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round: The not-so-radical and reasonable need for a restorative justice model statue. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 30, 523-573. Retrieved from http://law.sluedu/journals/public-law-review Mulligan, S. (2009). From retribution to repair: Juvenile justice and the history of restorative justice. University of La Verne Law Review, 31, 139-149. Retrieved from https://law.laverne.edu/review Poulson, B. (2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review Society, 1, 167-203. Retrieved from https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr Reimund, M. E. (2005). The law and restorative justice: Friend or foe? A systematic look at the legal issues in restorative justice. Drake Law Review, 53, 667-692. Retrieved from https://drakelawreview.org/ Simson, D. (2014). Exclusion, punishment, racism and our schools: A critical race theory perspective on school discipline. UCLA Law Review, 61, 506-563. Retrieved from https://wwwuclalawreview.org/ Strelan, P., Feather, N. T., & Mckee, I. (2011). Retributive and inclusive justice goals and forgiveness: The influence of motivational values. Social Justice Research, 24, 126-142. doi:10.1007/s11211-011-0132-9 Suvall, C. (2009). Restorative justice in schools: Learning from Jena High School. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44, 547-569. Retrieved from harvardcrl.org Understanding the Experiences of Deaf and Hard of Hearing College Students

Alana Crosby

One of the purposes of higher education in the United States is to create active and informed citizens, which institutions aim to achieve by providing students with opportunities for learning and becoming prepared for a future job and career. According to Benson, Heagney, Hewitt, Crosling, and Devos (2014), students who attended institutions of higher education reported having more confidence in learning style, increased knowledge in social justice issues, a better feel for how to be independent citizens, improved skills to advocate for themselves, and a better general understanding of themselves and where they fit into the community. While this may be true for many students in collegiate environments, not all are provided with these opportunities. For students who are deaf or hard of hearing, college can be a different experience in comparison to their hearing peers. There are many factors this population must take into account during their collegiate career that are not always conducive to learning how to be an active and informed citizen. The students who are deaf or hard of hearing also have to contend with being a part of a population that is not talked about and advocated for as much as other marginalized populations in regard to race, ethnicity, sexual identity, and gender (Benson et al., 2014). The following literature review examines some of the experiences deaf and hard of hearing students can face during their time in college and the impact this can have on their success. These students, in comparison to their hearing peers, have different factors to consider when choosing an institution to attend, deciding on a major, and making connections with peers, faculty, and administrators. This review will focus on these factors in order to understand what institutions of higher education are lacking in terms of providing an equitable collegiate experience for deaf and hard of hearing students. Additionally, with these factors in mind, this review will look at how institutions of higher education can better support deaf and hard of hearing students to set them up for success after college. Resources and activities used at different institutions to advocate for this population and provide opportunities for involvement outside of the classroom will also be addressed in this review. This will be done by looking at the experiences of deaf and hard of hearing students before, during, and after matriculation.

Before Matriculation

During the application process, deaf and hard of hearing students can choose to attend institutions for the deaf. Stuckless, Ashmore, Schroedel, and Simon (1997) reported that the first school for deaf students in the United States was founded in 1813, and soon afterwards government-supported residential colleges for deaf students opened up in nearly every state in the northeast. Many of these programs were vocational in nature or prepared the students to be teachers of deaf children in primary and secondary schools (Stuckless et al., 1997). In 1864, Gallaudet College was founded to specifically serve students from the deaf community (Stuckless et al., 1997). The school was given federal support due to its commitment to creating opportunities for deaf or hard of hearing student’s post-graduation. “While for many years its enrollment remained small in proportion to the numbers of deaf high school graduates nationally, it had great symbolic significance for all deaf people and led to a well-informed and effective deaf leadership throughout the country” (Stuckless, p. 5). While Gallaudet and other schools, such as The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) at Rochester Institute of Technology or Howard College, offer resources for the nearly 20,000 deaf or hard of hearing students attending colleges across the United States, these programs are not the only options for students (Clason, 2016). Students who are deaf or hard of hearing have the ability to decide between attending a school such as Gallaudet, which primarily focuses on this population, or attending an institution with predominantly hearing students. According to Smith (2004), students who are deaf or hard of hearing most frequently cited the inclusion of a specific major, the access to support services, the reputation, enrollment of other deaf students, and the closeness to home as reasons for choosing a college to attend. Fortenbury (2013) states that this population of students also need to think about the ability to communicate with other students if they do not know American Sign Language (ASL), their access to resources and services, and the ability to communicate with faculty to effectively learn in the classroom setting:

“If one wants to have all deaf friends, and utilize ASL or learn ASL, and include that as a part of their future career, then a deaf college is ideal,” said Sorrells, who graduated in 2011 with a bachelor’s degree in education and is now a high school ASL teacher. “But if someone doesn’t know ASL and doesn’t wish to learn or is seeking a specific program that will not be offered at a deaf school, they should attend a traditional school.” (as cited in Fortenbury, 2013, para. 6)

Other factors that these students consider include access to extracurricular activities, the ability to socialize with other deaf people “especially if the school is not a deaf school,” the community the school is located in and how deaf-friendly it is, and how deaf-friendly the department, program, or major is that they chose (Fortenbury, 2013). Some students looked for institutions with a predominantly hearing community in certain cities that were more deaffriendly than others; Washington, D.C., for example, has restaurants where waiters know basic ASL (Fortenbury, 2013).

Experiences Transitioning to College Students who are deaf or hard of hearing may have access to higher education and a variety in types of institutions they can chose to attend, but according to Smith (2004), retention rates do not reflect this increase with only about thirty percent of deaf and hard of hearing students who enter college persisting to graduation. Many students who are deaf or hard of hearing do not complete their degree due to a lack of institutional support, even from institutions specifically for the deaf or hard of hearing (Smith, 2004). For students who did complete their degree some commonalities are apparent:

The students who stayed in school were generally those who (a) had better oral communication skills, (b) attended high schools that provided minimum support, (c) experienced some kind of precollege preparation, and, (d) declared a major during the first year of college. (Smith, 2004, p. 25)

Students who are already at a disadvantage due to a lack of preparedness could feel that they have to catch up to their peers or that college is not the right choice for them. College can create meaningful opportunities for students to learn how to become informed citizens, but with the retention rates of deaf and hard of hearing students, institutions of higher education have room to improve how they help this population access these opportunities starting with the students’ transition into collegiate life. When transitioning from high school to college, Smith (2004) found that many deaf and hard of hearing students believed the transition would be much easier than it ended up being. Students felt that high school had not prepared them enough for the academic side of college and that they were falling behind in classes: “Six participants (43%) stated that the reason their GPA [grade point average] dropped was because of the greater demand for English writing skill...English is a second language for many deaf people, whose first language is American Sign Language” (Smith, 2004, pp. 58-59). American Sign Language does not follow the same grammatical syntax as English and many students experienced “surprise and embarrassment when their college professors critiqued their writing skills” (Smith, p. 59). Additionally, students struggled with navigating the new relationship between themselves and their professors; in high school their teachers were required to accommodate them and provide resources for them, while in college the students themselves were in charge of getting their own accommodations and resources (Smith, 2004). While the transition for any student from high school to college can be difficult, strange, and new, these added difficulties can make the transition even harder for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Luft (2014) found in a study of K-12 deaf education programs of 35 students or more that there were not many transition services for deaf and hard of hearing students from high school to college. Many resources were provided for this population to find jobs or careers once they graduated from high school, but there was little to no preparation for the students to go on to college provided by teachers, counselors, or administrators who were their mentors and advocates: “Although identified as the deaf/hard of hearing transition contact person, some respondents appeared to have minimal understanding of the breadth of transition needs across this population” (Luft, 2014, p. 188). According to Hansmann, Saladin, Shefcik, and GarzaGutierrez (2009), depending on the institution, tutoring and advising in ASL was available and there was the potential for recruitment fairs, campus tours, and orientation services in ASL, but this all depended on how well the institution was properly equipped to accommodate these resources. The American Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates that schools must provide aids and services to allow for equal access (National Association of the Deaf, 2017). However, some students reported instances such as receiving a hearing device to aid in listening to a campus tour, only to find out that it did not work (Hansmann et al., 2009).

During Matriculation

If students who are deaf or hard of hearing are able to successfully navigate through this transitional process, navigating collegiate life may prove to be even more difficult. Most institutions that are specifically for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, such as Gallaudet or Howard, are funded through the government, however, whenever there are other issues happening in the country, these funds can be decreased. “Federal support fell amid two world wars and the Depression. Congress, which supported the College [Gallaudet] generously during the war between states, was hesitant to fund building and at times even debated whether to continue the school or not” (Drezner, 2005, p. 304). Funding for these schools is not often a priority which can severely hurt the students attending the institution, especially when considering the student’s other social identities, such as socioeconomic status. Deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to experience academic achievements and be able to afford attending and continuing to attend college (Marschark & Spencer, 2011). This decrease in funding can mean fewer students are able to successfully afford and continue to attend college.

Experiences with Institutional Support

When it comes to institutions that are primarily for hearing students, access to resources for students who are deaf or hard of hearing can be even more difficult. Stuckless et al. (1997) state that services provided at these institutions can include sign and oral interpreting for classroom and campus events, note takers, captioning, speech and hearing services, amplified telephones, visual alarm systems, and training for ASL. Due to updates to laws that protect people with disabilities against discrimination such as the ADA, 504 plan, and Title II, these types of services are more readily available (Stuckless et al., 1997). Kay (1980) states that in order for schools to properly integrate students who are deaf or hard of hearing into their communities, they must have a specific orientation for these students at the beginning of their college experience in order to help them transition. Examples could include appropriate counseling in terms of academic advising, disability center resources, and adequate communication in the academic environment with their faculty and peers (Kay, 1980). Institutions should also have opportunities for social interaction during extracurricular activities, especially in schools that may not have many students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Paterson and Cole (2010) stated that in recent years there has also been a slight increase in programs at these institutions that allow deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students to become fluent in ASL in order to teach it or work in areas such as counseling and advocacy. Programs such as the University of Hartford’s Master of Education in Aural Habilitation and Education of Hearing-Impaired Children allow all populations better access to understanding what students who are deaf or hard of hearing experience, and to be able to implement more programs for these students at all colleges and universities (Paterson & Cole, 2010). The University of Hartford’s program and other similar programs allow students to work with faculty, audiologists, and teachers who work with deaf students to get a well-rounded experience (Paterson & Cole, 2010). These mandated services are helpful in providing opportunities for institutions to advocate for the deaf and hard of hearing populations, however, institutions of higher education have the opportunity to do even more to provide services for this population.

Experiences in the Classroom

According to Cawthon, Schoffstall, and Garberoglio (2014), higher education institutions need to ensure that there are resources for academic readiness, language and communication readiness, and soft skills readiness for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. This population reports being unable to benefit from the classroom experience in the same way as hearing students do (Cawthon et al., 2014). They are not typically gathering information from auditory cues like their hearing peers, but mainly visual cues such as sign language, lip reading, or written word, which can change their cognitive strategies (Cawthon et al., 2014). Institutions with predominantly hearing students typically communicate with auditory means, making it difficult for students who are deaf or hard of hearing to keep up (Cawthon et al., 2014). Institutions have tried to rectify this situation by providing captioning when showing video clips or movies, having individuals such as faculty members or interpreters who are proficient in ASL in the classroom, and making visuals such as PowerPoint presentations available to go along with the lecture (Cawthon et al., 2014). However, this system does not allow for deaf and hard of hearing students to learn in a style that works best for them (Cawthon et al., 2014). This makes it more difficult to acquire not only the concepts presented in class but also the other necessary skills referenced earlier such as being an active citizen, gaining independence, and building understandings of social justice. Long (2002) notes that this disconnect can also manifest for students who are deaf or hard of hearing at institutions with predominantly hearing students due to the fact that there is often little to no communication between the professor and the student and is instead through a third party such as an interpreter or captioning. Studies have shown that students retained much more of the information they learned in class when their professors signed for themselves, as they do at schools such as Gallaudet (Long, 2002). Students retain less information when they need to depend on a third party because some information may be missing or lost in translation, the interpreter might not understand the topic and therefore may have trouble properly interpreting, or there could be a lag time between what the professor is saying and what the interpreter signs, leading to a lack of participation in class (Long, 2002). Students who are deaf or hard of hearing feel like they cannot be active learners because if they need to focus on watching the interpreter, then they cannot take notes for themselves (Long, 2002). If they do have something that they want to ask or contribute to the class discussion, by the time they have received the information from the interpreter, the professor and class may have moved on to a different topic (Long, 2002). Feelings of isolation are common for this population during this struggle to communicate:

“I don’t always like using the interpreter because people sometimes say to the interpreter, ‘tell him...’ But that is okay... When someone wants to talk to me, they will turn their body away from me and talk to the interpreter. You know, hearing [people] don’t know. That is fine. I accept that. That never happened at Gallaudet, though.” (as cited in Long, 2002)

This exclusion from a lack of direct interaction between deaf or hard of hearing students and hearing professors and peers has led institutions to look for other resources to help this population be successful in the classroom. Slike, Berman, Kline, Rebilas, and Bosch (2008) discuss that more online classes have become available for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. These online classes include ASL introduction courses that deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students can all take, as well as a range of close-captioned classes that are specifically for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Slike et al., 2008). This allows institutions to avoid paying ASL interpreters while still providing resources for this population (Slike et al., 2008). While this might be a great resource for some students, there is room for improvement. Hearing professors and administrators do not always take into account that lecturing while showing PowerPoint slides or other visual aids in an online class does not always work with students who are deaf or hard of hearing, as they are typically visual learners who cannot read the slides or visual aids at the same time as the captioning for the lecture (Slike et al., 2008). Lewin (2015) talks about how schools, such as Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are being sued for not providing proper captioning in their online and in-class courses. Even after many complaints were filed at both institutions that the closed captioning was not accurate or nonexistent, neither university reacted until the lawsuit was filed (Lewin, 2015). Experiences Outside of the Classroom

Limited resources are not contained to just the classroom. When group projects, presentations or social outings arise, students who are deaf or hard of hearing have to navigate how to communicate:

“Being able to be involved in extracurricular activities is a huge factor for college students who want the full college experience or who want to build their resumes” Delgado said. “Sometimes lip reading all day or being the only one who knows ASL can be a little tiring or frustrating, so having opportunities to socialize with other deaf people who understand and can communicate with you in the same mode can be nice as well.” (Fortenbury, 2013, para. 17)

Having events, programming, networking, and socials for this community is crucial to ensuring these students are getting the most out of their college experience, are developing into well- rounded citizens, and most of all, are happy. Mendez (2014) shares that certain schools, such as the University of Texas at Austin, understand this need to provide social resources for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. This university provides opportunities that allow students who are deaf or hard of hearing to become better acclimated to the university, and more importantly become more comfortable with themselves and their identities (Mendez, 2014). Students at the University of Texas at Austin said that these programs have allowed them to “[meet] a lot of friends through this, which has been wonderful,” and think it is “really cool because most of us never get to meet each other” (Mendez, 2014, para. 8). Opportunities like this can be helpful resources for students to successfully learn more about themselves such as their own leadership styles, their social identities, and their place in the world outside of the classroom. On the other hand, Mason and Schiller (2009) found that students who are deaf or hard of hearing who are not feeling socially supported can turn to alcohol consumption to help cope. While most research about alcohol abuse is in regards to hearing students, Mason and Schiller (2009) discovered that students who are deaf or hard of hearing can turn to alcohol because of their troubles with obtaining resources, the lack of information that is given to them about substance abuse, and a deficiency in recovery support. Educational programs or events about substance abuse are a common occurrence on college campuses but are often superficially available for students who are deaf or hard of hearing through utilizing an ASL interpreter (Mason & Schiller, 2009). These students reported wanting institutions of higher education to have more deaf-specific resources such as captioned videos and workshops conducted in ASL (Mason & Schiller, 2009). Providing these resources would be useful in helping deaf and hard of hearing students be successful in and out of the classroom, not to mention learning valuable coping strategies that do not include substance abuse. Matchett (2013) states that another issue that students who are deaf or hard of hearing face is negotiating their different identities, especially when society tends to lump all people who are deaf or hard of hearing together. Like hearing students, the deaf or hard of hearing population have different identities to contend with in regard to race, ethnicity, sexual identity, gender, socioeconomic status, and more (Matchett, 2013). These different identities lead to different experiences even within the deaf or hard of hearing community. While Deaf culture is more frequently talked about, these intersectional identities are not often considered; Latinx deaf students often feel that they belong to two cultures and are trilingual (Hansmann et al., 2009). Matchett (2013) found that black students who were deaf most often try to distance themselves from their racial identity due to negative stereotypes and a heightened desire to fit in with their white deaf peers. While potentially stigmatized because of their deaf identity, their white peers were not stigmatized because of their racial identity (Matchett, 2013). The importance of trainings and workshops for faculty and administrators at colleges surrounding race, gender, sexual identity and more, and how those identities are intersectional with being deaf or hard of hearing would be helpful in assisting students to navigate collegiate life, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (Matchett, 2013).

After Matriculation

According to Schroedel and Geyer (2000), most alumni who are deaf or hard of hearing graduated with similar degrees and went to comparable institutions, but there is a severe case of underemployment in this population. This could be because many of the programs that students who are deaf or hard of hearing attend are technical or vocational because there is a lack of resources within other majors and programs (Schroedel & Geyer, 2000). “Vocational rehabilitation specialists and other service professionals have long advocated that expanding postsecondary training opportunities would reduce underemployment among deaf workers” (Schroedel & Geyer, 2000, p. 305). There is also a lack of information provided to deaf or hard of hearing students from faculty and administrators once they graduate about how to utilize their major for jobs and careers they may want to pursue:

Fran, a premed student, was concerned how being deaf might affect her ability as a physician. “I always wanted to be a doctor. But I had to figure out which kind. I was always interested in being an ER doctor, but people come there with serious emergencies and I decided that I couldn’t have an interpreter come with me into the emergency room all the time. And then I thought about being a family doctor, but I really don’t like children all that much. (laughing). So, I thought an Ob-Gyn would fit me. I have never seen an Ob-Gyn who is deaf. And I know a lot of deaf people would feel more comfortable talking with a deaf doctor about those issues. So, I thought, why not? I can do that.” (Smith, 2004, pp. 62-63)

Career counseling that is cognizant of the needs of a deaf or hard of hearing person in the workforce could help students like Fran find jobs that will fulfill them and help them be successful, while also creating more employment opportunities for this population. Job and career preparation are an important purpose of higher education, but students who are deaf or hard of hearing are continuing to fight for more complete access to different career paths.

Conclusion

Institutions of higher education have impacted students in a variety of positive ways, but for populations such as students who are deaf or hard of hearing there is still so much more that can be done before, during, and after matriculation. Administrators and faculty can work on providing college preparatory resources, ensuring that mandates in laws such as the ADA are being complied with fully, making sure courses are being taught in ways that are inclusive of different cognitive strategies, and hosting trainings about deaf and hard of hearing student needs. These factors, along with access to activities outside of the classroom, could help with the retention and employment rates of deaf and hard of hearing students. Schroedel and Geyer (2000) found that many students who are deaf or hard of hearing were happy with the jobs they had upon graduation, were well established in those jobs, were economically self-sufficient, and were pleased with their choice to go to college and the opportunities that came along with that. However, with a clearer understanding of the experiences deaf and hard of hearing students have, administrators and faculty have the ability to better advocate on their behalf and help deaf and hard of hearing students be successful in their journey before, during, and after college. Further accessibility to institutions and resources to assist students with enrolling and remaining enrolled will help create more active and informed citizens.

References

Benson, R., Heagney, M., Hewitt, L., Crosling, G., & Devos, A. (2014). Diversity and achievement: Is success in higher education a transformative experience? Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(2), 8-31. Retrieved from https://www.ajal.net.au/ Cawthon, S. S., Schoffstall, S. S., & Garberoglio, C. C. (2014). How ready are postsecondary institutions for students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(13), 1-22. doi:10.14507/epaa. v22n13.2014 Clason, D. (2016, September 15). Top Universities for Deaf Students. Retrieved from www.healthyhearing.com/report/52682-Top-universities-for-deaf-students Drezner, N. (2005). Advancing Gallaudet: Alumni support for the nation's university for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and its similarities to black colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5, 301-316. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/journal/41486 Fortenbury, J. (2013, March 27). Choosing a college as a deaf student. USA Today. Retrieved from http://college.usatoday.com/2013/03/27/choosing-a-college-as-a-deaf -student/ Hansmann, S., Saladin, S., Shefcik, T., & Garza-Gutierrez, M. (2009). Development of an undergraduate concentration in services to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of the American Deafness & Rehabilitation Association, 42, 167-184. Retrieved from https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/ Kay, C. R. (1980). Post-secondary programming for hearing impaired students (Missouri LINC Paper 802). Missouri, Columbia: Missouri Univ. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED203827) Lewin, T. (2015, February 12). Harvard and M.I.T. are sued over lack of closed captions. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/education/harvard- and-mit-sued-over-failing- tocaption-online-courses.html?_r=0 Long, H. (2002). Academic readiness, language and communication readiness, and soft skills readiness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4). Luft, P. (2014). A national survey of transition services for deaf and hard of hearing students. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 177-192. doi:10.1177/2165143412469400 Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.) (2011) The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mason, T. C., & Schiller, J. (2009). College drinking among deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of the American Deafness & Rehabilitation Association, 42, 90-113. Retrieved from https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/ Matchett, M. (2013). Bridging race and deafness: Examining the first-year experiences of black deaf students at a predominately white hearing college (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John Fisher College, Pittsford, N.Y. Mendez, C. (2014, September 25). Deaf, hard of hearing students find opportunities to get involved. Retrieved from http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2014/09/25/deaf-hard- ofhearing-students-find-opportunities-to-get-involved National Association of the Deaf (2017, January 15). Section 504 and ADA Obligations of Public Schools. Retrieved from www.nad.org/resources/education/k-12education/section-504- and-ada-obligations-of-public-schools/ Paterson, M. M., & Cole, E. (2010). The University of Hartford and CREC Soundbridge: A new Master of Education in aural habilitation and education of hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 110, 279-291. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ930687) Schroedel, J. G., & Geyer, P. D. (2000). Long-term career attainments of deaf and hard of hearing college graduates: Results from a 15-year follow-up study. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 303-314. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.0099 Smith, J. A. (2004). “College is a challenge, but I’ve got dreams and I know I can do it!”: Deaf students in mainstream colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Slike, S. B., Berman, P. D., Kline, T., Rebilas, K., & Bosch, E. (2008). Providing online course opportunities for learners who are deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 304-308. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0045 Stuckless, R., Ashmore, D., Schroedel, J., & Simon, J. A. (1997). Introduction: A Report of the national task force on quality of services in the postsecondary education of deaf and hard of hearing students. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and Northeast Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED437773) Queering Identities: Muslim American College Students in Higher Education

Kevin Franco

Abstract

This manuscript aims to expand the genealogy of college student development theory by proposing Queer of Color Critique as a valid, critical theoretical framework that can shape educators’ understanding of the social construction of marginalized students’ identities in educational contexts. By showcasing the American experience of Muslim students in higher education, this manuscript contends that the subject position of the Muslim American college student is developed and influenced by the [hetero]normative behavior and regulations of institutions, the students’ family, peers, and overall their community. As such, Muslim college students have developed non-traditional forms of resistance in educational contexts in order to survive and thrive. Strategic recommendations are given for the field of student affairs on how to develop institutional policies and practices that increase the support of Muslim American students on college campuses.

Queer of Color Critique as a Framework for Identity Formation

The identity of Muslim American college students is shaped by religious community norms, as well as America’s societal conception of the abstract Muslim and the Muslim physical body. As a result of a public discourse that places Muslim as antithetical to being American (Lamont & Collet, 2013), Muslim American students must process multiple conflicting identities (Muslim versus American, male versus female), which has inadvertently led them to adopt performative cultural norms in certain higher education spaces (Stubbs & Sallee, 2013). Critically understanding the experiences of Muslim American students in educational settings requires an expansive theoretical framework that provides insight on how identities are constructed in contemporary society. College student development theory primarily rests on the notion that identity among college students falls on a linear timeline, often occurring in “stages” or “phases,” such as Phinney’s (1995) Model of Ethnic Identity or Cass’s (1979) Model of Homosexual Identity Formation. Although this notion helped in the initial years of student affairs’ emergence as an academic field, the social construction of social identities, such as race, gender, and sexuality, have also evolved when placed in the context of economic, political, and societal realities. In order to understand how the social construction of marginalized students, specifically Muslim American college students, is developed contemporarily, practitioners and scholars need to utilize alternative analytical frameworks that better conceptualize identity formation. Queer theory, as one example, problematizes and reimagines power dynamics from a multitude of perspectives and disciplines to consider how the LGBTQ identity is constructed (Eng, Halberstam, & Munoz, 2005). This is to say that Queer theory, and Queer epistemology especially, calls for the critical inquiry of different aspects of identity, including race, gender, class, nationality, sexuality, and religion. The call for critical inquiry alludes to the importance of utilizing an epistemology that acknowledges individuals’ intersecting salient identities and challenges the normality toward the construction of social identities (Eng et al., 2005). In association with college student identity development theory, Queer epistemology posits that identity formation is about considering contextual factors that influence the development of one’s lived experience and identity. Thus, as Eng et al. (2005) argue, identity formation is not linear because much of the social construction of race, gender, and sexuality has been a result of reactionary identity politics, a polity that defines the marginality of social identities based on the current economic, political, and social realities of a given population. Therefore, an intersectional Queer theoretical lens, such as Queer of Color Critique (Brockenbrough, 2015), is needed to question how power dynamics between individuals shape their identities within educational contexts. Queer of Color Critique contextualizes the marginalization of Queer transgendered people of color’s complex, intersectional identities in relation to hegemonic powers, all while also highlighting the strategic (non-traditional) resistance they develop and implement to counteract power dynamics of marginalization. While Queer of Color Critique centralizes Queer trans people of color’s experiences, it is key to underscore that Queer of Color epistemology is a liberatory framework employed to understand the marginalization of underrepresented identities. By utilizing Queer of Color Critique framework in analyzing the educational experiences of Muslim American college students, I will further examine the relationship between race, class, gender, sexuality and religion in educational contexts and its outcomes. A Queer of Color epistemology also highlights the conceptualization of the Muslim image and body and how negotiation tactics of identity display Muslim American students’ agency in higher education. Specifically, I contend that the identity of Muslim American college students is developed and influenced by the [hetero]normative behavior and regulations of institutions, their family, peers, and community. As such, the development of institutional policies and practices is recommended to increase the support of Muslim American students on college campuses.

Cultural Adaptation: Strategies of Survival

The construction of the Muslim American identity can be best described through Rolan Coloma’s (2008) notion of “constitutive subjectivity,” where subjectification of one’s identity is predicated on various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal factors. Coloma’s concept of the constitutive subjectivity sheds light on how one’s perception of their identity is influenced by a confluence of environmental and psychosocial factors such as class, gender, race, sexuality, and religion. For Muslim individuals, their intersecting identities, or “identity constellations,” of being American and Muslim create an internal conflict that places Muslim American college students in a predicament of constantly choosing dominant normative behaviors from one space to another (Nasir et al, 2006). More commonly, the adaptation of dominant cultural values is seen in Muslim American college students’ navigation between their places at home and at their respective institution. It is within the navigation of these two spaces that Muslim American college students have developed survival strategies of cultural adaptation. According to Stubbs and Sallee (2013), Muslim American students adhere to Islamic values and practices depending on the situation. A huge part of their decision on which identity to perform is influenced by their social networks, including living arrangements and peer/family interactions where Muslim, American, or both (Muslim American) norms are expected. Since the home serves as the platform where cultural and religious traditions are nourished and instilled, Muslim American college students abide by Muslim traditions more often when they are living at home. Consequently, the family unit and peer networks tend to police and facilitate cultural norms. Since family and friends become cultural agents, Muslim American college students adapt their behaviors based on prevalent cultural norms of a particular space. The cultural adaptation between both spaces displays the various identity roles that Muslim students must adopt in order to persevere in their lives. Simultaneously, considering that Muslim students participate more in racial/ethnic (and religious) campus specific organizations than their Jewish and Christian counterparts (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010), the college campus is also a site of cultural adherence. Therefore, cultural organizations such as Muslim Student Associations (MSAs) are spaces on college campuses where Muslim traditional norms of behavior and values are fostered. Both studies from Mir (2009) and Stubbs and Sallee (2013) point to the reality of how traditional cultural and gender roles manifest in the paradox between cultural campus organizations and the college institution. In these particular settings, Muslim values thrive, which creates a wedge between men and women that leads to the construction of gender identities (Mir, 2009). As with many cases where conflicting identities intersect for Muslim American college women, the wearing of the hijab and the regulation of their agency by cultural expectations make them susceptible to institutional and interpersonal discriminatory practices (Ali & Bagheri, 2009). For instance, in terms of cultural expectations, MSAs still operate from a framework of hetero-patriarchal notions of gender expectations. This means that Muslim women students are expected to be “good” Muslim women by regulating their sexual behavior, for example, in MSA spaces. This complicates their identity because some Muslim women may identify more with the college institution’s cultural norms of socializing, which promotes a higher degree of hypersexualization, than what Muslims are accustomed to. Thus, in order to be accepted in the Muslim college community, Muslim college women need either to resist or comply to cultural norms (Mir, 2009). Keeping this in mind, a strategy that Muslim women have developed is that of “situational compliance” when needed. According to Mir (2009), “outside of the MSA events, men and women-gatekeepers included - usually socialize freely” (p. 246). The strategy to comply situationally is what allows Muslim college women to maintain the authenticity of their intersectional identities, while also having the opportunity to practice their religious beliefs. Additionally, the performance of wearing a hijab is primarily what makes the experiences of Muslim women different from that of Muslim men. The hijab, which is an identifiable marker of being Muslim, draws attention to their religion and to their bodies, further contributing to their vulnerability of being marginalized (Ali & Beghari, 2009). The idea of a marginalized group being visible or invisible in public spaces and discourses is not uncommon. In discussing Queer of Color agency in educational contexts, Brockenbrough (2015) highlights survival strategies that Queer of Color students practice in navigating educational settings. He underscores the various degrees of performance of queer invisibility when coming out or deciding to come out. For Queer students of color, not coming out is a survival strategy in navigating public spaces because they “prioritize connectedness with families and racial communities” over coming out (Brockenbrough, 2015). In the same vein, Muslim American college women have adopted similar degrees of performance of Muslim invisibility. Although some may wear their hijabs to express their religious beliefs, others may not; most importantly, some women may have no choice at all. It is important to recognize that the outward expression of being Muslim can vary between men and women. If the option to choose Muslim invisibility is involved, then it might be interpreted as a survival tactic that Muslim women have utilized in certain contexts.

The Social Construction of the Muslim Body as Part of Identity Formation

In order to understand how institutional policies and American societal values construct the constitutive subjectivity of the Muslim American college student, a closer examination of how the Muslim body is viewed and regulated is necessary. The most expansive concept created to understand such construction is Cruz’s (2001) epistemology of the brown body. According to Cruz (2001), whilst utilizing the lens of the “brown body,” one is centralizing the marginalized body as a vehicle of knowledge, a tool that informs the practice of theory. In particular, the epistemology of the marginalized body is the practice of reclaiming histories and narratives and highlighting the multiple identities within a community. This concept applies to the identities of Muslim American college students because so much of their constitutive subjectivity is molded by societal perceptions of the Muslim body. In his qualitative research, Ali (2014) utilizes an epistemology of the marginalized body to provide an alternative discourse on the experiences of Muslim college students to disrupt three Western normative tropes of Muslim identities: (a) pre-modern figure, (b) physical threat, and (c) gendered treatment of Muslim identities. Ali (2014) found that not only are dominant images of Muslim figures disempowering, but also the Muslim body in general is seen as a body that is susceptible to radicalization. The idea that the Muslim body can be radicalized at any given time contributes to the ideology that Muslim individuals are a threat to Western society and security. As a result, Muslim American college students feel personally targeted by the images of Muslims portrayed in this way, since it is implied that Muslims will cause harm to Americans (Ali, 2014). To some Muslim students, the dominant images and discourse produced by mainstream American ideology, such as Muslims as perpetual terrorists, not only contradicts the variety of positive Muslim images existing at home and in their communities, but also negates their American identity. Consequently, the fusion of being Muslim and American becomes much more complex. Additionally, images of the Muslim body are also constructed within binary parameters of gender. While Muslim men are viewed as dominant, Muslim women are seen as submissive and lacking agency (Ali, 2014). This trope complicates the experiences of Muslim male and female students because, on college campuses, their bodies are viewed differently based on their gender. In other words, Muslim women are seen as individuals who have no sense of agency, while the bodies of Muslim men are seen as a threat. For these reasons, it is no surprise that Muslim college students experience hate-motivated violence (Ali & Bagheri, 2009). Most importantly, the gendered construction of their identities characterizes Muslims as binary individuals and forces them into compulsory heterosexuality. While not discussed much in the research, compulsory heterosexuality within the context of the Muslim identity displaces Queer identities that Muslim college students may possess. This tactic not only erases Queer Muslim identities, but it also assumes that the Muslim body is inherently heterosexual. Even though educators might argue that Islam is not tolerant of homosexuality, institutional agents and students’ negative preconceived notions of the Muslim individual and Muslim body perpetuate an ideology of Whiteness, Christianity, and cisgendered heterosexuality as the dominant narrative. Educators need to develop policies and programming that provide counter- narratives as a form of resisting the meta-narrative about Muslims. Lastly, gendered notions of Muslims strive to regulate Muslim bodies by restricting their religious practices. This set of regulations creates a complex dynamic for Muslim students who are part of institutions rooted in Christianity and their own religious practices. Muslim college students are then left with the difficult decision to limit their religious practices in order to assimilate to their institutional culture or create alternative pathways that may be helpful but hinder their academic obligations (Ali & Beghari, 2009). Although not intended, institutional policies regulate the Muslim body through the doctrine of Christianity, which results in the categorization of the Muslim body as the “Other,” perpetual foreigners who do not assimilate into the dominant culture of the institution.

Limitations

A limitation of the research on the experiences of Muslim American college students is its narrow perspectives, which view the experiences of Muslim American students through a heteronormative lens. Researchers need to delve deeper into the academic, safety, and psychosocial experiences of Muslim students in America. Particularly, institutional researchers need to bring forth data and continuously track Muslim students’ safety concerns, as well as exposure to bias incidents and hate crimes, to ensure that the political climate in America is not having a negative effect on the academic experiences of Muslim students. Additionally, research on other marginalized identities that intersect with being Muslim, such as sexuality, is needed and warrants discussion. By conducting research on marginalized identities that intersect with being Muslim, researchers will expand the discourse on what it means to be Muslim American college students and thus, expand perspectives and attitudes towards understanding how to better support Muslim American college students.

Strategic Recommendations

Collaborative partnerships between departments, practitioners, and faculty are crucial in assisting Muslim American college students. Institutions of higher education are highly encouraged to work with faculty and residential life housing staff to design an academic calendar that is inclusive of more religious holidays. Although one academic calendar may not accommodate all the religions in the world, faculty should provide excused religious absences, institutions should provide spaces for students to have the opportunity to worship, and dietary needs for individuals’ religious practices in student cafeterias and residence halls should be considered. For student affairs practitioners, programming should involve creating counternarratives regarding Muslim students by collaborating with Muslim Student Associations on cultural heritage programming for the academic year, specifically touching on religious holidays and life at home. Most importantly, in conjunction with Brockenbrough’s (2015) analysis of agency in Queer students of color, higher education practitioners and researchers need to recognize that Muslim students, and in particular Muslim women, do have agency and have been developing strategies to navigate oppressive spaces and practices. This is helpful to keep in mind when understanding resilience in the Muslim community, as well as among other marginalized groups. Education is the biggest tool in assisting higher education practitioners to better aid Muslim students on college campuses. Given the current political climate, it is highly advisable for universities to train students, faculty, administrators, and staff on issues that Muslim students face. At the institutional level, university leadership needs to consider hiring an Imam (a Muslim chaplain) to direct Muslim Centers on university campuses. The Imam would focus on cultural programming, counseling, and strategic planning for the Center that will promote community and support among Muslim students on campus.

Conclusion

Through the lens of Queer of Color epistemology, educators are able to better understand the barriers and the survival strategies that are developed and utilized by Muslim American students in higher education institutions. Coloma’s (2008) framework of the constitutive subjectivity pushes our thinking on how identities, and marginalized identities in particular, are constructed. In the case of Muslim American College students, as their Muslim identity is being constructed by interpersonal relationships (i.e. family, Muslim Student Associations) and societal factors (i.e. American values, college campuses), their gender and sexuality are also simultaneously being constructed. The process of the construction of identity informs Muslim students’ own perceptions of being Muslim and the role they choose to perform on college campuses. In addition to Coloma’s (2008) framework, Cruz’s (2001) epistemology of the brown body is also applicable to the experiences of Muslim students because part of developing the Muslim identity is how their body is made visible as the “Other.” Through state and institutional policies, Muslim students are continuously viewed as threats in various contexts and realities. Overall, Queer of Color Critique challenges the normative ideologies of college student identity development by questioning [hetero]normative forms of theorization. As educators, it is important that we question theories and practices that too often limit our lens of student development, growth, and support. References

Ali, A. I. (2014). A threat enfleshed: Muslim college students situate their identities amidst portrayals of Muslim violence and terror. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27, 1243-1261. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.820860 Ali, S. R., & Bagheri, E. (2009). Practical suggestions to accommodate the needs of Muslim students on campus. New Directions for Student Services, 2009(125), 47-54. doi:10.1002/ss.307 Brockenbrough, E. (2015). Queer of color agency in educational contexts: Analytic frameworks from a queer of color critique. Educational Studies, 51(1), 28-44. doi:10.1080/00131946.2014.979929 Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of Muslim students' experiences. The Journal of Higher Education, 81, 121-139. doi:10.1080/00221546.2010.11779045 Coloma, R. S. (2008). Border crossing subjectivities and research: Through the prism of feminists of color. Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(1), 11-27. doi:10.1080/13613320701845749 Cruz, C. (2001). Toward an epistemology of a brown body. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14, 657-669. doi:10.1080/09518390110059874 Eng, D. L., Halberstam, J., & Munoz (2005). What’s Queer about Queer studies now? Social Text, 23(3–4), 1-17. Retrieved from https://read.dukeupress.edu/social-text Lamont, S., & Collet, B. (2013). Muslim American university students’ perceptions of Islam and democracy: deconstructing the dichotomy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 433- 450. doi:10.1080/10665684.2013.838126 Mir, S. (2009). Not too “college‐like,” not too normal: American Muslim undergraduate women's gendered discourses. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40, 237-256. doi:10.111/j.1548-1492.2009.01043.x Nasir, N. I. S., & Al-Amin, J. (2006). Creating identity-safe spaces on college campuses for Muslim students. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(2), 22-27. doi:10.3200/chng.38.2.22-27 Stubbs, B. B., & Sallee, M. W. (2013). Muslim, too: Navigating multiple identities at an American university. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 451-467. doi:10.1080/10665684.2013.8838129 Critical Success Factors to aid Black Male Athlete Persistence towards College Graduation

Antwon D. Woods & Jillian McNiff

Abstract

The purpose of this literature review is to identify the Critical Success Factors (CSF) that assist black male student-athletes as they persist toward graduation. Astin’s (1991) Input- Environment-Output Model was utilized to guide the research. CSF is a business concept applied to student-athletes for the purposes of this study. Rockart (1979) explained CSF as a limited number of factors that, if performed satisfactorily, allow a company to succeed amongst the competition. Simply, these are considered the small number of factors that enable a business to flourish. Miller (1996) described the critical dimensions of success as efficiency, effectiveness, and growth through learning as he attempted to expand the framework for project success. For student-athletes, the Critical Success Factors will also be a limited number of factors but instead of a focus on business success these factors will aid the individual to progress towards graduation.

Keywords: Critical Success Factors, Academic Success, Graduation, Black Male Student Athletes

Introduction Beginning with the first intercollegiate sporting event dating back to August 3, 1852, college athletics were under public scrutiny to determine if athletics aligned with the academic mission of the university (Smith, 2011). While athletic departments remained affiliated with universities, they were seen as separate from the academic missions of those universities. Revenues increased with the popularity of intercollegiate athletics, and to manage these revenues separate athletics programs were created. Through leadership and reform, presidents and athletic directors sought ways to incorporate intercollegiate athletics within the university system. Today, with the pressure to produce winning athletic programs, coaches and student- athletes, under the pressure of institutional reputation, have sought ways to avoid institutions’ academic requirements and have increased the student-athletes’ focus on athletics rather than academic achievement (Smith, 2011). As a consequence of their recruiting, academic preparation, and practice time, many student-athletes are attending college but not learning, being overworked, and undercompensated (Ting, 2009). Overall, the issue is about the big business that intercollegiate athletics has become versus the academic missions of the colleges and universities. The term “student-athlete” insinuates individuals should be students’ first, and then athletes. However, we have reached a point where it can be argued that the majority of the time they are athlete-students instead of student-athletes (Haynes, 1990). In major intercollegiate athletic programs, student-athlete performance and academic needs are seen by professors as potential conflicts with competing agendas and goals. In addition, student-athletes are stereotyped as having difficulties with academic integrity, as well as with progress towards academic completion and eligibility because of the separate relationships between the intercollegiate athletic departments and the university’s academic mission (Newman, Miller, & Bartee, 2000). The myth of “student first, athlete second” is often discussed and publicly criticized. To maintain control and to answer questions about the purpose of intercollegiate athletics, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) attempted to reverse stereotypes and misconceptions about athletic departments and student-athletes. The NCAA and university presidents responded to the increased demand for academic integrity in athletic departments with the development of academic programs for student-athletes (Pope & Miller, 1999). These programs were called Student-Athlete Academic Support Programs (SAASPs). The SAASPs were created to provide a more conducive learning environment for student-athletes (Pope & Miller, 1999). The SAASPs purpose was to aid in academic development of student-athletes and help them manage the complicated lifestyle associated with intercollegiate athletics. These support programs include career development, counseling in academics, tutoring, and life issues (Academic for Student Athletes, 2008). To have successful SAASPs, the institution’s athletic department should hire advisors and tutors with a purpose of producing higher Academic Progress Rates (APRs) for each collegiate team. APRs are a score given to each athletic team calculated. According to the NCAA Codebook (2017), the APR includes student-athlete eligibility, retention and graduation as factors in a formula that yields a single number, providing a much clearer picture of the current academic culture on each Division-I sports team in the country. For high APR scores, the NCAA recognizes member institutions for ensuring that student-athletes succeed in the classroom. If, however, low APR scores are earned consistently, member institutions can be subjected to penalties including scholarship reductions and the loss of eligibility to compete in championships (NCAA Codebook, 2017). In addition, there are other factors that could affect a student-athlete’s success. SAASPs are an important factor because they promote student accountability and provide student athletes with programs and services that improve their academic skills in an efficient way. This will illustrate the quality of the program and how it benefits the student-athletes’ academic and athletic success. Additionally, The Knight Foundation created the Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics to propose reform in intercollegiate athletics and reduce the highly visible scandals that were plaguing the NCAA (Hums & Maclean, 2013; Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2001). One major proposal by the Knight Commission was to increase presidential and senior academic involvement in the operation of athletic departments to unify the university's academic missions (Hums & Maclean, 2013).

Black Male Student-Athletes at PWIs

One group particularly at risk for academic challenges at intercollegiate institutions are black male student-athletes. Wiggins (1991) asserted for years predominantly white institutions tended to admit any student-athlete who would generate revenue for the institution despite the fact many of them were ill prepared for the rigors associated with being a student at a higher education institution. Funk (1991) offered that “academic abuses and problems are most prevalent in basketball and football, and often these problems involve Black or minority student- athletes” (p. 28). According to Edwards (1973), black male student-athletes were referred as “Black gladiators” who were brought to college only to play sports and not to earn an education. Consequently, this same black male student-athlete could fail to attract the attention of professional scouts and agents, and after four years of service to the institution and no meaningful education, the only place for that black male student-athlete to go is back to where he has traveled from (Barbalias, 2004). An example of discriminatory abuse of black male student-athletes was illustrated in Singer’s (2005) study of black student-athletes and their perceptions of faculty involvement at a PWI. Singer’s findings indicated certain individuals within the athletic department such as academic advisors treated them differently than their white student-athlete counterparts regarding the selection of classes. One respondent, in Singer’s (2005) study, described his feelings of resentment toward this process: “Sometimes I feel like the academic counselors.... don’t think Black people are just as smart as the White people are, because... Where the White person, they are like, ‘Well, you need to take this, this and this’. Where with the Black person, they are like, ‘Well, we’ll give you this’, you know, ‘you just take this’, you know.” (p.378).

This quote from Singer’s study typified the sentiment of many black male student- athletes who felt that in terms of their class schedules they were intentionally misguided, based on stereotypes and assumptions. Singer (2005) alluded the lack of prioritization and support from the athletic department regarding the selection of classes and majors for these black male student-athletes were detrimental to their academic progress toward degree completion and even worse had a significantly negative impact on their overall personal development.

Theoretical Frameworks

Gallien and Peterson (2005) asserted the Cultural Mismatch Theory discussed the disconnection between Black students and the pervasive White culture at PWIs. The theory suggested that whenever communication between the student and teacher is not culturally congruent, there could be an adverse outcome for students (Gallien & Peterson, 2005). The Cultural Mismatch Theory emphasized various obstacles and placed the responsibility of black male student-athlete achievement on not only the black male student-athletes, but also the members of the majority culture they encountered at PWIs. Role theory concerns one of the most important features of social life, characteristic behavior patterns or roles (Biddle, 1986). In general, Role theory focuses on the systems, or institutions, into which interaction fits (Adler & Adler, 1991). For black male student-athletes, the system is White hegemonic institutions that exploit their athletic talents at the expense of their academic and personal development. The tenets of the Role theory involve statuses, roles, identities and self (Adler & Adler, 1991). According to Adler and Adler (1991), “statuses are positions in organized groups or systems that are related to other positions by a set of normative experiences” (p. 28). Historically, black male student-athletes have been stereotypically labeled with the status as “superb” athletic specimens and dumb jocks with remedial intellectual capabilities. Roles refer to the activities people of a given status are likely to pursue when following normative expectations for their positions (Adler & Adler, 1991). Since black male student-athletes are projected to be ostentatious athletes with little intellectual capabilities, they subconsciously fulfill these roles as if it is their obligation to conform to these preconceived positions. Furthermore, Adler and Adler (1991) define identities as the self-conceptions people develop from occupying a particular status or enacting a role. Black male student-athletes may immerse themselves in the identity of athlete first and student second, because of the social expectation that their athletic abilities are more important than any other aspect of their lives. Adler and Adler refer to the self as the “more global, multirole, core conception of the real person” (p. 28). The true self of black male student-athletes exceeds more than just being athlete; they are sons, brothers, students, role models and fulfill many other roles. Black male student-athletes who successfully emerge academically and athletically along with developing their social, personal and emotional identities fulfill their true self and do not limit their capabilities to a single role as an athlete. Additional processes associated with the Role theory are role engulfment, role domination and role abandonment (Adler & Adler, 1991). Role engulfment involves the process of student-athletes identifying themselves “as athletes first and sacrificing their interests, activities and consequently, dimension of themselves” (p. 29). Role domination is “the process by which athletes became engulfed in their athletic role as it ascends to a position of prominence” (Adler & Adler, 1991). For example, a talented black male football student-athlete at a major Division I institution on a successful football team would increase their value of their athletic self-identity as the success of their team increased. Role abandonment is “the process by which student-athletes progressively detached themselves from their investment in other areas and let go of alternative goals or priorities” (Adler & Adler, 1991). These components collectively explain how many black male student-athletes underperform academically at these institutions, as they did not identify themselves as students at all.

Academic Progress Rate

As a way to monitor the academic success of student-athletes and ensure progress towards graduation, APR was established. To quantify student-athlete performance, academic achievement is tracked largely through graduation rate, which indicates a school’s percentage of student-athletes in a particular class who graduated within a certain time span. Specifically, the NCAA states:

The Association holds Division-I institutions accountable for the academic progress of their student-athletes through the Academic Progress Rate, a team based metric that accounts for the eligibility and retention of each student-athlete, each term (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2012).

According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association codebook (2017):

The APR includes student-athlete eligibility, retention and graduation as factors in a formula that yields a single number, providing a much clearer picture of the current academic culture on each Division-I sports team in the country. Over the last five years, the APR has become an important measure of student-athlete academic success. For high APR scores, the NCAA recognizes member institutions for ensuring that student- athletes succeed in the classroom. If, however, low APR scores are earned consistently, member institutions can be subjected to penalties including scholarship reductions and the loss of eligibility to compete in championships (p. iii).

Developed as a real-time assessment of team's academic performance, the APR is comprised of two measures: academic eligibility and retention (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2017). Each term, a scholarship student-athlete who meets academic eligibility standards and remains at the institution is awarded two points. Failure of a student-athlete to maintain academic eligibility or to stay at the institution results in the loss of one point. A team's APR is the total points earned by the scholarship student-athletes on that team during a single term divided by the total points possible, and then is multiplied by 1,000 (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2017). According to Hamilton (2005), the APR includes all student-athletes on a team in a given year as opposed to an entering class cohort and gives student-athletes five years to graduate as opposed to six years. To avoid any penalties, a team must stay at or above a multi-year APR of 925, which the NCAA has indicated represents a 50 percent graduation rate (Hamilton, 2005). If a team’s multi-year APR falls below 925 and they have any student-athletes who earn a “0/2” in any academic term, then the team will be subject to the loss of scholarship penalty or contemporaneous penalty (Hamilton, 2005). Hamilton (2005) stated the purpose is to ensure student-athletes are graduating at a rate of at least 50 percent. Many schools have not met this standard and have been penalized as a result. In an effort to avoid penalties and continue to have athletic success, an athletic department would find ways to support the academic pursuits of its student athletes. APR should encourage athletic programs to ensure academic success by student athletes to avoid penalties. Although the NCAA began collecting APR data for the 2003-04 academic year, the first penalties were not assessed until after the 2004-05 academic year (Hamilton, 2005). The first year of data released to the public in February 2005, indicated areas of concern (Hamilton, 2005). While the overall APR data for men’s and women’s teams looked good initially, projecting about seven percent of teams would be subject to any penalties, revenue producing sports teams had the lowest scores (Hamilton, 2005). Football, baseball, and men’s basketball were the only teams with scores below 925. Baseball teams averaged 922; football teams and men’s basketball teams averaged 923 (Hamilton, 2005). Suggs (2003) alluded leaders of academic support programs across the country knew with the inception of the APR that student- athletes who left college immediately after their final contest (after exhausting their last year of eligibility) would be the ones who would cause a lower team APR. Thus, these student-athletes would leave in poor academic standing and/or be ineligible and would not be retained to the next semester, creating a “0/2” score (Suggs, 2003). One explanation for the lower scores in football, men’s basketball, and baseball, is the fact that student-athletes in these sports have the opportunity to play professionally (Suggs, 2003). Once they complete their eligibility, it is no longer necessary for them to remain in college to seek an undergraduate degree if they have the opportunity to play their sport professionally, unless earning a college degree is one of their personal goals (Suggs, 2003). Therefore, these teams would have the higher number of “0/2’s” and the lowest APR scores (Suggs, 2003).

Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

In an effort to address the academic success of student athletes and encourage persistence towards college graduation, critical success factors will be explored. The term, critical success factors, has been used to describe effective business management techniques that help a company successfully attain their goals. The necessity of simple, clear, and unifying objectives has been used in various management theories, such as Key Success Indicators (KSI), key performance indicators (KPI) and CSF. Miller (1996) described the critical dimensions of success as efficiency, effectiveness, and growth through learning as he attempted to expand the framework for project success. Furthermore, Daniel (1961) in his review of why leading companies were in the crisis stage, singled out required areas of planning information. The identification of gaps in management information led Daniel (1961) to structure three basic categories of necessary planning in any company in a particular industry: environmental, competitive, and internal data.

Critical Success Factors: Student-Athlete Development

Student-athlete development is one elite factor that could enhance the student-athlete’s chance of succeeding academically while in college. Chickering and Reisser (1993) asserted development encompasses learning practical skills such as problem solving, interpersonal relationship skills, and role-playing. “Barriers for personal development of male student-athletes, specifically black male student-athletes, include obstacles ranging from academic to attitudinal to environmental” (Funk, 1991, p. 36). The pervasive negative campus climate of many PWIs has been counterproductive to the personal development of black male student-athletes. Thus, in order to increase positive academic outcomes for black male student-athletes there must be a more concerted effort to improve their personal development at PWIs. Subsequently, the lack of personal development among black male student-athletes raised concerns about the steps that should be taken to effectively improve the personal development of black male student-athletes at PWIs. For example, Astin (1984, 1993) found those who became more involved in various aspects of college life tended to have better outcomes, both in the short and long term. This “input-environment-outcome model, through which the quality and degree of involvement in their college experience, was directly proportional to students’ learning and development” (Astin, 1993, p. 7). In conjunction with this data supporting student-athlete development of minority students at PWIs, it has been a longstanding stereotype that black male student-athletes did not see the value or importance of participating in extracurricular activities (Melendez, 2008). Turner (2000) indicated high school records revealed many young black male students, in the general student population, were previously involved in extracurricular activities while in secondary school (Turner, 2000). Similarly, some of the most recent data revealed the most successful traditional- age black male students tended to have a balance between the academic and social environments of college life and were skillful at negotiating the educational pipeline (Wright, 2009). Therefore, in order to promote more successful academic, social and emotional outcomes for black male student-athletes there must be a consistent promotion of healthy co- curricular involvement focused on their personal development outside of sport.

Critical Success Factors: Student-Athlete Engagement with Strong Support Systems

The engagement with a strong support system is another major CSF that contributes to success outcomes for student-athlete development. A strong support system consists of primary and secondary groups. A student-athlete's primary support group includes their family, coaches, teammates, friends, and faculty. A student-athlete's secondary support group consists of their peers and mentors who serve as allies for the student-athlete’s overall development. Underwood (1984) emphasized the significance of a strong support system for student-athletes. “If the NCAA is really serious about increasing the academic achievement of student-athletes, it should mandate that all its member institutions of higher education be required to implement and develop systematic comprehensive support programs for student- athletes” (Underwood, 1984, pp. 26-27). According to Petitpas, Buntrock, Van Raalte, and Brewer (1995), in 1975, the National Association of Advisors for Athletes (N4A) was established to address academic and personal issues. N4A suggested advisors work to maintain eligibility and achieve higher graduation rates as well as continue working with class scheduling, tutoring, and time management (Petitpas et al., 1995). Since then, sport psychology and mental health counseling for student-athletes have also been developed and included in the social support network at many athletic institutions (Petitpas et al., 1995). Hinkle (1994) suggested advisors should offer educational, developmental, and remedial programs; and professionals should be involved in performance enhancement, developmental and clinical counseling. Also, in 1994, the NCAA implemented the Challenging Athletes’ Minds for Personal Success (CHAMPS) life skills program, an elective program, which focuses on student-athlete development in academics, athletics, personal development, career development and community service (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1999). Not only do student-athletes have unique stressors, they have shown higher levels of clinical psychological problems alongside strong reluctance to seek help for these problems (Etzel, Ferrante, & Pinckney, 1991; Maniar, Chamberlain, & Moore, 2005; Pinkerton et al., 1989; Watson & Kissinger, 2007). Student-athletes need available and accessible support in all four of James House’s (1981) dimensions of social support in order to develop Chickering’s (1969) seven task skills necessary for identity establishment. The four dimensions of social support that James House mentioned are emotional support, tangible support, informational support, and companionship support (House, 1981). Authors have suggested support requiring content expertise come from a professionally trained practitioner (Storch, Storch, & Killiany, 2005; Valentine & Taub, 1999). Common forms of support provided by athletic departments include psycho-educational life skills, academic advising, performance enhancement, and clinical counseling (Broughton, 2001). Psycho-educational skills are addressed using the CHAMPS life skills program, a program that acquaints student-athletes with the job search process, provides networking opportunities, and ultimately assists with job placement, at member institutions, or through special courses or seminars (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2017). Academic advising is focused not only on course scheduling and graduation success, but also on career planning. Performance enhancement includes coaches, strength trainers and sport psychologists whose goal is to improve the student-athlete's performance on the field of play. Broughton (2001) also mentioned that clinical counseling for psychological problems is dealt with in-house (if a trained counselor is employed by the athletic department), outsourced to a private practitioner, or the university’s mental health clinic. Other forms of support come from athletic trainers and team doctors who aid student-athletes in avoiding injury and rehabilitating injured student-athletes and nutritionists who ensure the student-athlete is eating proper foods in the right amounts to prepare for the requirements of sport participation (Broughton, 2001). According to Boykins (1986), without the engagement with a strong support system, black male student-athletes were subject to face insurmountable academic, social, emotional and psychological challenges; they benefit from a vital support base that will encourage, guide and uplift them. Conversely, if a black male student-athlete engaged with a strong support system then they would be more equipped with the necessary foundation to successfully manage and overcome the various obstacles they inherently face as a marginalized group at a PWI (Boykins, 1986). The researcher also indicated the most prominent aspect of a strong support system for black male student-athletes is their family. The family serves as the base foundation of the shaping of the values, beliefs and perceptions of themselves and the world around them (Boykins, 1986). Harris and Duhon (1999) found that among the Black student participants, Black student-athletes and non-student-athletes alike identified family as the single most significant factor in their college success. Additional studies have linked successful college adaptation to the quality of relationships with one’s parents using an attachment theory model (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Kenny, 1987). Similarly, Nora and Cabrera (1996) found the transition to college was less difficult for students who have supportive family and friends from their past. Holmbeck and Wandrei (1993) revealed that the attachment and support from parents was a very important predictor of positive adjustment to university life. Both male and female college students who perceived a higher level of support from their families tend to report high levels of adjustment to university life, irrespective of whether or not they left home for the first time to attend school (Lafreniere, Ledgerwood, & Docherty, 1997). Although these studies and findings were not exclusive to black male student-athletes, they were significantly relevant. Black male student-athletes who suffered from social alienation at PWIs relied heavily on their family and friends for personal and emotional support. The families of these black male student-athletes provided a level of assurance and familiarity that was too often missing at the PWIs these student-athletes attended. Tinto (1987) stated that the moment faculty come in contact with students they become actively involved in the nurturing process of student development. He suggested that if the faculty singled out certain students whom they feel has potential for growth, namely White students, and excluded other students such as black male student-athletes, then this action sent a message to the latter group that they did not have the support and confidence of their professors. In addition to their preconceived notions about their own educational capacities, the lack of positive faculty intervention can further dissuade black male student-athletes from persisting through graduation. Tinto (1987) recommended that only those faculty members who reached beyond the traditional academic structure and established intellectual, social and cultural connections with minority students would be able to successfully create a classroom environment that was conducive to minority student retention. Singer (2005) expressed preferential treatment awarded to White student-athletes not only came from the academic advisors, but also from their coaches. He expressed that White student-athletes were allowed to make more mistakes off the field and still retain their positions on the team whereas he felt that this same treatment was not granted to black student-athletes (Singer, 2005). If coaches provided preferential treatment to White student-athletes, and then Black student-athletes internalized that they were not valued or supported the same way as their White teammates.

Critical Success Factors: Time Management Skills

Time management and its effectiveness is another critical success factor that impacts the academic and athletic success of black male student-athletes. Watson (2006) mentioned that athletic participation inherently added additional challenges above and beyond the normal developmental challenges faced by college students. Many student-athletes are regularly devoted to 20 hours per week to sport practice and participation, leaving little time for academic work (Watson, 2006). Boykin (1986) alluded that coaches demanded that athletes spend 50 or more hours a week on a sport, and an athlete cannot refuse, or he risked the possibility of losing playing time or even worse losing his athletic scholarship. Some student-athletes even spent upwards to 40 hours a week on their sport, and when they were finished practicing or playing, they were often in pain from intense physical activity and emotional exhaustion; consequently, the motivation to study loses priority to getting rest (Edwards, 1990). More specifically, the typical Black student-athlete at a PWI practiced 28 hours per week, spent 11 hours preparing for class and 12 hours in class according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association study conducted in the mid-1980s entitled “The Experiences of Black Intercollegiate Student-athletes at National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Institutions” (Rhoden, 1989). In comparison, the Black student-athlete at an HBCU spent 25 hours in practice, 12 hours preparing for class and 14 hours in class (Rhoden, 1989). Even during the off-season student-athletes particularly with football were bombarded with strenuous conditioning and strength programs (Boykin, 1986). In addition to the demands of an academic schedule, this leaves little time during the day for additional concerns (Watson, 2006). Student-athletes do not have the luxury of choosing whether or not to sacrifice athletic or academic time to seek help for personal problems and often, by default, turn to their coaches and teammates for the help and support they need (Watson, 2006). Both Watson (2006) and Etzel et al. (1991) reported results that indicated time as a major reason why student-athletes underperformed academically and deferred from seeking institutional counseling services. The respondents stated, “between practice sessions, game preparation time, travel, and academic class schedules, the student-athlete has few available times to access college or university counseling services even if desired” (Watson, 2006, p. 40).

Astin’s Input-Environment-Output Model

John L. Holland and Astin examined what made students continue their education to earn a doctoral degree (1991). Both Holland and Astin (1991) were concerned with the outcomes produced by the student as well as the student’s input. In Holland and Astin’s study, they determined that “the educational assessment project is incomplete unless it includes data on student inputs, student outcomes, and the educational environment to which the student is exposed” (Astin, 1991, p. 18). This was the introduction of the Input-Environment-Output model. Astin’s Input-Environment-Output Model (I-E-O) is frequently used in higher education to assist student affairs practitioners (Astin, 1991). Riggert, Boyle, Petrosko, Ash, and Rude- Parkins (2006) suggested that Astin’s I-E-O model was used to evaluate the impact of the educational environment on students. This model illustrates multiple paths a student may take towards degree completion. This model explained how relationships between the model dimensions influence daily living and study habits for college students. Each dimension in Astin’s model has specific purpose. The first dimension, the input dimension, refers to the initial personal qualities the student brings to the university (Astin, 1991). The environmental dimension refers to the student’s actual experiences during their time at the university. The final dimension, Output, refers to the overall academic and personal development of the student. Using Astin’s (1991) I-E-O model, the student-athlete academic support staff would influence the E (environment) stage that would then lead to the end result after athletic participation concluded.

Discussion

The purpose of this literature review was to identify the Critical Success Factors that assist black male student-athletes as they matriculate toward graduation. Success for student- athletes includes both athletic and personal successes. Personal development and growth are valuable to student-athlete’s lives beyond the win and loss record. Chickering and Reisser (1993) asserted, “development encompasses learning practical skills such as problem solving, interpersonal relationship skills, and role playing.” “Barriers for personal development of male student-athletes, specifically black male student-athletes, include obstacles ranging from academic to attitudinal to environmental” (Funk, 1991, p. 36). Student-athletes need guidance and experiences beyond the playing field for successful completion of their college education. Astin (1984, 1993) found that those who became more involved in various aspects of college life tended to have better short- and long-term outcomes. Similarly, some of the most recent data indicated the most successful traditional-age black male students tended to have a balance between the academic and social environments of college life and were skillful at negotiating the educational pipeline (Hrabowski, Maton, & Greif, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Wright, 2009).

Future Research

There is a need for a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences of student- athletes and possible interventions to increase the graduation rate among this population. Future research should explore the ways in which student-athlete academic support staffs could enhance the environment of collegiate student-athletes to persist towards graduation. These academic support staffs for student-athletes could be made available for tutoring, study groups, advising, summer bridge programs, and developmental education courses that have been linked to improved student-athletes’ academic success (Peterfreund, Rath, Xenos, & Bayliss, 2008).

Conclusion

This literature review contributes to the works concerning academic support and institutional impacts on student-athlete outcomes and establishes a framework for further investigation of the Critical Success Factors that assist black male student-athletes in an environment for academic excellence. Finally, in order to promote more successful academic, social and emotional outcomes for black male student-athletes there must be a consistent promotion of healthy extracurricular involvement focused on their personal development outside of sport. Common forms of support provided by athletic departments include psychoeducational life skills, academic advising, performance enhancement, and clinical counseling (Broughton, 2001).

References

Academic for Student Athletes. (2008). Oregon State University & the department of intercollegiate athletics [Brochure]. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes and role engulfment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454 Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 7-16, 297-305. Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York, NY: American Council on Education ORYX Press. Astin, A. W. (1993) What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barbalias, P. (2004). Black student-athletes: Improving their collegiate experience. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/v17/barbalias.html.p.1-6. Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67- 92. Boykin, A.W. (1986). The school achievement of minority children. New Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ. Broughton, E. (2001). Counseling and support services for college student athletes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American College Personnel Association. Boston, MA. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, Inc. Daniel, D. R. (1961). Management Information Crisis. Harvard Business Review, Sept.- Oct. 111. Edwards, H. (1973). Sociology of sport. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Edwards, H. (1990). The exploitation of black student-Athletes. AGB Reports, 25, 37-46. Etzel, E. F., Ferrante, A. P., & Pinckney, J. W. (1991). Counseling college student athletes: Issues and interventions. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Funk, G. D. (1991). Major violation: The unbalanced priorities in athletics and academics. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press. Gallien, L., & Peterson, M.S. (2005). Instructing and mentoring the African-American college student: Strategies for success in higher education. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc. Hamilton, K. (2005). Putting the “student” back into the student-athlete: In an effort to improve retention and graduation rates, the NCAA rolls out new rules and regulations. Black Issues in Higher Education, 22(4), 28. Harris, W. G. & Duhon, G. M. (Eds.) (1999). The African-American male perspective of barriers to success. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press. Haynes, III, L. L. (1990). Athletics vs. academics: A focus on the future. NASSP Bulletin, 74(530), 8-13. doi:10.1177/019263659007453003 Hinkle, J. S. (1994). Sports counseling: Helping student athletes. Retrieved from ERIC. (ED379532) Holmbeck, G. N., & Wandrei, M.L. (1993). Individual and relational predictors of adjustment in first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(1), 73-78. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.40.1.73 House, J. M. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Hrabowski, F. H., Maton, K. I., & Greif, G. L. (1998). Beating the odds. Raising academically successful African-American males. New York: Oxford Press. Hums, M. A., & MacLean, J. C. (2013). Governance and policy in sport organizations (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers. Kenny, M. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17-29. doi:10.1007/bf02141544 Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2001). A call to action: reconnecting college sports and higher education. Retrieved from www.ncaa.org/databases/knight_commission/2001_report Lafreniere, K. D., Ledgerwood, D. M., & Docherty, A. L. (1997). Influences of leaving home, perceived family support, and gender on the transition to university. Guidance and Counseling, 12(4), 14-18. Melendez, M. C. (2008). Black football players on a predominantly white college campus: Psychosocial and emotional realities of the black college athlete experience. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 423-451. doi:10.1177/0095798408319874 Maniar, S., Chamberlain, R., & Moore, N. (2005, November 5). Suicide is a real risk for student- athletes. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/suicide.pdf Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 505-512. doi:10.1022/(sici)1097-0266(196607)17:7<505::AID-SMJ852>3.0CO;20-I National Collegiate Athletic Association (1999). NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program. Retrieved from ERIC. (ED435366) National Collegiate Athletic Association (2012). Latest APR data reveal academic success. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_ National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2017). NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate public use dataset codebook. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017_APR_Data_Sharing_Codebook_20170511. National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2017). Life Skills. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/leadership-development/life-skills National Collegiate Athletic Association (2017). Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR). Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/division-i-academic progress rate-apr NCAA Codebook (2017). NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate Public Use Dataset Codebook. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017_APR_Data_Sharing_Codebook_20170511.p df Newman, R. E., Miller, M. T., & Bartee, J. G. (2000). Faculty involvement in intercollegiate athletic governance (Report No. HE-032-769). Retrieved from ERIC. (ED438767) Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119-148. doi:10.2307/2943977 Pascarella, E. T, & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pedagogical and contextual issues affecting African American males in school and society [Special issue] (1994). Journal of Negro Education, 63, 505-648. Peterfreund, A. R., Rath, K. A., Xenos, S. P., & Bayliss, F. (2008). The impact of supplemental instruction on students in STEM courses: Results from San Francisco State University. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9, 487-503. doi:10.2190/cs.9.4.e Petitpas, A. J., Buntrock, C. L., Van Raalte, J. L., & Brewer, B. W. (1995). Counseling athletes: A new specialty in counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 214 – 219. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1995.tb00243.x Pinkerton, R., Hinz, L., & Barrow, J. (1989). The college student-athlete: Psychological considerations and interventions. Journal of American College Health, 37, 218–226. doi:10.1080/07448481.1989.993903 Pope, M.L., & Miller, M.T. (1999). Support services for student-athletes: Athletic department and student affairs officers’ perceptions. Retrieved from ERIC. (ED437886). Rhoden, W. (1989, April 6). Many black college student-athlete’s express feelings of isolation. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/06/sports/many - black-college-athletes-express-feelings-of-isolation.html Riggert, S, C., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J. M., Ash, D. &, Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student employment and higher education: Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 63-92. doi:10.3102/00346543076001063 Rockart, J.F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 85. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ Ting, R. (2009). Impact of noncognitive factors on first-year academic performance and persistence of NCAA Division I student athletes. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 48, 215-228. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1939.2009.tb00079.x Singer, J. (2005). Race, ethnicity and education. Understanding racism through the eyes of African-American male student-athletes. Race, Ethnicity, & Education, 8, 365-386. Retrieved from ERIC. (EJ721297) Smith, R. A. (2011). Pay for play. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Storch, E. A., Storch, J. B., & Killiany E. M., (2005). Self-reported psychopathology in athletes: A comparison of intercollegiate student-athletes and non-athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28, 86-98. Retrieved from https://www.southalabama.edu/colleges/artsandsci/psychology/Journal_of_Sport_Behav ior.html Suggs, W. (2003, January). Jock majors. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(19), A33. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/ Thurmond, V. A., & Popkess-Vawter, S. (2007). Examination of a middle range theory: Applying Astin’s Input-Environment-Outcome (I-E-O) model to web-based education. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 7, 8-18. Retrieved from http://www.himss.org/ojni Tinto, V. (1987) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Second edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Turner, M. R. (2000, December 7). What's happening to our talented tenth? Retrieved from https://diverseeducation.com/article/1044/ Underwood, C. (1984) The student-athlete. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Valentine, J. J., & Taub, D. J. (1999). Responding to the developmental needs of student athletes. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 164-179. doi:10.1002/j.2161- 1882.1999.tb00153.x Watson, J.C. (2006). Student-athletes and counseling: Factors influencing the decision to seek counseling services. College Student Journal, 40(1), 35-42. Retrieved from ERIC. (EJ765297) Watson, J. C., & Kissinger, D. B. (2007). Athletic participation and wellness: Implication for counseling college student-athletes. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 153-162. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2007.tb00015.x Wiggins, D. K. (1991). Prized performers, but frequently overlooked students: The involvement of Black athletes in intercollegiate sports on predominantly white campuses, 1890-1972. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 164-177. doi:10.1080/02701367.1991.10608707 Wright, B. L. (2009). Racial-ethnic identity, academic achievement, and African American males: A review of literature. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(2), 123-134. Retrieved from ERIC. (EJ878465) Guidelines for Authors The Journal of Student Affairs at New York University publishes articles that further develops the practice of student affairs and are of particular relevance to professionals throughout higher education. Examples of topics include: Student Development, Emerging Trends, Global Education, Innovative Models of student Affairs Practice, College Student Funding and Finance, and Campus Diversity. Manuscripts should focus on original research; replication of research; reviews of research/literature; essays on theoretical, organizational, or professional issues; reviews of current literature relevant to the field; or practical reports of experiences from the field. All the original research articles that use human subjects must be approved by the NYU Institutional Review Board (nyu.edu/ucaihs) prior to submission.

Abstract Submission Guidelines Abstracts must be submitted to the Content Editor and should be no longer than 250 words. Authors should provide the editorial team with an overview of the proposed article that demonstrates interest level in the proposed topic and the article’s relevance to higher education and student affairs. The following information must be included with the abstract: name, title, address, e-mail address, year of graduation from NYU’s Higher Education and Student Affairs program (if applicable). Authors of selected abstracts will be requested to submit a first draft in order to be considered for publication.

Style Guidelines Manuscripts must be clear, concise, relevant to the field, and demonstrate a well-organized development of ideas. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition should be followed for reference style and general guidelines.

● Double-space all material, including references, quotations, tables, and figures. Leave extra space above and below subheadings and include generous margins. ● Because manuscripts are processed through an anonymous review system, they should contain no indication of the author’s identity or institutional affiliation (with the exception of a separate title page as outline in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition). Where appropriate, institutional identification will be inserted after acceptance of a manuscript. ● Research manuscripts, reviews of the literature, and essays on professional issues should total no more than 12 double-spaced, typewritten pages, including references, figures, and tables. Shorter articles are accepted and encouraged. ● Original research (literary, qualitative, or quantitative) is encouraged. All such work should be applicable to the higher education and student affairs professions. ● Field reports should not exceed three pages (approximately 600 words in length). They should briefly report on or describe new practices, programs, or techniques. ● Dialogues and interviews should follow the manuscripts guidelines outlined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition. They should take the form of verbatim exchange, oral or written, between two or more people. ● Book reviews should not exceed five pages in length. Proposed title to be reviewed should be approved by the Executive Board. Authors are fully responsible for obtaining such texts. Additionally, it is the author’s responsibility to secure permission to quote or adapt text content. The publisher’s original written permission must be provided to the Executive Board before any manuscript can be published. ● Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all references, quotations, tables, and figures. Authors should make every effort to ensure that such items are complete and correct.

Submission Instructions ● Form and text content of manuscripts should comply with the above style guidelines and the general guidelines of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition. Manuscripts that do not conform to these guidelines cannot be considered. ● Manuscripts that have been previously published or are being considered for publication elsewhere should not be submitted. Authors will be asked to affirm non-duplication of submission before their manuscripts will be reviewed. ● Each submission should be submitted electronically in MS Word document format. ● It is imperative for all authors to adhere to all dates outlined in the Timeline. Failure to do so could result in omission from the Journal. ● The Executive Board will be responsible for all publication and editorial decisions. Submissions and other inquiries should be directed to the Executive Board of the Journal of Student Affairs at New York University. Please visit us online at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/josa for updates regarding contact information for the current Executive Board and submission dates for future editions of the Journal.