Role Conflict around Disruptive Campus Activism

A dissertation presented to

the faculty of

The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Brian P. Heilmeier

December 2020

© 2020 Brian P Heilmeier. All Rights Reserved. 2

This dissertation titled

Role Conflict around Disruptive Campus Activism

by

BRIAN P. HEILMEIER

has been approved for

the Department of Counseling and Higher Education and The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education by

Pete C. Mather

Professor of Counseling and Higher Education

Renée A. Middleton

Dean, The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education 3

Abstract

HEILMEIER, BRIAN P., Ph.D., December 2020, Higher Education

Role Conflict around Disruptive Campus Activism

Director of Dissertation: Peter C. Mather

Disruptive activism has been a part of college campus since 1766 when the Bad

Butter Rebellion at Harvard took place (Dickey, 2016; Ireland, 2012; Moore, 1976).

More recently institutions have been facing an increase in disruptive campus activism

(Dickey, 2016). When disruptive campus activism occurs on a college campus it is often the student affairs professionals that are asked to help manage the situation. These professionals serve as both the advisors to the student activism and campus managers representing the university. Understanding how student affairs professionals reconcile the role they play will add to the existing research on activism on college campuses.

The findings of this study show that operationalizing a specific role can be challenging when it comes to disruptive campus activism. Reconciling the role is also challenging, especially if you don’t have the preferred role of advisor. Student affairs professionals who perform the advisor role often understand what their role is and how to operationalize the function. Campus managers, however, have less of an understanding of how to operationalize their functions, and when disruptive campus activism occurs, they are forced into stressful situations. For both groups, there were six main factors that influenced how they reconciled their particular role.

The student affairs professionals’ personal identities played a major factor in reconciling the actions in their roles. This factor was particularly influential when the 4 professional held a minoritized identity. All participants believed that the advisor role was more central to their work than was the manager role. The advisor identity was based on a core value of student advocacy and education. Interestingly, this value was articulated more clearly by those participants who occupied professional roles that were more managerial in nature. For both advisors and campus managers, the issue at the heart of the disturbance played a major factor. When issues occurred that student affairs professionals believed in, campus managers found it harder to impede activism and advisors encouraged to push the issue further. How the institution viewed disruptive campus activism played a large factor into reconciliation for all participants. If a professional felt they had institutional support, reconciliation was easier. For campus managers, timing of when they heard about an issue and their capacity to try and work with the students played a key factor. Lastly, the position level of the student affairs professional played a factor into their reconciliation depending on if they had more contact with higher level administrators versus their co-workers.

Implications for practice include better defining roles for student affairs and teaching student affairs professionals how to negotiate the tension and fulfill the core value of advocating for students. This study can be used to help student affairs professionals better understand and negotiate the role conflicts they experience around disruptive campus activism.

5

Dedication

To the students who sought to change the world, and the student affairs professionals that

helped them. 6

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to thank my committee chair Dr. Pete Mather. Your guidance and mentorship from the very start of my career in higher education till now means the world to me. To my committee, Dr. Laura Harrison, Dr. Dave Nguyen, and Dr. Dwan

Robinson, thanks so much for your support and commitment to my education.

Thank you to my work families: Ohio University Campus Involvement Center and the Bowling Green State University Dean of Students Office. Specifically, thanks to

Char Kopchick and Drew Holzaepfel for their constant support and push to future my education.

Next, I would like to thank Dr. Jessica Storm, the best writing partner that anyone could ask for. Your love of life and constant drive are an inspiration to me. I would also like to thank my classmates in #specialcohort13.

Finally, I could not have achieved this without the encouragement of my wonderful family! Specifically, my wife Katrina Heilmeier. I can never thank you enough for your support of me, as well as taking care of everything so I could devote time to my research. Also, for the hours of proof reading. You and Jake make me want to be a better person and are my whole world!

7

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... 3

Dedication ...... 5

Acknowledgments ...... 6

List of Figures ...... 11

Chapter 1: Background ...... 12

Introduction ...... 12

Problem Statement ...... 12

Background of Problem ...... 13

Conceptual Framework ...... 15

Study Purpose ...... 17

Research Questions ...... 17

Study Significance ...... 19

Dissertation Structure ...... 22

Key Terms ...... 23

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 26

History of Student Affairs ...... 27

Role of Student Affairs Professionals ...... 32

Early Campus Activism ...... 36

Nineteenth Century ...... 37

Twentieth Century ...... 38 8

Twenty-First Century ...... 42

Disruptive Campus Activism ...... 42

Benefits of Disruptive Campus Activism for Students ...... 44

Challenges of Disruptive Campus Activism for Administrators ...... 52

Role Theory ...... 55

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 57

Research Questions ...... 57

Sampling ...... 59

Data Collection ...... 59

Analysis and Interpretation ...... 61

Validity and Creditability ...... 62

Researcher Positionality ...... 62

Study Limitations ...... 63

Chapter 4: Findings ...... 65

Profiles ...... 65

Operationalizing Roles ...... 72

Formal Advising ...... 73

Informal Advising ...... 74

Campus Manager Policy and Procedures ...... 75

Campus Manager Response ...... 75

Factors to Consider when Reconciling Roles ...... 77

Identity ...... 77 9

The Preferred Role ...... 82

Activism (around certain topics) is Positive ...... 85

Institutional Push ...... 88

Communication Pipeline ...... 93

Position Level ...... 95

Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 98

Summary of Answers to Research Questions ...... 98

Sub-Question I ...... 99

Sub-Question II ...... 100

Discussion ...... 102

Advocacy ...... 102

Conflict for Students ...... 104

Students as Part of the Solution ...... 105

Implications for Practice ...... 107

Define the Role ...... 107

Teach Advocacy ...... 108

Professional Development ...... 108

Implications for Research ...... 109

Private Institutions ...... 109

Faculty ...... 109

Position Level ...... 110

Who is Doing the Disruptive Campus Activism ...... 110 10

Types of Activism ...... 110

Final Researcher Thoughts ...... 111

Conclusion ...... 112

References ...... 113

Appendix ...... 124

IRB Approval ...... 124

Interview Protocol ...... 125

Consent Form ...... 127

Coding Process ...... 130

11

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Spectrum of Participants………………………………………………………66

12

Chapter 1: Background

Introduction

In 2009, then Director of the Center for Women and Gender at Dartmouth

College, Xenia Markowitt, wrote a blog post titled Is It My Job to Teach the Revolution?

Markowitt started that post with this question, “When I wake up in the morning and head to my job, I ask myself: Will this be the day that I start the revolution? Or will I be called upon to stop it?” (Markowitt, 2009, para. 1). Student affairs professionals work every day to advise and assist students in considering their goals, but when the students’ goals are to change a part of the university, administrators are put in a challenging position (Komives

& Woodward, 2003, p. 509). While the blog post was written in the midst of the Occupy

Movement, her words continue to ring true today.

Problem Statement

The purpose of this study was to examine how mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their role as advisors and campus manager in the context of disruptive campus activism. For the purposes of this study, student affairs professionals are administrators, working at universities, who primarily work with students and are not classified as faculty. Student affairs professionals face situations where they help advise students on how to further their individual causes, which could result in students disrupting the operations of an institution. Such disruptions may cause problems for the student affairs professional since another role performed by these professionals is campus manager. This role of manager could cause conflict with the advisor role when it comes to campus activism, specifically disruptive campus activism. Disruptive campus activism 13 could be protests, rallies, sit-ins or any such behaviors that impede the day to day operations of a campus. While all campus activism can be difficult for student affairs professionals to work with, these types of activities are particularly challenging due to the public and disruptive nature of the activity.

Background of Problem

Student affairs professionals are tasked with advising and supporting students on campus in order to foster student development and learning (ACPA/NASPA, 2016)

Campus activism is among the type of activities in which students may be advised, as these activities can provide a valuable context for student development (Astin, 1993;

Barnhardt, 2016; Cole & Stewart, 1996; Hamrick, 1998; Rhoads, 1998). On the other hand, student affairs professionals are also charged with managing organizational and human resources. Pertaining to this competency, the American College Personnel

Association and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators,

ACPA/NASPA, competencies document states that student affairs professionals should have the “ability to create, interpret, and enforce policies to minimize risk and liability”

(ACPA/NASPA, 2016, p. 24). Thus, the role of advising (e.g., supporting learning through campus activism) and managing (e.g., reducing risk) can be in tension.

According to the UCLA CIRP, students demonstrated substantial growth in the social activism personality trait while in college. Astin (1993) identified six personality types that he measured growth in including, scholarship, social activist, hedonism, status striving, artistic inclination, and leadership. Social activist showed the largest increase among the six different personality types that Astin studied. Traits were identified for 14 each of the personality types. Those traits were then measured to come to the overall score for the personality type. The largest increased trait over four years of college in the study fell under the Social Activist personality type (Astin, 1993). This trait was the desire to “influence social values” (Astin, 1993, p. 115). Students who identified as wanting to engage in community action programs increased their likelihood of the Social

Activist personality trait. Astin’s research showed that the Social Activist personal trait was influenced most by increased student-to-student interaction. Another large impact on students is whether the institutions they attend finds it valuable to create social change agents. If the institution is encouraging students to be social change agents, or to be engaged citizens, this can create a problem for student affairs professionals when that student challenges the status quo within the institution.

Overall, Astin (1993) showed that students seek more social awareness as their college careers progress. Within the study, all four traits—helping others in difficulty, influencing social values, participating in community action programs, and influencing the political structure, which all fell under the social activist personality type—showed an increase throughout a student collegiate career.

Building on Astin’s work, Biddix (2014) examined particular learning outcomes

(i.e., social agency, civic awareness, and outspoken leadership) for students who participated in campus demonstrations compared to their counterparts who did not participate. Social agency refers to the change in a student’s value in political and social change. Civic awareness is how much the students understand issues in their community, nation and world. Lastly, outspoken leadership represents the changes in the students’ 15 attitudes toward public speaking, risk-taking and self-confidence. Students who participate in activism in college, specifically demonstrations, showed significant gains in all three categories (Biddix, 2014).

As shown by the studies above, students who participate in campus demonstrations are more likely to be civically engaged after graduation. Civic engagement is often viewed as an important learning outcome (Association of American

Colleges and Universities [AACU], 2002). Like other forms of experiential learning, campus demonstrations may be a way for students to obtain real experience in advocating for change. However, like internships, effective supervision, offering guidance for the student to learn in the field, is an important element. The “supervisors” of this activism often are student affairs professionals, due to their roles as out of the classroom advisors.

This role as an advisor or supervisor of campus activism can sometimes clash with the role as an institutional representative and create role conflict for the student affairs professional.

Conceptual Framework

The concept of role conflict, based in role theory, came to prominence in the mid-

20th century (Crossman, 2017). Role theory consists of three main components including the actor, or the person that is in a role; the role, a set of expectations or behaviors; and personality, or what the actor’s need-dispositions are (Getzels & Guba, 1954). The theory comes from the context of theater in that an actor performs a role and that role has a script, or a set of expectations. The actor follows that script but may change inflections of that script based on the actor’s personality. The aim of role theory is to explain how a 16 person reacts in a social situation (Crossman, 2017; Getzels & Guba, 1954). Biddle

(1989) suggests, “Role theory provides a perspective for discussing or studying many social issues” (p. 68). Role theory also sets the foundation for role conflict.

Role conflict occurs when the expectations of a role contradict or conflict with one other (Getzels & Guba, 1954). For example, an academic dean is expected to both provide personal support to a department chair and to evaluate them at the end of the year

(Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999). The type of role conflict for the dean would be considered intra-role conflict. Intra-role conflict “occurs when incompatibility exists within a single role” (Industrial-Organizational Psychology, n.d.).

Intra-role conflict is the type of role conflict seen most often in the workplace

(Wolf, 2008). Within a single position in higher education, an individual is asked to enforce the rules and procedures of the institution while at the same time encouraging students to be engaged on campus. Campus activism is a prime example of this; for example, a student may voice their opinion in an unreserved spaced, and a student affairs professional is expected to intervene and end the activity. The other type of role conflict is inter-role conflict. This type of role-conflict occurs when an actor has two more roles that conflict with each other (Wolf, 2008). An example of inter-role conflict would be a parent who is also the coach of their child’s baseball team. As a parent, the actor may want to play the child so they can improve their skills, but as a coach, the actor wants to put the team in the best position to win. This conflict of two roles is what creates inter- role conflict. 17

Navigating intra-role conflict can be difficult for student affairs professionals.

Often student affairs professionals must play very different roles at the same time. Amey

(1990) stated “They are simultaneously servants (support staff) and police officers

(monitors of procedures)” (p. 80). This clash of role expectations can cause considerable stress and thus strain the job satisfaction of student affairs professional. Role conflict can be a major indicator of whether or not a higher education professional enjoys their position. In the article The Impact of Role Conflict and Ambiguity on Academic Deans, the authors noted that 22% of the variance in job satisfaction came from role conflict and ambiguity, and 19% of work-related stress was attributed to these causes (Wolverton et al., 1999).

Study Purpose

The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate how mid-level student affairs professionals reconciled their roles when it came to disruptive campus activism, both as advisors to students and campus managers. This study aimed to distinguish how these professionals operationalized both the role of advisor and the role of a campus managers when disruptive campus activism happened. Lastly, this study explored how these mid-level student affairs professionals felt that their institutions supported how they handled their roles with disruptive campus activism.

Research Questions

This research examined one main question surrounding mid-level student affairs professionals and campus activism. 18

• How do mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their role when assisting

with disruptive campus activism?

In investigating this question two sub-questions were asked:

• How do mid-level student affairs professionals operationalize their role as an

advisor and a campus manager?

• What considerations inform the approaches taken by mid-level student affairs

professionals in dealing with disruptive campus activism?

Understanding how mid-level student affairs professionals reconciled their different role expectations as an advisor to the students and as campus managers is relevant to student learning through campus activism. Kezar and Maxey (2014) studied the influence of faculty and staff assistance in campus activism related to student learning. They suggested faculty and staff can assist student activists in several ways including the following:

developing plans for change, determining strategies, learning approaches to

consciousness raising, learning the language of those in power and how the

university system works, understanding mediation and negotiation, using data to

influence decision makers, and navigating and overcoming obstacles in the

change process. (p. 33)

Using these strategies, administrators can better support their students when it comes to campus activism.

Knowing whether an institution supports the perceived role of a student affairs professional can be critical to the survival of that professional at the institution. In her 19

2010 article on student advocacy, Harrison outlined the consequences that professional staff may face as a result of advocating for students. “Consequences included job loss, failure to secure promotion opportunities, low morale, and stress” (p. 212). These consequences can have a major impact on student affairs professionals’ lives and career.

Student affair professionals may believe that they are doing what the institution wants, but then find out that their actions lead to negative professional repercussions. This can be a difficult revelation for student affairs professionals.

Study Significance

Campus activism is on the rise across the country. The 2015 Cooperative

Institutional Research Program survey, a longitudinal study housed at University of

California, Los Angeles (UCLA), asked incoming students about college student civic engagement. Of the 141,189 entering first-year students attending 199 four-year institutions, approximately 8.5% indicated an expectation “to participate in student protests while in college” (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 2016, para. 2).

This study has been conducted over 50 years and the 2016 percentage represents the highest proportion of students interested in participating in a protest in the survey’s history. This percentage is 2.9% higher than the same question from the 2014 survey

(HERI, 2016). As students indicate a higher likelihood of participation in campus activism, student affairs professionals will increasingly be put into challenging positions when the activism is focused on institutional policy or practice. Student affairs professionals will be forced to face the tension of advising and supporting students, even 20 if it means encouraging the students to continue their disruptive behavior or managing the campus to keep the peace.

Campus activism in recent years has been lively at many institutions; thus, understanding why and how to respond is important for student affairs professionals

(Dickey, 2016). Both Claremont McKenna College and Georgetown University have been impacted dramatically by disruptive campus activism. Mary Spellman, Dean of

Students at Claremont McKenna College, a liberal arts college in California, was forced to resign after student protests and a student hunger strike (Watanabe & Rivera, 2015).

These protests were brought on by what the students classified as “insensitive” remarks from Spellman about minoritized students. Georgetown University renamed two buildings after students protested because the namesakes of the buildings, Thomas

Mulledy and William McSherry, both owned slaves. Thomas Mulledy sold 272 slaves in order to pay off the school’s debt. Because of this the students used the hashtag #GU272 when they took to social media. Yielding under student protests, Georgetown renamed the residence halls: one after Issac Hawkins, a former slave of Mulledy and one after

Marie Becraft, who opened a school for adolescent Black girls (Jaster, 2017).

One of the most illustrative recent examples of the effectiveness of disruptive campus activism was at the University of Missouri. This event ultimately led to the resignation of University of Missouri system president Timothy Wolfe and the resignation of R. Bowen Lofton, who served as the Chancellor of the flagship campus

(Sherwin, Coleman, & Butala, 2015). The starting point for this disruptive campus activism was on September 24, 2015, when a “Racism Lives Here” rally took place on 21 campus. This rally was initiated because the student body president was called a racial slur (Pearson, 2015). A week later a second rally took place in response to a different racial incident involving a drunk White student and the Legion of Black Collegians. The drunk student was asked to leave the meeting and responded with a racial slur. These two incidents, and subsequent rallies, led up to the October 10, 2015, homecoming parade where protesters blocked the vehicle that was carrying President Wolfe and refused to move. The parade incident was highly publicized and drew national media attention to the Mizzou protests. While no one was hurt, the protesters claimed the vehicle hit them and that police reportedly were rough when removing the protestors from the parade route.

Ten days later, the student group Concerned Students 1950 presented a list of demands to the university. The student group was formed out of these protests, with 1950 representing the year that African Americans were first admitted to the University of

Missouri. Included in the list of demands was the resignation of Tim Wolfe (Pearson,

2015). Following yet another racial incident on campus involving a swastika, Tim Wolfe met with the student organization on October 26, 2015. In this meeting, Wolfe did not agree to any of their demands, which prompted graduate student Jonathan Butler to begin a hunger strike on November 3, 2015. The graduate student’s hunger strike led the football team to announce a boycott against playing in the next football game on

November 8, 2015 (Dickey, 2016). On November 9, 2015, President Tim Wolfe announced his resignation and later that day Chancellor Lofton announced his. 22

The disruptive campus activism at the University of Missouri has been highlighted in this study because it reveals the power students can have on an institution through disruptive campus activism. Throughout these incidents, administrators interacted with the students to try to resolve the issues. Each time, the administrators had to confront challenging questions concerning how to handle the situation. Shannon Ellis, the vice president of student affairs at the University of Nevada at Reno, suggested that a student affairs professional has to “walk the line.” She went on to say that this “is a perfect phrase, and it is a very fine line” (Kolowich, 2016).

Following the resignation of President Wolfe and Chancellor Lofton in

November, 2015, more than 100 different campuses across the nation had some sort of rally in support of the University of Missouri students (Curwen, Song, & Gordon, 2015).

This gain in momentum for disruptive campus activism is making it a more prevalent issue across the country. Understanding how mid-level student affairs professionals view their role in this activism will be critical to the future of our profession and higher education. This study is meant to address the complex role in which mid-level student affairs professionals are often placed in during potentially high-profile situations with less fanfare. Despite the level of the profile, however, all of these potential disruptions carry implications for the job performance of student affairs professionals and for student learning.

Dissertation Structure

This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One outlines the problem, the research questions and the significance of the study related to disruptive activism and 23 the role that student affairs professionals play. Additionally, this chapter includes key terms and the purpose of the study. Chapter Two includes a literature review on the role conflict theory and campus activism. Chapter Three includes an outline of the methodology that I employed in my research while Chapter Four highlights my findings.

Finally, Chapter Five provides a summary, a discussion of the results in relationship to prior scholarship, as well as recommendations for future research and practice.

Key Terms

These key terms are used throughout the study.

Disruptive Campus Activism

I will be looking at specifically disruptive campus activism. Disruptive campus activism is a type of campus activism in that there is some form of interruption of the day to day operations of a campus because of this activism. The most common disruptions are protests, rallies, or sit-ins. These events cause campus administrators to take action.

Student Affairs Professionals

For this study, student affairs professionals will be defined as any non-faculty university administrator who works with students. They do not have to be in the institution’s division of student affairs or campus life to be considered a student affairs professional in this study. While they can teach classes, their primary function must be as an administrator instead of a faculty member. I define it this way in order to have a constant type of participant in this study.

Mid-level 24

For this study, mid-level professionals will be defined as professionals that have been in the field for more than five years but are not considered the chief student affairs officer. Having all middle level professionals in this study will allow for equal comparison and highlights individuals that are often in the middle of this tension.

Campus Manager

For this study, a campus manager refers to the role that student affairs professionals play in keeping order on a college campus. This role may be a formal role for some and an informal role for others.

Advisor

As student affairs professionals, almost everyone has an advisor role

(ACPA/NASPA, 2016). This may be to individual students, student organizations, office staffs, or in a mentor capacity. For this study, the advisor role can be any of these types.

Intra-role conflict

Intra-role conflict is a type of role conflict that occurs when people are asked to perform tasks that contradict each other within the same role (Wolf, 2008).

Actor

Within Role Theory the actor is defined as the person that will be performing the role (Getzels & Guba, 1954). For this study, actors are student affairs professionals.

Script

Role Theory defines script as the set of expectations that the actor has based on their role (Getzels & Guba, 1954). This may be their job description or verbal 25 expectations from the actors supervisor or cultural that they are a part of. The script may vary depending on who the actor is interacting with.

Personality

Getzels and Guba define personality as how the actor executes their role. This will be specific to that actor and would not always be the same. Just like how two different actors in a movie may perform the role slightly different, two student affairs professionals in the same position may handle disruptive campus activism differently.

26

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In the preceding chapter, I introduced the study regarding student affairs professionals reconciling their role between advisor and campus manager was established. One main research question was developed, along with two sub-questions to guide this study:

• How do mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their role when assisting

with disruptive campus activism?

o How do mid-level student affairs professionals operationalize their role as

an advisor and a campus manager?

o How do mid-level student affairs professionals describe their experience

in respect to institution support in their perceived role with student

activism that disrupts institutional operations?

In this chapter, I provide literature around the different topics that influence this study. Specifically, this literature review is organized around three main topics: student affairs professionals, campus activism, and role theory. For the first topic, student affairs professionals, a history of the profession is provided followed by how student affairs professionals interact with campus activism. A look at the current competencies of student affairs professionals provides the reader with context as to the role of these professionals. Next, the literature review focuses on campus activism. Once again, a history of campus activism is provided to the reader as well as a definition as to what is meant by disruptive campus activism. Additionally, an outline of the benefits of campus activism for the students as well as the hardships it can bring the university will be 27 highlighted. Lastly, role theory is discussed with specific consideration on role conflict theory.

History of Student Affairs

Student affairs on college campuses has been around in some form since the very beginning of higher education in America (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Dining halls and dormitories were critical parts of the collegiate experience. In the early days they were supervised by faculty and this role became what today is known as student affairs.

Early on, faculty had dual roles of teaching and supervising the students outside of the classroom (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Beyond traditional academic spaces, extracurricular activities began to emerge in the mid 1800’s and faculty supervised those events as well (Geiger, 2014). Activities such as literary societies, campus publications, and debate clubs kept students engaged outside of the classroom. Faculty and administrators utilized in loco parentis as their means to supervise and discipline students.

In loco parentis is a legal term that in Latin means “in place of the parents” (Lee,

2011). This term refers to the idea that, in place of absent parents, the caretaker or guardian had the same ability to set rules and punish the child as the parents would.

Colleges and universities used this idea from the beginning of higher education in

America right up to the 1960s (Lee, 2011). This idea was founded in British law and made its way into American law (Lee, 2011). The courts also upheld this idea, allowing colleges and universities to have complete control, as their parents would, of their students. Lee (2011) stated, “From the mid-1800s to the 1960s, American colleges 28 assumed this responsibility over their students’ lives that went well beyond academics.

During this time, constitutional rights stopped at the college gates—at both private and public institutions” (p.67).

In the mid 19th century, many different factors led to the appointment of the first official student affairs professionals (Komives & Woodward, 2003). In 1862, the passage of the Morrill Act created land-grant institutions. With this act the idea of higher education for all, at the expense of the general public, meant that more students could attend college, thus increasing enrollment. An increase in women’s colleges is also credited with the adding of student affairs professionals (Komives & Woodward, 2003;

Rudolph, 1962). Women were perceived to need more supervision, and therefore colleges needed more staffing to respond to these needs. College presidents were also being tasked with the discipline of students and the management of faculty. This change, along with the evolving role of faculty, led to the hiring of the first student affairs professional in

1870 (Komives & Woodward, 2003).

Professor Ephraim Gurney was hired in 1870 by Harvard University to serve as the dean of students. While Professor Gurney still had an expectation to teach, his main function was to take on the disciplinary role from the president (Komives & Woodward,

2003). Roles like this were introduced at many different institutions across the country and were expanded in scope (Rudolph, 1962). The next dean at Harvard, hired in 1891, also took on the role of personal counselor in addition to disciplinarian (Komives &

Woodward, 2003). 29

At the turn of the century faculty were beginning to withdraw completely from the role of student affairs (Komives & Woodward, 2003). At the start of the 1900s, students in higher education were looking to be more involved with the collegiate life.

They started to form student governments and develop honor councils (Brubacher &

Rudy, 1997). This movement further fueled the student affairs push as institutions needed staff to oversee and manage these councils and student governments. After World War I, institutions began to have personnel bureaus that assisted students in placement after college (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Komives & Woodward, 2003).

There were several titles used to describe student affairs professionals in the first half of the 1900s: dean of students, director of personnel, vocational counselor or social director (Lloyd-Jones & Smith, 1938). Titles like these, as well as the role of health care at higher education, made up student affairs throughout the first half of the 1900’s

(Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Komives & Woodward, 2003).

In 1937 the administrative reality of student affairs was advanced when the

American Council on Education Studies published The Student Personnel Point of View.

Subsequently known as the SPPV, the paper documented the services that student personnel would offer at institutions’ in addition to the instruction and business management (Amos et al., 1937). Twenty-three services were identified as the responsibility of student personnel. While none of the services directly discussed campus management many allude to that role; this included, “Maintaining student group morale by evaluating, understanding, and developing student mores” (Amos et al., 1937, p. 4).

This focus highlighted the need for student affairs professionals to “maintain a 30 commitment to serving students in a co-curricular capacity through management and delivery of student activities, student involvement, leadership development, and student union or campus programming” (Boyle, Lowery, & Mueller, 2012, p. 49).

After World War II, student affairs again grew as veterans returned home and received GI bill benefits (Komives & Woodward, 2003). In 1950, the Housing Act as part of Title IV provided support to institutions to build and maintain housing on campus. The idea was to house and feed students right on campus. Institutions began to see how the students’ life outside of the classroom affected their performance inside the classroom.

The on-campus housing idea fueled the hiring of more student affairs professionals to oversee and help students (Komives & Woodward, 2003; Rudolph, 1962).

However, as more student affairs professionals were being hired, they were also working with students in different ways. The doctrine that had been applied to institution

– student relationships until this point was in loco parentis (Komives & Woodward,

2003; Lee, 2011; Rudolph, 1962). This doctrine was altered in 1961, with the Supreme

Court case Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education. In this case, the United States

Supreme Court ruled that students should have due process and the opportunity for a hearing before being expelled at tax-supported colleges (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961). This was the first of many cases the provided students with more rights and marked the beginning of the end for in loco parentis (Komives & Woodward,

2003; Lee, 2011).

The role of disciplinarian was reconsidered after the end of in loco parentis, and the idea of coordinator and educator increased following these court cases (Brubacher & 31

Rudy, 1997; Komives & Woodward, 2003; Rudolph, 1962). Research began to be conducted about the field of student affairs, and development theories started to emerge.

Komives and Woodward (2003) stated, “A significant amount of published research on the impact of college on students began to appear in the late 1950s and 1960s” (p.75).

This research began to shape how student affairs professionals interacted with students on campus. This was, of course, until the end of the 1960s, when student affairs professionals were called upon to handle student activism that was sweeping the country

(Gaston-Gayles, Wolf-Wendel, Tuttle, Twombly, & Ward, 2005).

During the turbulent 1960s, student affairs professionals were expected to maintain peace on campus (Gaston-Gayles et al., 2005). College presidents worked with the dean of students and other student affairs professionals to handle campus activism as it would arise. This put the student affairs professional in a difficult position. Student affairs had been changing to become more supportive of students rather than being the disciplinarian; however, these rise of activism led to pressure on student affairs professionals to adopt a more disciplinary role (Nichols, 1990). Due in part to this role conflict during this trying time in higher education, many student affairs professionals left the field, while at the same time, the chief student affairs officers at many institutions were elevated to the president’s cabinet (Crookston & Atkyns, 1974). This elevation began to give student affairs more prominence at higher education institutions (Komives

& Woodward, 2003).

Following the turbulent 1960s, student affairs began to expand the discipline to include more services for students (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Student affairs 32 professionals were tasked with issues related to creating a more diverse student body, more federal oversight of campus, the newfound freedom of students in their personal life, and the task of educating students outside of the classroom (Komives & Woodward,

2003). All of these challenges were pushed to student affairs as they built their profession. The role of student affairs professionals was ever changing as the student body continued to evolve.

Role of Student Affairs Professionals

Since at least the 1960s, student affairs professionals have been called upon to help settle disruptive campus activism (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Ellsworth & Burns,

1970; Miser, 1988). In 1970, this new role caused the American College Personnel

Association (ACPA) to distribute a handout about campus activism and how student affairs professionals should interact with campus activism (Ellsworth & Burns, 1970).

The handout, Student Activism in American Higher Education, provided a history of activism for student affairs professionals, causes of activism, and administrative approaches to activism (Ellsworth & Burns, 1970). The last section of this handout offered student affairs professionals ideas and philosophies on how to approach campus activism in their role. Even in 1970, the conflict of educator and campus manager was being discussed within student affairs. Within chapter three of the Philosophical and

Administrative Approaches to Activism, in the ACPA handout, the authors state:

The administrator as an instructor in the academic community must also develop

his own philosophy in order that he may effectively function in his day-today

relations with students. The task is not easy, in order to work with the realization 33

that inherent in the student activist movements the duality between freedom and

responsibility, the administrator must develop an approach that does not generate

mass hysteria, suspicion, unnecessary administrative harassment, or arbitrary

interference. He must strive to create a self-understanding and at the same time, a

philosophy which does not deny the potential educational value of human

questioning and active commitment. (Ellsworth & Burns, 1970, p. 31)

Ellsworth and Burns (1970) continue, by outlining the problems that student affairs professionals face when they are working with student activists, specifically citing the student affairs role of messenger between the students and the institution as well as the overview role student affairs plays with extracurricular life (Ellsworth & Burns,

1970). Both roles put the student affairs professional in a difficult position between the students they serve and the institution which employs them. As the liaison between the institution and the students, “The administrator must try to understand the approach of his institution as well as the philosophies used by the activist” (Ellsworth & Burns, 1970, p.

33). However, the student affairs professional must also balance the thought of “some faculty and administrators who believe that more supervision and control were needed to achieve the institutions educational goals” (Miser, 1988, p. 103). Balancing these two roles can cause conflict for the student affairs professional.

The student affairs professional must know how to work with the activist to diffuse the disruptive campus activism instead of escalating it. This means talking with activists and not trying to deflect the conflict (Miser, 1988). In the past, institutional agents have tried to distance themselves from activists and shut down the line of 34 communication (Miser, 1988). Many issues student activists champion involve the institution they attend. Because of this, activists often will act against the institution either through protests or other forms of disruptive campus activisms. Student affairs professionals frequently have the role of liaison with the students, helping to advise them through their action against the institution. Miser notes that the liaison role puts student affairs professionals in difficult situations, as they try and help the students learn from the activism, and at the same time enforce the rules of the institution. Advising a student activist group can be particularly difficult for a student affairs professional as they are tasked with helping those students develop but still enforcing the rules.

A main function of student affairs professionals is to advise students and student groups (Komives & Woodward, 2003). This role is demonstrated and fulfilled by student affairs professionals through serving as fulltime advisors for many student organizations across a campus. In the ACPA and NASPA Professional Competencies Rubric, the

Advising and Supporting section, includes “group dynamics” and provides an overview of the competency: “Know theory and techniques for advising and supporting groups.

Ability to help groups set and achieve goals and reflect on them; to address implicit conflicts and other obstacles to success. Dispositions to support groups and respect their views and choices” (ACPA/NASPA, 2016, p. 11). The competency provides professionals with an outline of how to serve as an affective advisor to a student group.

The idea of role conflict occurs when the student groups’ “goals” may be to make a change at the university. While there could be peaceful avenues the student organization could use in order to foster change, it may also take an act of disruptive campus activism 35 to achieve the goal. If the latter is needed, the student affairs professional can be in a difficult position of having to answer to the institution as an employee and supporting the organization goals as a student organization advisor.

The conflict between advisor and manager is touched upon by Harrison and

Mather (2017) in, Making Meaning of Student Activism: Student Activist and

Administrator Perspectives. In this phenomenological study, Harrison and Mather (2017) interviewed university administrators (i.e., student affairs professional according to the definition in this study) regarding their role in student activism on campus. The authors asked the administrators to identify student activists on their campus to be interviewed.

Two broad themes emerged, “activism as a high impact learning practice (students and administrators) and goals of activism” (Harrison & Mather, 2017, p. 124).

The administrators in the study noted that the clash between wanting to be advocates for the students and having to enforce university policy. Harrison and Mather

(2017) stated:

They discussed feeling torn in their roles as advocates for students and upholders

of university policies. They were often sympathetic to student activists’ causes

and expressed frustration about having to temper their support with caution about

what was expected of them as employees at their institution. (Harrison & Mather,

2017)

This conflict caused the administrators to express different attitudes toward the activism on their campus. They described the activism as “confusing” and “frustrating,” as well as

“admirable” and “educational” (Harrison & Mather, 2017, p. 127). This is the conflict for 36 many student affairs professionals: the clash between wanting to support and encourage student activists and the feeling of having to enforce the rules as an employee of the institution.

Early Campus Activism

American campus activism is almost as old as the campuses themselves. In these early days of campus activism, most of the issues revolved around food and living conditions for students. Students voiced their concerns often in the cafeterias and dining halls of the early colleges. The 1766 Bad Butter Rebellion at Harvard is considered the first campus protest in American history (Dickey, 2016; Ireland, 2012; Moore, 1976). But this was not the first time that Harvard students protested campus food. In 1638, students were punished after they organized as a group and “griped” to the housemaster about the food they were receiving (Dickey, 2016). While Harvard faced a number of major student protests, eight between 1766 and 1832, it was not the only institution to be facing campus activism (Ireland, 2012). David Allmendinger (1973) stated, “New England colleges experienced, between 1760 and 1860, the most disorderly century in their history” (p.

75).

The focus on internal campus issues for student protesters continued throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, but the protests were not just about bad food.

Broadhurst (2014) stated, “Although students fought for greater control over the curriculum and against what they perceived as poor faculty, the most frequent attacks were levied against what were viewed as disciplinary injustices by the administration or unpopular campus doctrines” (p.4). Many of the rebellions on early American campuses 37 were sparked because of the constant disdain between students and the administration.

There was a vicious cycle of administration cracking down on the student body which then prompted the student body to rebel. After a rebellion, the administration would crack down more, imposing harsher punishments for violations (Geiger, 2014).

Yale’s eighth president Rev. Timothy Dwight, employed a softer touch when it came to discipline for students. Dwight did not publicly shame students, but instead

“gave them private, fatherly counseling. If problems persisted, he would employ his rhetorical powers to warn a student that he was ‘in danger’” (Geiger, 2014, p. 138).

Dwight also worked with the students’ parents and would contact them if issues with a student persisted. This approach helped Yale have peace during his tenure with no major riots or rebellions (Geiger, 2014).

Nineteenth Century

While the first half of the nineteenth century was turbulent for the American college campus, the latter half of the century was much calmer. Much of this calm can be attributed to the start of social organizations on college campuses (Ellsworth & Burns,

1970). Both literary societies and Greek organizations started between 1820 and1860, as did more sporting events that students could get involved with on campus. These events and organizations provided a welcome distraction for students on campuses and gave them the social outlet they had been looking for (Ellsworth & Burns, 1970). Students establishing organizations, such as literary societies and fraternities, led to the formation of student governments on many campuses by the start of the 20th century (Broadhurst,

2014; Ellsworth & Burns, 1970). These governments allowed students to create new 38 organizations on campus that supported different causes important to the student body.

The causes students took up in the early 1900s shifted from internal campus issues, to issues facing the country as a whole (Altbach & Peterson, 1971; Broadhurst, 2014;

Ellsworth & Burns, 1970).

Twentieth Century

While a number of student organizations started in the early twentieth century, the largest and most well-known at the time was the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS)

(Broadhurst, 2014). ISS took on issues that faced not only the students on campus but also the country. ISS specifically worked to help address the needs of working class society and to assist the spread of the ideas of socialism in America (Broadhurst, 2014).

Before World War I, chapters of ISS on campus held protests and rallies trying to keep military complexes, such as Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), off their campuses.

After World War I, many of the ISS chapters fizzled out, and campus activism was quiet.

Altbach (1979), summed up the 1920s this way, “without question, the twenties were a period of general campus apathy” (p. 611). This quiet would not last through the 1930s.

The 1930s on American college campuses saw the largest student uprisings up to that point (Eagan, 1981). Students were not only organizing on their home campuses, but also gathered as groups to help spread their ideas across the country. In December of

1932, students held a Student Congress Against War convention in Chicago, Illinois. At this convention, more than 700 delegates were present, representing colleges in almost every state in the union (Beichman, 1933). This convention helped to spread the peace movement that was prevalent throughout much of the 1930s. 39

Students would use walk-outs and strikes to keep momentum going for their causes during this time (Eagan, 1981). Walk-outs and strikes happened specifically during the anti-war rallies of 1934-1935. Students would walk-out of their classes, stopping them for hours at a time, and use the opportunity to hold teach-ins about the anti-war movement. At first, faculty and staff members worked to try and restore order, but eventually faculty would join the teach-ins and use them as an opportunity to educate students (Eagan, 1981). The 1930s was also the first time that students had tackled international issues. Specifically, students began looking at the rise of fascism in Europe and the change that the United States played in the world (Altbach, 1979).

The first half of the 1930s saw modest growth for the anti-war movement, but the latter half of the century exploded with anti-war sentiments as two student groups merged

(Broadhurst, 2014). The Student League for Industrial Democracy and the National

Student League merge into the American Student Union in 1935. The American Student

Union held a number of events and protests across the country from 1935 until Pearl

Harbor in 1941,when activism on campuses essentially came to an abrupt stop

(Broadhurst, 2014). After Pearl Harbor, a patriotic feeling encapsulated the entire country, including college campuses. Student anti-war protests turned into patriotic rallies

(Broadhurst, 2014).

While the 1940s were marked by the events of World War II, the 1950s did not see much campus activism in the form of protests and rallies (Broadhurst, 2014). Many believe that this was because the silent generation was in college at this time. The Korean

War was opposed by 33% of the students; however, very few showed their disapproval 40 by protesting (Altbach, 1973). The ideas of socialism and communism, popular in the

1930’s and the issue at many campus protests, was now reversed as McCarthyism swept the country. Students did not protest, they chose between the bohemian beatnik communities or the submissive roles in a stagnate society (Ellsworth & Burns, 1970).

Ground work laid during the 1950s would help propel student activism into the 1960s, the most turbulent time on American college campuses to-date (Broadhurst, 2014).

Three major movements happened on college campuses during the 1960’s; the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, and the anti-war movement (Altbach &

Peterson, 1971; Broadhurst, 2014; Ellsworth & Burns, 1970). These movements were supported by growing enrollment on college campuses. For the first time, a college degree was seen as a key element to a successful future and middle class lifestyle

(Altbach, 1979). The influx of students fueled participants for campus activism like never before. Still, much of the early sixties protests were relatively peaceful. “During the early years of the 1960s, most protests were in the form of nonviolent marches, sit-ins, and picketing” (Sorey & Gregory, 2010, p. 188). While the protests themselves were peaceful, the responses often were not. Many of the protests that were met with violent responses were in conjunction with the civil rights movement (Sorey & Gregory, 2010).

Altbach (1979) said of the 1970s, “The seventies, with considerable justification, has been called a period of apathy on the American campus. Virtually all the political organizations which flourished during the sixties have disappeared, and few new groups have taken their place” (pp. 615-616). Much of this can be attributed to the end of the

Vietnam Conflict and the passage of bills to improve civil rights in the United States 41

(Sorey & Gregory, 2010). There was also a shift in the way students made their voices heard. In the seventies, student lobby groups were formed at state and national levels.

These groups made sure students’ concerns were taken seriously, and allowed them to voice their opinions without having to stage large riots (Altbach & Cohen, 1990).

The 1980s saw an uptick in campus protests, but did not reach the levels of the late 1960s. The 80s focused on one specific issue: the divestment movement, also known as the anti-apartheid movement. Students concentrated on two pieces of the movement: the injustice that was apartheid, and higher education institutions financial support of apartheid due to their investments in South Africa (Broadhurst, 2014). The 1990s maintained the tone of the 1980s in the style of protest but the issues that students tackled changed once again.

Most students of the 1990s were protesting for social justice issues such as rights of immigrants, better protections for students of color and LGBT students, overall increase in accessibility to education, and many others (Broadhurst, 2014). The idea of individual identity was a popular one on college campuses, and each campus found itself struggling with a particular identity. At Mills College, a private women’s college, students protested, in part, to get equal educational opportunities for women, while at

Penn State, a public land-grant university, activists pushed for equal rights for LGBT citizens. Students at Michigan State protested for equal rights for American Indians

(Rhoads, 1998). While the particular identities differed by campus, students used protests to further their cause. 42

Twenty-First Century

With technology changing the way students express activism in the 21st century, since the year 2000 there has been an increase in the long practiced activism methods like protests, sit-ins and marches (Broadhurst, 2014). Students entering college are seeing activism take place all around them (Eagan et al., 2015). Beginning in 2011 the occupy movement first appeared on Wall Street, then quickly spread across the country to most major cities. Following the occupy movement, Black Lives Matter came onto the scene in response to officers shooting unarmed Black men (Eagan et al., 2015). These movements have sparked an increase in activism on college campuses. Much of this activism has come in the form of disruptive campus activism.

Disruptive Campus Activism

While campus activism can take many forms, such as hanging up signs for a cause, booking speakers about an issue, or holding a town hall, this study will examine, specifically, disruptive campus activism. Piven (2008) defines disruption as “the breakdown of institutionally regulated cooperation” (p.21). Essentially, disruption occurs when the one side decides that they are no longer going to cooperate with the socially acceptable norms. Piven’s book, Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change

America, outlines the power ordinary people have when they rise up and challenge the status quo (Piven, 2008). This definition is being used for the study because it highlights the power students can have when they rise up and challenge institutional status quo by not cooperating with everyday norms. Not cooperating can come in two major forms: structural disruption and invasive disruption (Gonzalez-Vaillant & Schwartz, 2012). 43

Structural disruptions are usually performed by workers when they refuse to perform their role within a structure, such as a workers strike. Students could utilize this form of disruption if they refuse to play their role as students. This happened at universities across the country in November of 2016, in protest of the election of Donald Trump

(Jaschik, 2016b). Students temporarily refused to play their role by walking out of class, which forced universities to respond.

The other form of disruptive campus activism is invasive disruption (Gonzalez-

Vaillant & Schwartz, 2012). Invasive disruption is the idea of outsiders entering an establishment to disrupt the flow and make change. An example of invasive disruption is a sit-in. Gonzalez-Vaillant and Schwartz (2012) stated invasive disruption, like a sit-in, derives its power from “the invasion of spaces by individuals with no organic role in the organization” (p. 2). In the case of a university, both disruption tactics may need to be utilized in order to get results. If the students of a university stopped going to class, this would have a major impact on the teaching mission of the institution. However, little impact maybe felt on the research arm (Gonzalez-Vaillant & Schwartz, 2012). The students occupying a research building, not allowing the institution to perform research, would have a profound impact on research but may not have the institutional impact of a walk out. Thus, both tactics may need to be utilized in order to get the desired results.

Both forms of disruption can create leverage for the person or persons who are employing the tactics. Because both forms create a disruption in a system, this study will be looking at both types. 44

Benefits of Disruptive Campus Activism for Students

While disruptive campus activism can sometimes cause a problem for the university, it can have positive impacts on the students that are participating. It has been shown that campus activism can have a positive influence on the development of students

(Astin, 1993; Biddix, 2014; Cole & Stewart, 1996; Rhoads, 1998; Stewart, Settles, &

Winter, 1998).

Astin’s (1993) longitudinal study of over 25,000 college students at more than

200 institutions focused on student outcomes based on interactions with their college environment. The environment included many different aspects of the collegiate experience, ranging from institution type to socioeconomic status of the student to student involvement (Astin, 1993). Overall, there were 192 different environmental measures Astin used for the study. Astin surveyed the incoming freshman class of 1985 and then followed-up with them again four years later in 1989. Additionally, Astin compiled data from the participating institutions including admissions data, data on academic performance of the students, and graduate school applications in 1989 (Astin,

1993). In 1989, Astin also surveyed the faculty at different institutions about their perceptions of the campus environment. The study looked at the overall student population and did not break it down by individual characteristics such as gender, race or socioeconomic status. It also only looked at four years between 1985 and 1989, and did not factor in any students continuing in their undergraduate studies beyond those four years. 45

Astin (1993) examined how students’ personalities, in regards to social activism, developed by measuring four items: helping others in difficulty, influencing social values, participating in community action programs, and influencing the political structure (Astin, 1993). These variables were benchmarked in 1985 and then re-examined in 1989. All four of the items saw were perceived as being more salient for students at the end of their college years. The “social activist” personality type, within Astin’s personalities types, showed the largest increase out of all six different personality types

(Astin, 1993). Astin’s study also found the biggest influences on this positive growth for these variables were the interactions students have with each other. Students who interact with other students most frequently showed a 14.9% increase in qualifying for the social activist personality category (Astin, 1993).

Students who protest in college are shown to continue social and political engagement into their mid-life (Cole & Stewart, 1996; Hamrick, 1998; Stewart et al.,

1998). Stewart, Settles and Winters longitudinal study looked specifically at women at the University of Michigan who graduated between 1967 and 1973. This group of women was originally studied by Tangri (1969) in her thesis, Role Innovation in Occupational

Choice Among College Women. In the original 1969 sample, there were 200 women interviewed; in 1992, 107 of the women remained in the study. These women were asked to indicate in which ways they were involved in social movements in their youth.

Specifically the women were asked to indicate if they participated in any of the following six ways with social movements: marching or demonstrating, providing financial support, providing moral support, performing organizational work, supporting political 46 candidates, and playing a leadership role (Stewart et al., 1998). Women were then broken into two categories depending on how they answered; they were coded activist if they answered yes to marching or demonstrating, performing organizational work, or playing a leadership role (Stewart et al., 1998). They were coded as engaged observers if they answered yes to providing financial support, providing moral support, or supporting political candidates (Stewart et al., 1998). Women not checking any of the boxes were considered non-participants.

Women were asked to fill out three different surveys concerning their midlife political views. These surveys measured the participants’ midlife levels of political activity, political standpoint, and political self-concept (Stewart et al., 1998). The researchers sought to identify whether the women’s college political activity influenced their midlife political activities, standpoints, or self-concept. Also, this study examined the difference between White and Black women in these three categories. Overall there was a positive relationship between women who identified as activists in college, based on their survey responses and their midlife political activity (Stewart et al., 1998). This was true for both Black and White women. In addition, women, regardless of race, who participated in the women’s movement as activists were more likely to belong to a community organization in midlife than women who were either engaged observers or a non-participants (Stewart et al., 1998). Stewart et al. (1998) summed up their finds as:

Activists scored high both on reported political activity in college and on personal

meaning and effect of the movement; engaged observers scored moderately on 47

political activity and quite high on felt impact and meaning; and nonparticipants

scored low on both political activity and felt impact and meaning.

(p. 80)

These results led the authors to concluded, “We join with many others in confirming that participation in social movements is associated with continued political participation” (Stewart et al., 1998, p. 91). Conclusions like these make it difficult for student affairs professionals to decide whether or not they should shut down disruptive campus activism or encourage it. Students learn from these engagements, and continue to exercise activism throughout their lives.

These types of engagement help students create a larger consciousness for social and identity issues that face society. Disruptive campus activism appears to provide a vehicle for students to explore and, thus, increase civic engagement beyond their college years (Astin, 1993). In 2002, the Association of American Colleges and Universities released a report calling upon institutions to educate more civically minded students

(Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002).

Campus activism can also help students better understand the democratic process

(Hamrick, 1998). Hamrick’s study added to the theory base for student affairs by discussing democratic political theory and how these theories could help influence campus environment (Hamrick, 1998). Hamrick (1998) provided an overview of democratic theories and then offered a narrative for the reader to think about in terms of these theories. In the conclusion, Hamrick reflects, “the goal of democracy is not the creation of artificial homogenization or false harmony, and movements play an important 48 role through fostering dissent and conflict” (Hamrick, 1998, p. 456). Campus activists can learn the critical skills of how to make changes within an institution through campus activism. Hamrick (1998) refers to this campus dissent as “service-learning” for the dissenters, stating:

as service-learning participants engage in projects to better the selected programs

or sites, improve their leadership skills, and commit to addressing problems of the

broader society, activism offers dissenting students opportunities to hone a similar

and equally necessary set of citizenship dispositions and skills. (p. 457)

This comparison is challenging for student affairs professionals. Student affairs professional work hard to provide service-learning opportunities to students, so if this comparison is true these professionals should also be working to provide activism opportunities. Hamrick outlines the problem addressed in this study when she points out the dual role of a student affairs professional, institutional representative and educator, do not always reconcile. If student affairs continues to hold preparing students for democratic citizenship as one of its commitments, then student affairs professionals will need to reconcile this role conflict (Hamrick, 1998).

The increased understanding of the democratic process will help students recognize the power of the democratic system and look to keep engaging with the process after college (Hamrick, 1998). Campus activism has also shown to help students have a better understanding of their role within a larger community (Barnhardt, Sheets, &

Pasquesi, 2015). In their study, Barnhardt and colleagues analyzed college students’ civic commitments and capacities for community action. This was done through a mixed- 49 methods approach. For the quantitative portion of the study, data was pulled from the

Personal and Social Responsibility Institutional Inventory. Data was collected from 23 different campuses, including public, private, and community colleges from the fall of

2007. The survey asked students about 150 different items divided into three main categories: attitudinal items, behavioral items, and open-ended questions (Barnhardt et al., 2015). There were 9,710 participants that were included in this survey. For the qualitative portion of the study, the researchers utilized the open-ended questions and coded over 10,000 responses. The researchers looked for the certain keywords in the responses and pulled out those responses. The key words included “social issue,”

“advocacy” (any version of the word), “stance” and “stand” (Barnhardt et al., 2015, p.

630).

Through this study, researchers found students’ “acquisition of commitments to and skills for contributing to the larger community were positively influenced by the extent to which students perceived that the campus climate publicly advocated for its students to be active and involved citizens” (Barnhardt et al., 2015, p. 632). Researchers uncovered this through the quantitative data and augmented the findings with qualitative study results. The college campus is the first setting in which many students start to engage in activism. The university response can shape that person’s commitment to contributing to a larger community in their future. A supportive campus and administration can “influences their civic skills, and their understandings of social responsibility” (Barnhardt et al., 2015, p. 622). Participants in the study said campus administrators and student affairs professionals played a part in advocating for students to 50 be able to express themselves openly on campus. However, many participants in the study commented on the lack of open, or public support from senior campus administrators (Barnhardt et al., 2015). This was concerning because campuses may be the best possible place for students to hone their civic skills due to the size and the environment of many institutions.

Campus activism can help develop a student’s drive to make a social change due to the environment of a college campus (Wong, 2015). Angus Johnston, a history professor in the City University of New York system, noted, “The university is big enough to matter but small enough to have an influence on” (Wong, 2015, pp.10). The university provides students with a way to organize events on-campus that might not be present off-campus. This support allows budding student activists to learn how to organize and build their skills in protests.

Biddix (2014) conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study on how participation in political or war protests affects a student’s civic learning outcomes. While the study was limited to private schools, it provides us with an idea of how participation in protests can have a positive effect on students. To determine the civic learning outcomes, three measures were selected. Those measures were social agency, civic awareness, and outspoken leadership. The first, social agency, pertains to the value a student places in political and social change. Civic awareness refers to the degree to which students understand the issues in their community, nation, and world. Lastly, outspoken leadership relates to students’ attitudes toward public speaking, risk taking, and self-confidence 51

(Biddix, 2014). Biddix studied these three traits in relation to students who participate in activism and those who do not.

Students who participate in activism, specifically demonstrations, showed significant gains in all three categories (Biddix, 2014). Social agency showed the biggest gain for both political and war demonstrations. Students are able to figure out what they believe in, and build from there upon graduation. War demonstration also showed higher gains in civic awareness and outspoken leadership over political demonstrations. By encouraging students to be democratically engaged, we ensure they will more likely have the skills and ambition to take action if they see an injustice in the future (Biddix, 2014).

Campus activism can also provide students with critical thinking skills (Tsui,

2000). These critical thinking skills are aligned with the skills identified in a study by

Christine and John Furedy (1985). Skills include being able to recognize relationships, to evaluate issues and evidence that is presented, and to distinguish issues and assumptions

(Furedy & Furedy, 1985). Using a mixed methods approach, Tsui drew data from the

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey and conducted case studies at four separate institutions (Tsui, 2000). The institutions selected were extreme cases regarding their students’ growth in critical thinking based on their selectivity into the university. The schools each fell into a different box: high selectivity-high growth in critical thinking, high selectivity-low growth in critical thinking, low selectivity-high growth in critical thinking, and low selectivity-low growth in critical thinking. Tusi then interviewed students, faculty and administrators at the institutions while observing classrooms and gathering information through focus groups. 52

Tsui (2000) found that when students felt that they could protest at an institution, they were forced to decide if they should or not. Presenting them with an issue forced them to critically evaluate that issue to determine if campus activism is appropriate. If an option is available to students, they must choose if they should choose it, which requires critical thinking to decide if action should be taken. Students are practicing skills which makes them better and more equipped to think critically in the future.

Personal development is an important aspect of college, and participating in campus activism can help that development. Activism can help a student better understand the democratic process (Barnhardt et al., 2015; Hamrick, 1998), gain critical thinking skills (Tsui, 2000), or be more active in society after graduation (Cole &

Stewart, 1996; Stewart et al., 1998). Activism should be viewed as a component to the development of college students (Barnhardt, 2016). Students who participate in campus activism are critically thinking about issues facing them while exercising their right to speak out against authority. Barnhardt (2016) states, “In expressing dissent, students are constructing ideas and perspectives that may one day provide solutions to some of our nation’s most urgent and complex dilemmas” (p. 10).

Challenges of Disruptive Campus Activism for Administrators

While higher education administrators may be able to see the benefits associated with disruptive campus activism for their students, they are still forced to respond and uphold university policy. These situations places administrators in a difficult position since they need to keep the peace on campus, but also support the protestors (Martin,

2014). If administrators only had to be concerned with the students who were protesting 53 they could allow the protest to take place without interference; however, they have forces within the university to also consider (Hartocollis, 2016). This may include faculty, staff, the community, students who are not participating in the protests, and alumni. If alumni do not perceive this activism as a positive learning experience for students, they may take action by withholding philanthropic donations (Hartocollis, 2016).

Another consideration is the effect a large public protest may have on an institution’s enrollment. While pinpointing why enrollment drops at any institution can be difficult, for the University of Missouri, their steep drop in freshman enrollment has been attributed by many, including the administration, to the protests in 2015 (Hartocollis,

2017). Since the protests, the university has seen a 35% decrease in freshman enrollment

(Hartocollis, 2017). The drop in enrollment has had huge impacts on the institution.

Because of the lower enrollment, the state has cut funds and the university has had to take major cuts including “temporarily closing seven dormitories and cutting more than 400 positions, including those of some non-tenured faculty members, through layoffs”

(Hartocollis, 2017 para. 6). The protests have also influenced the makeup for the incoming freshman class of 2017 at University of Missouri. With enrollment down across all students, the biggest decline is in African American students with a 42% decrease

(Hartocollis, 2017). With potential consequences like these for an institution, student affairs professionals must question the encouragement of activism amongst students.

How an institution is viewed by potential students as well as how colleges and universities are viewed throughout the country is critically important to all institutions. In a Pew Research Center study (2017) the amount of republican and republican-leaning 54 independents who view colleges and universities as having a negative effect on the way the country is performing has risen 13% (Pew Research Center, 2017). While the majority of Americans believe that colleges and universities have a positive effect on how the country is performing (55%), among republicans and republican-leaning voters,

58% say that colleges and universities are having a negative impact in the direction (Pew

Research Center, 2017). This is in contrast to the 78% of democrats and democrat leaning voters that believe colleges and universities are having a positive impact (Pew

Research Center, 2017).

The Pew Research Center study does not ask respondents why they feel colleges and universities are either having a negative or positive impact on the direction of the country. However, one cannot ignore the change in attitudes about colleges and universities in the last two years and the increase of campus activism during that time.

Institutions have seen an increase in protests and disruptive campus activism since 2014

(Dickey, 2016; Jaschik, 2016a). In Graham’s (2017) article, he provides what many analysts believe is the reason, which is the rise of identity politics on college campuses

(Graham, 2017). While there is no proof as to why there was such a sharp increase in republicans thinking colleges and universities are having a negative effect on the direction of the country, campus activism seems to have played a part. This again puts student affairs professionals in a difficult situation, when they realize the benefits of activism, but also the consequences it can have on an institution, for both potential students and the general public. 55

Role Theory

Role conflict occurs when “actor is required to fill simultaneously two or more roles that present inconsistent, contradictory, or even mutually exclusive expectation”

(Getzels & Guba, 1954 p. 165). This definition of role conflict is provided by J. W.

Getzels and E. G. Guba in their 1954 article Role, Role Conflict, and Effectiveness: An

Empirical Study. In the article, Getzel and Guba first laid out the three basic terms that make up role conflict: the actor, the script, and the personality (Getzels & Guba, 1954).

The actor is the person who will be performing the role. In the case of this study it is the student affairs professional. The script is the set of expectations on the actor that comes from having the role. For this study, this would be the expectations placed on the student affairs professional. These expectations may come from anyone who interacts with this actor because of their role (i.e. students, supervisors, colleagues). Each person, (students, supervisors, colleagues) may feel that the actor should perform in a certain way.

Personality is how the actor executes their role (Getzels & Guba, 1954). In this case, it is how the student affairs professional chooses to respond based on all the different scripts they are provided. No two actors have the same personality, just like no two student affairs professionals would respond exactly the same to a situation.

The Grezels and Guba (1954) study was based on intensive interviews with 14 instructors in the Air Command and Staff School of Air University. They also interviewed administrative personnel from the school. The interviews were transcribed and “these statements were then sorted in two ways: according to the content of the dissatisfaction… and according to the roles engaged in the conflict producing the 56 dissatisfaction” (p. 167). By completing this organization, the Grezels and Guba were able to see the actors experienced conflict between their role as officers and their role as teachers. The study also discovered that two major variables played a part in analyzing role conflict, a situational variable and a personalistic variable.

The situational variable is related to how much of the conflict arises out of the roles that the actor has (Getzels & Guba, 1954). If the actor has two roles that are actually incompatible with one another, then the situational variable is at play. The personalistic variable is referencing how much an actor may perceive a role conflict (Getzels & Guba,

1954). This can also be viewed as intensity of role conflict or how much the actor feels there is a conflict based on the roles they hold.

57

Chapter 3: Methodology

In the preceding chapters, I outlined the role conflict that occurs for student affairs professionals on college campuses when disruptive campus activism takes place. Student affairs professionals are tasked with advising students and helping them develop outside the classroom, which includes development that can happen through activism

(ACPA/NASPA, 2010). However, they are also tasked with the role of keeping campus running, and free of disruptions. These two tasks can be contradictory and their convergence places student affairs professional in a role conflict situation.

The Chapter 2 literature review provided background on three main topics which will inform this study -- student affairs, campus activism, and role conflict theory. Within the history of the student affairs profession, the role of both advisor, and campus manager have both been performed by student affairs professionals were outlined. The campus activism section provided a history of activism on campus, the definition of disruptive campus activism, and outcomes of activism both positive for the students, and negative for the institution. Role conflict theory is the theoretical framework binding this study with the literature review. Role theory, and then specifically role conflict theory is used throughout this study to help explain the conflict student affairs professionals feel within their position around campus activism.

Research Questions

In this study, I employed qualitative research methods to explore how student affairs professionals experience their roles and conflicts that may arise. This study was guided by an interpretivism research paradigm, allowing me to understand why and how 58 each participant experiences role conflict (Creswell, 2013). Role conflict comes from

Getzels and Guba’s (1954) role conflict theory which was used as the frame of this study.

The study was oriented toward answering the following primary research question:

• How do student affairs professionals reconcile their role when assisting with

disruptive campus activism, between advising and supporting, on the one hand,

and serving as campus managers, on the other?

As well as two sub-questions:

• How do student affairs professionals operationalize their role as an advisor and a

campus manager?

• What considerations inform the approaches taken by mid-level student affairs

professionals in dealing with disruptive campus activism?

Understanding how student affairs professionals reconcile their different role throughout the rest of this section, I provide detail on how the study was conducted. This includes how participants were selected, how data was collected, the data analysis procedure, and how credibility and trustworthiness were ensured. The development and use of the interview protocols are also discussed.

A qualitative study can illuminate the experiences and, particularly, the conflicts student affairs professionals face by competing roles required to perform vis-à-vis student activism. This study also allowed me to understand how these professionals make meaning of their professional roles. The open-ended research questions lend themselves to qualitative research, and I remained open to areas of inquiry that allowed for design flexibility inherent in qualitative research. 59

Sampling

My population for this study were student affairs professionals who have worked or are working at public four-year institutions. Specifically targeting those public institutions in the Midwest region. This study included participants from Michigan,

Missouri and Ohio. I focused on the Midwest in an effort to meet face to face with as many participants as possible. Snowball sampling was used to identify participants for this study. Initially I reach out to student affairs professionals who fit the criteria and ask them to participate. At the end of each interview, I also ask if the participant has any suggestions of student affairs professionals who would be good to participate.

For this study, I looked for 10 mid-level student affairs professionals willing to be interviewed. To qualify, student affairs professionals had to be working, or have worked, for a public, four-year university in the Midwest. Professionals also must have been in higher education for at least two academic years. Participants were selected based on the type of job they have within student affairs, specifically looking at whether they deal with activism. This study focuses on mid-level student affairs professionals.

Data Collection

For the interview, a semi-structured interview style was used. This allowed the participants of the study to answer the same questions about their roles and conflicts which arise when it comes to activism; but also permit follow-up on specific points or topics brought up by participants. Since disruptive campus activism may look different at each institution, the semi-structured interview allowed for some leeway for the questions to be tailor based on specific experiences. 60

Interviews lasted between 25 and 65 minutes in length, and three were over the phone and seven in-person. The interviews followed the interview protocol provided in the appendix, and follow-up questions were asked based on the answers given to the predetermined questions, due to the semi-structured format. The purpose of these follow- up questions were to have the participant elaborate, fill in, or clarify an answer that they provide.

The interview protocol was tested on two student affairs professionals before it was used on participants in the study. Minor changes in the order of questions were made to the initial set of questions, based on the feedback provided during those test interviews.

The interviews were recorded and transcribed, by a service, and I took notes during each of the interview. The notes that I took helped me to remember certain answers or highlighted a point that I wanted to take note of during the interview.

I had participants sign a consent form giving me permission to use their responses in the final paper. Participants were also assigned a pseudonym used throughout the study. Participants were told that institutions will not be named, but descriptive traits, such as “large, public school in southern Ohio,” may be used to give the reader an idea of the type of environment where the activism is taking place. This study presents minimal risk to the participants as they are sharing their own experiences, and neither they nor their institution will be named. There was no financial compensation provided to the participants, and they were not obligated to answer any or all research questions. Audio recordings and transcribed interviews are being kept on a password protected computer. 61

Any printed data, and all consent forms, are being kept in a locked office in a locked file cabinet.

Analysis and Interpretation

In order to determine if questions were clear, I interviewed two student affairs professionals not included in the final study. The purpose of these interviews was to determine if the questions were clear and if the intent of the question was understood. As a result of these interviews I changed the order of the questions asked to help participants better understand what the questions were asking. These mock interviews also showed me that I needed to define some terms at the start of each interview. For example, I would discuss the difference of a “role” and a “position” for the purpose of this study. It allowed the participant to better understand that a “role” was just one part of a person’s

“position”.

For the coding of the transcriptions, I used the Merriam and Tisdell (2016) method. Open coding was used for the initial read through of first interview transcription to identify categories. Open coding was then used on subsequent interviews; however, all interviews were checked against the first interview coding to see if similar codes appear.

Notes from each interview were then compared and merged into a master list of concepts

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The master list was used to compare all the other interviews against each other. After going through all the interviews, the codes were used to identify themes that had appeared.

The interviews were transcribed by a transcription service. The transcripts were spot checked by me to make sure the transcriptions match the interview tapes. A final 62 copy of the dissertation, including all the findings, will be provided to the participants, if requested, upon completion of the study and the dissertation.

Validity and Creditability

In order to help ensure the validity and creditability of this study I took several steps. First by conducting test interviews before talking to the actual participants, I was able to better frame and position the questions so that actual participants would understand. This step helped to make sure participants were not confused by the question being asked therefore providing more accurate data for the study.

Second, I worked with my dissertation committee chair to review the coding that was completed on the transcripts. This reviewed aided in making sure that I did not miss or misinterpret any statements that should have been included in this study. Lastly, I provided the transcribed interviews to participants and asked if there were any mistakes in what they remembered saying. For the participants that got back to me none had any issues with the transcription.

Researcher Positionality

As a student affairs professional I understand my own experience with role conflict and disruptive campus activism. While I consider myself politically active, I would not consider myself an activist. However, I do see the benefits to constructive disruptive campus activism in the learning process of students. This belief in the benefits of disruptive campus activism is what can cause me role conflict in my profession. In my current and past positions, I have worked with students that are planning disruptive 63 campus activism while trying to balance my role as a campus manager. These past experiences affect how I view this topic.

The many privileges that I hold also affect how I view activism and the roles that we play. As a cisgender, straight, White, Christian, male, I understand that I hold a lot of privilege in that most of my identities are in the majority. These privileges allow me to not always have to recognize that I have them and therefore more often than not have to defend them. By not having to defend my identities many of the outbreaks of disruptive campus activism do not directly benefit or harm me. This neutral stance allows me to not have to be emotionally involved.

However, I believe that campus activism is a positive action for both the students and the institution. Even if I do not agree with a cause that the student is championing I applaud them for taking a stand. I also believe that campus activism keeps an institution vigilant. Often institutions of higher education will become complacent in their values.

Campus activism is a way that students can remind institutions that they need to always be working to achieve those values. Because of this belief I favor when campus activism happens even though it puts me and my colleague in a difficult spot.

Study Limitations

Study limitations need to be addressed. Recruiting participants for this study was difficult due to the nature of the topic. While all caution was used to ensure anonymity, potential participants were nervous to share their stories. This was especially true for participants that would be talking about the institution where they were currently 64 working. Because of this issue recruiting participants that met the criteria proved to be difficult resulting in a smaller sample size.

The study focuses on how student affairs professionals feel their institution does or does not support them in their roles surrounding disruptive campus activism. It does not intentionally dissect the institution to determine how they have or have not supported disruptive campus activism in the past.

65

Chapter 4: Findings

In Chapter One, I posed the research question, “How do mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their role when assisting with disruptive campus activism?” In order to answer this question, ten mid-level student affairs professionals were interviewed and asked questions about disruptive campus activism and the roles they play. This chapter is divided into three main sections. The first section includes profiles on each of the interviewees, provides job information and discusses how they defined their roles— specifically, as a campus manager or advisor.

The second section of this chapter answers the first of two sub-question posed,

“How do mid-level student affairs professionals operationalize their role as an advisor and a campus manager?” This section provides an overview of how participants carried out their self-identified roles on their campuses. The final section includes an investigation of the second sub-question, “What factors do mid-level student affairs professionals consider when attempting to reconcile their role?” This section is divided into six subsections that discuss the six most common factors as discovered through the interviews.

Profiles

After conducting ten interviews I placed participants on a spectrum based on their self-description: from mostly advisor to mostly campus manager. These roles were defined in Chapter One. While many participants clearly aligned with one role or the other, some participants were conflicted and served both roles simultaneously. The graphic below shows where I placed each participant following interview analyses. 66

Figure 1

Spectrum of Participants

Note. This spectrum provides an overview showing if participants were more advisors or campus managers.

A brief profile of each participant to this study is included below. I have listed them in the spectrum of advisor (on the left) to campus manager (on the right).

Betty serves as the Director for the Office of Multicultural Affairs at a public university in the mid-west. Betty stated that her “formal roles, are to serve as a presence, and a sounding board, and advise higher level positions on issues affecting marginalized students.” Betty stated that she more often serves the advisor role, to both student organizations and individuals by helping them to advance their missions or ideas.

However, she also acknowledged that as she has progressed in her career, the campus manager role has become more dominant in her day to day operations. This shift to the campus manager becoming more prevalent has been personally challenging for her, especially when the issue being advanced is one she believes in: “Because there is that part of us that wants to be out there marching with the students. And it's like, yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly, 100%.” 67

Cecilia, serves as the Director of the Multicultural Center at a major university in the Midwest. As part of this position she formally advises a programming board, and informally advises many of the multicultural groups on campus. In addition, she oversees a facility and the student staff who help run the facility. While Cecilia mostly serves as an advisor, she discussed how it is critical to understand, and in some case, perform both roles. She stated, “I believe everyone who works at a university straddles those two roles,” Cecilia felt that her main responsibility was to think about her students’ future— not just where they were now. “That is how I see my role, is to take the art of the long view to say, I know you're not, but I have to think about that for you. This is all I want you to think about this. If we do this now, this may impact you getting to med school, do you still want to do it?" Cecilia also challenged the idea of the manager stating, “I see my role more in a leadership educator as opposed to a manager.”

Matt served as the Director of the Black Cultural Center overseeing both professional and graduate staff. In this position Matt advised the Black Student

Government, and all of the National Pan-Hellenic Council chapters, which are historically African-American fraternities and sororities. Matt also oversaw the Black journalist groups on campus. While Matt states he was more of an advisor, he was also pushed into the campus manager role when disruptive campus activism happened on his campus. This often presented a conflict for Matt, “I had this role where I needed to advocate for the students that I was working for, but also understanding that I worked for the institution so I often felt kind of stuck in the middle when it came to decision making.” Out of all the participants in this study, Matt faced the most institutional 68 influence in his advisor role. In that advisor role, Matt sees the benefit of activism for students, but also warns against the long-term consequences, stating “campus activism and people having their voice out is very important. But there's also real-life repercussions with it… When employers Google you, or look up your name and you know, maybe see you being an activist that can potentially hinder you from jobs.”

Scott is the Director for the Office of Student Engagement. In that position he oversees leadership development, fraternity and sorority life, student media groups, as well as all registered student organizations. He is also the liaison between his institution and faith-based groups on campus. In addition to these responsibilities, Scott works with student government stating, “They speak at board of trustees meetings. They're the official voice of the students. And so, I serve as advisor for them, as their primary advisor. I see my role in that as a liaison between the student voice and their concerns and the upper level of administration.” In Scott’s position he is serving more as an advisor,

“It's the advisor, I would say. It's probably on an 80/20 split. I'm serving as advisor most of the time. There's not a lot of campus management, but that 20% is heavy.” Scott stated that he is an “African American male who is straight” and that this identity is one which influences his role reconciliation.

Brianne is the Executive Director of a Student Union at a public university. Of all the participants, Brianne expressed the most significant conflict when it came to her two roles. She serves as the primary advisor to the student government, but also is charged with overseeing the spaces on campus where activism typically happens. These two formal responsibilities resulted in her feeling very conflicted often. When asked which 69 role she usually played she stated that, “depending on the time of year…I can see that some days it’s about 50/50.” Brianne spoke throughout the interview about the struggle she faces to advise the students she cares about, but also to protect the institution she is employed by, “That's where the conflict is. Is how do you protect students? How you protect the institution? It is, it's a conflicted role. Way too conflicted on some days.”

Bob serves as the Dean of Students at a large public university in the Midwest.

Bob’s main areas of oversite are campus activities, leadership programs, new student orientation, conduct and emergency services. He also plays a part in advising senior leadership on all aspects of campus life. At this point in Bob’s career, he feels that he plays more of the campus manager role than the advisor, “I certainly believe that at the

Associate Dean level, it can even be a little more campus manager. And then at this level,

I do believe that the more pronounced role that I feel I am expected to play is that of campus manager.” While Bob identified more as a campus manager, he discussed the need for activism and how important activism has been over the life span of higher education, stating:

Dixon versus Alabama was the 1960’s court case that gave students the right

fundamental due process in the conduct system. And so, there are times where

student civil disobedience has paved the road for the equality and fairness. But at

that time, I can imagine that the campus was quite distraught for that envelope to

be pushed. It is a tough place to be because you really can believe in the issue and

see the need for change, at the same time not wanting your campus to be the

battleground where that is fought. 70

Bob also discussed the importance a relationship can play when dealing with campus activism. He felt having positive relationships with students and of staff members can help when trying to achieve a positive outcome in a disruptive campus activism situation.

Kevin works as the Executive Director of Event Services. In this role, he oversees the Union and other large spaces on campus. Kevin supervises a team responsible for helping students and staff host major events on his respective campus. Due to his role of overseeing these events he identifies more as a campus manager than an advisor. Kevin often time is the person responsible for managing a disruptive action on campus. This responsibly is one that Kevin struggles to perform because of the questions asked by this study, “I think it is this delicate balance, and push and pull. It's like, we know we want active citizens that are intelligent, that are debating rigorously, but how can we do that and keep operations the way we want them, and not impact enrollment.” Kevin also discussed how his identity plays a part in how he manages disruptions on campus. He identifies as a “straight White male” and when activism arises around issues of LGBTQ+ his identity may play a factor. Because of this identity, Kevin tries to meet with communities who may be affect by activism, he stated, “I try to get out in front of that as best I can, and go meet with the communities, that... identify differently than I do, and to make sure they understand who I am, and what I do.”

Clare served as the director of student conduct at an institution that fit the criteria for this study. She stated her main duties were “development of policy and procedures related to student behavior on campus, and then investigation and education of matters where an allegation about a student or student groups.” Clare identified as much more of 71 a campus manager than an advisor. Clare stated her skillset allowed her to be a better campus manager than advisor. She also views the campus manager role as one that could help many students, “I feel like I can have more of an impact on more students through that campus manager role, as opposed to advising one group, or a small group of students.” In Clare’s position she would often times be the person who was meeting with the students after they had been arrested in a disruptive campus activism situation.

Because of this position she would try to take an advising campus manager role and try and talk with the student before an event, so they would have an understanding of consequences.

Similar to Clare, Zach’s position is one that handles the conduct at a major public university in the Midwest. In addition to conduct, Zach stated that he had “oversight of our student case management area, which focuses as an area meant to support students of concern on an ongoing basis [as well as] our crisis and emergency services. So, to support, again, ongoing students who are in any kind of self-defined crisis.” Zach indicated he was more of the campus manager than an advisor, and is often the person tasked with carrying the university message to the students. In Zach’s position he is also tasked with meeting with the students after they may have been charged with disrupting campus. In this role, he discussed he has a hard time balancing “ethic of care versus the ethic of justice.” Even though he is looked at to enforce the policies for the university, he struggled finding ways to support those students who looked to advocate on campus.

Makala oversees “events and conference services area for the (removed for privacy) campus, so anything event related runs through my office.” Her position is to 72 oversee the union and help to plan events around campus. In this position, she is responsible for helping to plan all events, even if there may be disruptive campus activism. She considers herself as primarily a campus manager. At her campus, there are others who play to the role of advisor. Out of all the participants to this study, Makala was the person who most identified with the campus manager role. This may be because of the clearly identified others on her campus who play the advisor role. Makala’s institution also recently had issues with lawsuits, so she has been tasked with making sure the institution is now in compliance with new policies.

These ten participants represent mid-level student affairs professionals at public universities in the Midwest. Most have been asked to play both the campus manager and advisor roles on their respective campuses. This dual-role task has created role conflict for them, and throughout their interviews I have identified six factors which play into role conflict. Those six factors are explained through this chapter, as well as how the participants reconciled their roles based on those factors.

Operationalizing Roles

Even though all participants felt their position at least leaned toward one role or the other (i.e., advisor or campus manager), all participants stated they performed both roles to some degree. The participants who identified closer with the campus manager role often still performed the advisor role in an informal way. For the participants who self-identified more as the advisor, this was most likely because they had a formal advising component to their position. These advisors still stated they had informal campus manager responsibilities in their position. 73

Formal Advising

When it came to operationalizing the advisor role, most participants achieved this through formal advising of student organizations or student groups. Formal advising for most participants happened because it was written into their job description. Matt, the director of a Black Cultural Center, had a large formal advising component to his position,

My role was to advise the Black student (group name removed for privacy),

which had been around about the mid 70’s, and I got institutional funding…And

then also serving as the advisor to all nine of the NPHC chapters. So, working

with them, their regional directors with their chapter advisors, so not only as a

council but individually, and then working with our Black journalism group.

(Matt)

Matt achieved this role by meeting with the students on a weekly basis, and advising them on how they could be most effective on campus. This formal advising of student organizations is how most self-identified advisors operationalized their role.

In addition to advising a student group, Betty also operationalized her advising role by advising the university and the university officials on issues of marginalized students. When asked about her roles on campus, she stated, “(I) advise higher level positions on issues affecting marginalized students. Marginalized students from all backgrounds, so whether that's race, ethnicity, religion, LGBTQ+ identities, helping people to maybe see the perspectives of those students as it relates to policies and issues.” 74

In Betty’s case, she was able to formally operationalize the role of advisor both with student organizations as well has university officials.

Informal Advising

Most of the participants stated they also performed the role of informal advisor in some capacity. This usually happened when students would show up in their office.

Compared to the formal advising role these individuals did not usually have an ongoing relationship with the students. This informal advising came mostly from participants who self-identified as campus managers. They discussed how they would spend time trying to advise students on how to carry out the objectives important to the student or organization, whether that was campus activism or not. Kevin, the student union director, stated that he informally advised students often, “I think we're advising students, individual students and student orgs, on a weekly basis, if not daily.” Even though he self-identified as a campus manager, he performs this informal advising on a regular basis. Clare, also a self-identified campus manager would perform the informal advising role when she had a relationship with the students. When asked about how she operationalized the advisor role she referred to “informal when I had relationships with specific students.”

The operationalization of the advisor role is one all of the participants were able to discuss. This role, and the performance of the role, is why many student affairs professionals get into the field: to help advise students. On the other hand, participants often had a more difficult time operationalizing the campus manager role than they did the advisor role. 75

Campus Manager Policy and Procedures

Most participants discussed operationalizing the campus manager role in two different contexts. First, there was the development of policies and procedures. Self- identified campus manager where often the professionals who had to develop, edit, or administer campus policies around disruptive campus activism. This was true for Kevin, who stated, “Some policies that have my name, or my department's, associated with them. Thinking of event reservations, outdoor space reservations, major event policies, to making sure that every group, not just student orgs, but departments, are following university policy.” In this context, campus managers assume a proactive approach to the role. By creating university policies, they are hopeful that groups will follow those policies so that they do not have to perform the second dimension of the manager role, which involves responding to actual disruptive campus activism.

Campus Manager Response

The management of the activism is a position Kevin has also had to play. When discussing disruptive campus activism, which took place at a board of trustees meeting,

Kevin stated:

All the eyes turn and look at you pretty quickly… when we have student activism

or protest, a student affairs administrator will be the first to be there. In this

instance specifically, at board meetings, they, a lot of our administration, doesn't

know how to handle it, so they just turn and look, and it turns into a conversation

with me and the chief of police really quickly. 76

The reactive part of being a campus manager is in many cases related to the fact that these professionals oversee the spaces where the activism is taking place. Betty stated, “I am the manager of outdoor space in an official capacity.” The official designation is what makes some participants self-identify more strongly as campus managers; however, advisors also felt a push to help manage the activism on their campus.

Cecilia, the multicultural center director, felt the pull to help manage disruptive campus activism in an informal way. Cecilia stated:

Informal in the sense that it's not a part of my job description. There's no way that

is written, that if the students would like to protest or take any kind of action, that

my job is to be there, in some form or capacity. But as a cultural center director

and understanding that role, I also know that I play that role in some way.

Cecelia looked at her role as actually being present to assist in an informal way, whereas other advisors viewed their informal campus manager role as letting the institution know what was going to happen and help stop it before it did. Matt played that informal campus manager role when it came to disruptive campus activism at his campus.

Matt stated, “the administration often looks to me to keep the peace. And so, because students were kind of frustrated or upset with them, they (University Leadership) would call me to kind of figure out what, what was, what can we do, what can we change, you know, can you talk to them?” The informal campus manage role Matt played helped to keep the formal campus managers from having to deal with potential difficult situations. 77

Whether informal or formal, the campus manager role is one that is operationally difficult. These student affairs professionals were often reacting to a situation, and while many of them get into the profession to advise and support students, they found themselves being the person who had to be at odds with the students and shut them down from protesting. This conflict of roles is what makes the work of student affairs professionals do so hard. In the next section we will discuss what factors add to the complexity of the role conflict.

Factors to Consider when Reconciling Roles

After conducting interviews with ten participants and understanding the factors that go into reconciling their roles, I was able to break them down into six themes. The first theme discussed below is their identity. The individual identities that student affairs professionals have often played a factor in reconciling their roles. Second theme is the idea of the advisor being the preferred role and depending on which role you play more often how hard it is to reconcile. Campus activism around topics that student affairs professionals believed in also played a factor. Institutional influence was a major factor for student affairs professionals when assuming a role. The fifth factor is when the university heard about the activism and if they were able to handle it before it started.

The last theme is the position level that a student affairs professional was at and how that influenced their role. These themes are discussed in more detail throughout this section.

Identity

When student affairs professional work to reconcile their roles around disruptive campus activism, factoring in their individual identities often made this reconciliation 78 more challenging. This phenomenon was apparent more so with participants who identified with a minoritized identity. These participants all expressed how their identities made role conflict even more complex. Identity, for the participants of this study, centered around ethnicity and gender.

Cecilia, the Multicultural Center Director, stated her identity played a critical role in navigating role conflict “I think my identity plays a critical role. I'm talking about my identities as a woman, a woman of color.” The added complexity to reconciliation the roles for Cecilia, comes in the form of not being a “sell-out”. Even when she is acting as an advisor, she was aware of her dual roles, including campus manager, which put added pressure from students and peers in the industry. Cecilia stated:

I see people going one way or another, but in general from speaking with people

who do my job, there was a sense that people felt like I was a sellout to the

culture. That I am a sellout to the culture because I should be telling my students,

"You need to challenge the administration.

This added weight made reconciliation of the roles more difficult for her, compared to others in this study that have a majority identity.

Betty, a multicultural Center director at a different institution, also shared how her identities complicated reconciliation of roles. This was specifically true when disruption on campus centered around marginalized populations “I don't know that it's that way for people who have majority identities. I don't know if it's easier for them to serve as the manager, because they don't have that empathy or that historic viewpoint.” However, when disruptions around marginalized populations did arise on campus she also felt the 79 need to use her identity to represent the students on campus. “My marginalized identity aligning with theirs, still having that conversation in a way that represents the interests of the institution and tries to create that balance and create that understanding for the folks who are on the opposite side of that.”

Institutional influence, or pressure, will be discussed later in this chapter; however, for one participant that pressure was felt specifically because of his identity.

Scott, Director of Student Engagement, who identifies as a Black male, discussed how he has been pressured to play the campus manager role specifically because of his identity.

On his campus, like many others, students started disruptive activism around the Black

Lives Matter movement. When this happened, Scott felt pressure in meetings to speak for the protesters, which he was not a part of. Scott stated, “You know, feeling pressure to having to speak for that entire population. You know, what's their motivation? What's their interest? I'm like, I don't know. I wasn't at the student meeting.” Because of his identity, he was also expected to communicate with protesters: “Can you go talk to them and smooth it over?... It's more implicit versus explicit, but there's that implicit kind of pressure, like, you can connect with students or with folks that share similar identities better than we can.” This pressure, whether implicit or explicit, added to the complication when trying to reconcile Scotts roles. He felt as though he was being pushed into the campus manager role because of his identity, “that based on my identities, I am not going to participate in that situation because I am clearly being manipulated to play this campus manager role and to just keep things safe.” 80

While Scott felt the pressure to use his identity in playing the campus manager role, Matt feared that his identity could cause him issues when supporting student activists. Matt served as the Director of the Black Cultural Center, and faced disruptive campus activism also around the Black Lives Matter movement. Matt identifies as a

Black male and when working with students as an advisor he feared his identity could result in him being mistaken as a protester instead of a university official there to advise the students. Matt stated, “I also identify as a Black man. And so, you know, if somebody's out there a counter protester or they're not going to, you know, differentiate between me as a student. And so, my goal was to avoid putting myself in any sort of compromising situation.” In order to not put himself in those situations, Matt talked with his students to inform them he is a resource, but could not be around when the activism was taking place. This avoidance, due to his identity, added a layer to Matt’s ability to serve as an advisor. The idea of self-preservation due to identity was not limited to the administrators.

Betty and Cecilia also discussed how their identities influenced the way they supported their students. Betty stated, “But when you're not in that marginalized role, you don't necessarily have that foresight.” That foresight places more strain on the role of advisor as they know the potential ramifications of an arrest for African American student versus a White student. Cecilia is fearful for her African American male students’ future if they were to be arrested due to campus activism, stating:

I don't want Black students to be arrested, particularly Black males. A lot of them

were thinking of going on to law school and medical school and graduate school, 81

I don't want them to have a record. Even though it's a record that because they

were fighting for something, oftentimes people look at that and they get dismissed

right away, particularly if they have their name is Ray Ray or Trayvon or Tyrone,

you're going to get dismissed anyway.

This causes Cecilia to have to amplify her advisor role in order to make sure students understand the long-term impacts of a decision. She stated:

Again, it's taking the long view and understanding what those ramifications are,

and saying to my students who were at the time so emotional, they're like, "I don't

care if I get arrested, I don't care for the record." Because they're not in the

headspace to think about that at the time, that's my responsibility. That is how I

see my role, is to take the art of the long view.

The idea of identity did come up with participants who identified more in the majority.

Kevin, who acknowledged he was more on the campus manager side and identifies as a heterosexual White male said that he was cognizant of his identities. Kevin stated:

I think of our LGBT group protesting, and showing activism toward anti-LGBT

community. I am cognizant of my identity, and I'm aware that as I go to help, or

support, or wear my manager or advisor hat, that I'm speaking from a

heterosexual White male perspective, and that can be perceived one way or the

other…My hope is that they understand I'm just there to support them, and to

make sure that the campus is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Kevin’s understanding of identity plays into his role of campus manager and how he may proceed in that role. Clare, who also stated she was more often playing the role of campus 82 manager, understood that her identity was a factor. When discussing activism, she stated she firmly believes in the right to free speech, but also understood that “I’m a product of my own privilege.”

Reconciling the role of campus manager and advisor is a hard task for student affairs professionals; however, when adding identity into that reconciliation it became even more difficult for professionals with marginalized identities. As discussed above, identity plays out in many different forms, but for all participants who identified this as a factor, it added to the challenge. Most tried to put aside their identity when reconciling their role, but it was not an easy task, specifically for participants who identified with a marginalized population. These student affairs professionals had to weigh role reconciliation and identity reconciliation when it came to campus activism promoting minority advancement.

The Preferred Role

Throughout the interviews participants regularly commented about, or alluded to, the advisor’s role being the more preferred role. When the participant identified more as the campus manager they would often suggest it was not the role they preferred. Zach, the conduct officer, stated “my preference, and I would love to tell you, Oh, I get to be the advisor.” Zach was suggesting here that he would much rather take on the role of an advisor than of campus manger. Zach later stated, “I would have to say, probably, right now it really is more of them managing versus advising. If I had a preference, it would be the other way around. But that's just not the way it always works.” This sentiment of the advisor being a better role was also shared by other participants who identified more as 83 the campus manager. Kevin, the Student Union Director, shared “Yeah, as of right now, I think I feel more comfortable in the campus manager role. I don't know if I'm happy about that, but I think that's the fact.” Zach and Kevin’s desire to play the role of advisor suggests that the advisor role is the better role.

Participants in this study who identified as more of a split position, performing the campus manager role and the advisor role, also tended to prefer the advisor role over the manager role. This was show subtly in the interview with Bob, the Dean of Students.

While Bob stated he performed the campus manager role more often, he also discussed a lot about the advisor role he would play. When asked about a specific instance of campus activism and the role that he played, Bob stated, “So luckily in that situation I felt like I was more of an advisor because I got to bring the student who self-identified as the leader of the group in.” The use of the word “luckily” suggests Bob perceives the advisor role as a better role, and in this case, he was fortunate he got to play it. Later in the interview, when asked about a different instance of campus activism Bob stated, “I knew there were other colleagues who are playing the advisor role, so I didn’t feel like the students had no support.” This suggests that the role of campus manager is one is not supportive of students and therefore not as much of a desired role.

While the suggestion that the advisor role is a better role was understated throughout Bobs interview; this was not the case for Brianne, who self-identified as a very close split between the two roles. Brianne, a student union director and undergraduate government advisor, state that she “would much rather be the advisor”.

When asked why, she stated: 84

The management aspect in some instances is way more political. And so, where in

the advising role, I can really stick to the student development theories. I can

really stick to things that I feel are important in their overall development, and I

can talk to the co-curricular experience way more as an advisor and I can cite

things that help them develop their moral development, to their professional

development, to their learned outcomes. Managing them has no learning

outcomes.

While the advisor role was often looked at as the more desired role, most participants in the study shared they could do both, or have done both roles. In one case the participant suggested it is better for a professional to do both roles. Cecilia, a Multicultural Director, who self-identified as more of an advisor, identified that performing only one role at a time can be “limiting.” When asked if she preferred to have a person who served as the campus manager so she could then just be the advisor she stated:

I think it's important for people in my role, to have that longer-term thing. For me,

as an individual, because I want to grow in this area, it's critical for me to be able

to have that manager perspective, because it also helps me when I'm explaining to

my students about, so let's do it this way, instead. About strategizing and what

that means.” Cecilia believes that advisors who prefer to have another individual

serve in the campus manager role do so because then the advisor doesn’t have to

be the “bad person”.

Although Cecilia argued that advisors should look to play both roles the majority of participants who identified as mostly advisors where much happier to just perform that 85 role. Participants who identified as campus managers often suggested they had to perform that role, and they would rather play the role of advisor. Zach, the conduct officer, summed it up this way:

I think it is challenging to do both, and especially at an institution this size. And I

would also say that it is hard to be effective. I think it's hard to turn one hat off

and another on, especially when you're dealing with maybe the same issue.

Activism (around certain topics) is Positive

Adding to the complication of role reconciliation is the fact that all participants asserted a belief that activism is good for a college campus, and the students. Betty, a

Multicultural Director, said this about activism:

I think it keeps us in check, in terms of, it's a reality check for us. In higher ed, we

sometimes live in our bubble and we, we talk a lot about inclusion and we talk a

lot about belonging. And we talk a lot about how everybody matters. And so, we

think that because we talk about it, that it's actually happening. And campus

activism reminds us that no, we're not necessarily always walking our talk.

This idea of activism being a way for students to check their institution to make sure they are acting on their values is an idea that has been around for decades. Campus activism has been a powerful tool in movements to change institutional policy and in some cases laws. Bob, the Dean of Students, stated, “When you look at history of things that have really changed the college experience and have at times even changed laws has been connected to student activism.” Even in Makala’s role of a clear campus manager, she believes campus activism is important so students and the institution can understand 86 where each other is coming from, “I think for both students and the university because it forms communication and dialogue between both sides, and how people are looking at things.”

All participants felt that campus activism was a positive aspect of student life.

This was true even though it often made their jobs harder. Many participants shared when the campus activism was centered around a topic they believed in, it made it harder for them to play the campus manager role. Bob, the Dean of Students, talked about conflict around the topic, stating, “So wanting to empower those students especially when the cause that they're talking about is an ethical one, is one it tugs at my heart, that conflict is pronounced and its real.” For a self-identified campus manager such as Zach this topical conflict also rings true: “You could argue, but it was for a really good topic that the message was for. And so it puts you in this awkward position of, "I'm not saying no because I disagree with the content of what you do, I think that's a really good topic, but you've now openly defied what you were told to do.” This conflict of wanting to empower, or at least not wanting to stop, campus activism added to the difficulty of reconciliation of roles. Clare, also a self-identified campus manager found a way to help alleviate that strain but telling the students after the fact “I don't disagree with you. I think that are in a situation there was protest about the travel ban. I think that that's wrong. I agree with you. I'm concerned about this as well.”

Betty’s struggle was that she not only wanted the students to be able to further a cause that she believed in but also, she wanted to be out there with them, “How can we maintain order and keep the campus moving forward in a productive way despite the fact 87 that every fiber of my being wants to be out holding a sign?” While other self-identified advisors shared similar ideas of wanting to be out there with their students, Betty articulated this conflict the most. She stated, “Because there is that part of us that wants to be out there marching with the students.” While topic played a part in how student affairs professionals reconciled their roles between campus manager and advisor, most participants also stated they understood their views on a topic should not be a factor.

Clare summed up this idea of activism being positive and how the topic shouldn’t matter this way, “I always want students to care about something enough that they're motivated to try to do something about it, regardless of what my feelings are on that topic.” This situation would be the ideal, but going back to Bob’s comments “when the cause that they're talking about is an ethical one, is one it tugs at my heart, that conflict is pronounced and its real” the topic can make it more difficult for role reconciliation.

All participants in this study wanted a free and open exchange of ideas on campus, even if it included campus activism. However, when the topic was not one the campus managers supported, it was easier for them to reconcile their role of managing activism. When activism involved a topic they were passionate about, the role reconciliation became more difficult. They had to remember, institutions had to be content neutral and therefore operate under the same guidelines they would if it was not a topic they cared about. Most participants used this idea of content neutrality as the means to reconcile their actions. 88

Institutional Push

For most participants reconciling their role, either of campus manager or of advisor, was heavily influenced by the institution they worked for. Every participant of this study mentioned how their particular institution pushed or pressured them in some way around disruptive campus activism. More often than not, the push was for them to play a campus manager role. This push was not always said out loud, but was often implied, Scott stated, “It was definitely the campus manager role. You know, it was implicit, they didn't explicitly say it, but just really did not want something bad to happen.” Even participants who identified more as advisors discussed how they felt they needed to protect the institution from bad press, including disruptive campus activism.

Cecilia, who resonated much more as an advisor said this:

No one's told me to be, but that's just oh, I feel like I need to have the university's

back. Which is somewhat in my view, unfortunate and goes against everything

that I believe in. However, and nobody's told me, but it's just in my role, how I

feel it's like, I need to protect the university, I need to protect the university, I

need... we need to make sure that we don’t have bad press… It's all encompassing

because if we have bad press, it's going to deter students from coming, if we have

bad press, my students are going to feel uncomfortable as well as... I do not want

my students to feel unsafe, et cetera… I have to, at that point, I'm more the

campus manager where I'm making sure that we are not getting bad press, then

my students are not going to feel unsafe. 89

The fear of bad press was a common issue amongst many participants. They all feared that if there was too much disruptive campus activism, there would be bad press for the institution. Scott stated, “It's really more about how can the university stay out of the media and not get bad publicity for it.” Bad press for an institution is problematic because of all of the different constituent groups a university may serve. When campus activism erupts at a university, institutions are mindful of their different groups who may have a reaction to either the topic at the center of the activism, or how the institution responded to the activism. Because of this, student affairs professionals are placed in the middle to try and determine how to best handle the situation. Clare stated it this way, “What does it look like outwardly to media, what does it look like to constituents’ groups who may or may not have opinions and thoughts on that situation.” Considering constituent groups is important because it can affect many aspects of the institution. For the alumni, they may be critical of the activism because of how it influences the universities reputation. For prospective students, they may be concerned how the institution handled the situation as they will potentially be students there. Cecilia discussed this situation with her own institution, “We need to nip this in the bud. This is not good for enrollment. This is not good for our global image… You have to talk about when you're dealing with a major campus-wide issue, the university's reputation, national international media.” Bad press is the major concern when it comes to disruptive campus activism but the legal ramifications also played a part.

Legal implications are always a factor when student affairs professionals are asked to deal with disruptive campus activism. The fear of lawsuits plays into how an 90 administrator may handle a situation, thus adding to the complexity of reconciling their roles. Brianne is often tasked with monitoring and negotiating disruptive campus activism on her campus. This position puts her in a unique spot when it comes to how she would or would not allow certain activity. More often than not, she is thinking about the possible bad press the institution may or may not get but in some cases, she is pushed based on potential legal action. She stated, “general counsel would like me to reconcile it on a given day in which they pushed me last week was, ‘(Brianne) we don't want to go to court over this’.” While in the moment it was easier for Brianne to pick a role, she was being instructed by university general counsel, she had to deal with the students who thought she would choose the opposite role. Brianne reconciled this to herself by deciding that she was told to play a certain role.

However, being told to play a certain role may shift based on the upper administration of an institution. Brianne expressed how the being told to play a certain role may change with a new president, “It's a new president (removed for privacy) and we'll start to get a feel of what that looks like when it comes to how important is the collegian atmosphere, the college atmosphere, and the overall perception (of the institution).” This shift in leadership causes mid-level student affairs professionals to have to determine what the new administration wants when it comes to disruptive campus activism. Kevin felt this at his campus. New leadership had different tolerance level when it campus to these disruptions. He stated, “The president before was more... He was more willing to take risks, and wasn't really worried about image as much. The president now,

I think, is really concerned about university image.” This refocusing on image forces 91

Kevin to have to lean more toward the campus manager than the advisor. This created more of a conflict for Kevin, he stated it this way, “There is a push and pull, obviously, and I think it is predicated a lot by our current administration, and what their wants and needs are, and their appetite for conflict a little bit.” Bob’s institution has not gone through a change recently, but he understands the climate of the upper administration is one that tends to be more conservative. Because of this, Bob, like Kevin is now, is pushed to play the campus manager role over the advisor role. Bob stated, “I do feel like as an institution that our culture can be conservative which often then propels or promotes the role of campus manager versus one that embraces activism.” The cultural of the upper administration can set the tone for how mid-level student affairs professionals carry out their roles. This institutional push can make it difficult for professionals to reconcile their particular roles.

All participants felt this institutional push towards the campus manager role, but

Matt’s experience around this push seemed to be the greatest. Matt was the director of the

Black Cultural Center and self-identified more as the advisor. However, when it came to major disruptive campus activism on his campus he was constantly pushed to play both roles:

I thought they wanted both (roles) because I mean like I said, there were still

programming and then, like the organizations and the chapters have to run, but I

think they also again wanted me to be that middle man to kind of be like, well

what are the students concerns, what are the issues. 92

Matt understood he had to play both roles, “I had this role where I needed to advocate for the students that I was working for, but also understanding that I worked for the institution so I often felt kind of stuck in the middle.” Matt was asked to play the campus manager role with his students that he was also supposed to advocate for. He was directly asked to talk a particular student leader out of the activism they were pursuing, “Like they did call to see if I could talk to students out of doing a (form of campus activism, removed for privacy), but by then it was too late.” This ask put Matt in a position which forced him to examine the roles he played and figure out how he was going to reconcile those roles.

In Matt’s case there were also ramifications for individuals that did not play the role that the institution wanted them to play. Colleagues of Matt’s who took certain stances were asked to leave the university when their contracts expired. This was not only limited to staff members, but there were implications to faculty that also got wrapped up in the disruptive campus activism at Matt’s campus. Certain faculty were ultimately not offered tenure and asked to leave because of the role that they played during these situations. Matt was able to protect himself by understanding the boundaries the institution expected him to follow, “I think in my role being an administrator, I understood that they were kind boundaries. Then I also worked for the institution and so again, I didn't want to put myself in a compromising position.” Matt understood finding a way to straddle the line between campus manager and advisor allowed him to keep his job and serve his students. 93

As stated before all participants felt an institutional push and most felt the push was towards campus manager, however Betty did feel her institution allowed, and sometime even pushed her to the advisor role. She stated she “felt much more pushed toward that student adviser side, and less of the manager side” she went on to say “at this institution in particular, I have always felt a pretty good balance.”

The institutional push mid-level, student affairs professionals experience, is one of the biggest influences that determines the role they will play. For those who identify as a campus manager, this common push towards the role by the institution allows them to feel good about the role they had adopted. For those student affairs professionals who identified as an advisor, this push makes it more difficult to reconcile their roles. They are able to reconcile based on the belief the institution is making them take this stance.

While some might not have liked the push towards campus manager, they were able to reconcile because they didn’t have a choice.

Communication Pipeline

Many participants in the study shared the role they play may depend on when they hear about the potential campus activism, and what type of relationship they have with the participants in that activism. Bob, the Dean of Students stated:

When an event is not on my radar early on, to have that relationship and springs

up that I often get the call to go manage it. So I think it really is where I enter the

pipeline at. And the earlier the better on the advisory role and when it is more

reactive it is the management role. 94

Makala, the conference and events professional, who self-identified as a majority campus manager agreed if she could meet with the students before any activism took place, she could also act as the advisor. Makala stated, “Because if we find out a lot of things front end, then we're the advisors for the organizations.” Knowing about campus activism beforehand allows student affairs professionals to play the advisor role before they have to play the campus manager role.

For the individuals who stated they played more of the campus manager role all of them also said if they were aware of potential disruptive campus activism, they would be happy to advise them. Clare, the Conduct Director, took it further and suggested that “We actually have a workshop and say, if you want to protest, here are some things you need to know and here's what you need to keep in mind.” While this workshop never took place, the suggestion of it from a self-identified campus manager shows individuals who play the campus manager role would also like to play the advisor role. Kevin, the Student

Union Director, has also played the advisor role when it comes to disruptive campus activism. He meets with a group of students who were planning to protest at a board of trustees meeting. In the meeting he tried to advise them against the action, but ultimately understood they were going to proceed with the action. As such, Kevin advised what the consequences were going to be. Even in Kevin’s campus manager role he feels institutions need to be more open to disruptive campus activism:

I think the other thing is sometimes people want to be disruptive, and I think we,

as a university, need to be okay with that. We found out, one of our protests in the

trustees, and we sat down with the group ahead of time. We knew they were 95

going to protest, and we knew they were going to get arrested. They were fully

aware of that.

While Kevin was not successful in stopping the disruptive campus activism on his campus through the advising role, others did have success. Bob was able to meet with students before any activism and provide them with connections to administrators in order to resolve their issue, “I think another handful of times where a student group that wanted to protest came in and through dialogue we were able to resolve the problem or connect them with an administrator for a one on one meeting to resolve the problem and activism wasn't needed.” Campus managers who are aware of the activism and can advise beforehand are able to reconcile their roles more easily. If the activism does not take place because of the advising, then they are not required to carry out their campus manager role. If the activism still happens, they are able to justify to themselves that they tried to help before it got to the point where management was needed.

Position Level

The selection of all mid-level student affairs professionals for this study proved to be a necessary step. All participants discussed how their position level added to how they chose a role. Bob and Kevin both discussed how their particular positions were at a level which dictated the role of campus manager be more prevalent. Bob stated, “I certainly believe that the associate dean, it can even be a little more campus manager. At this level,

I do believe that the more pronounced role that I feel I am expected to play is that of campus manager.” The idea of position level dictating was one which was shared by other participants, however Kevin viewed it a little differently. He felt he was more 96 connected with the university leadership so that role of campus manager was more prevalent in his day to day as well, “I feel like I'm more connected with the university leadership, and answering questions, and solving their problems, than I am with the student advisory piece.” The idea of playing more of the campus manager role because of the progression in one’s career was shared by many participants.

Most of the student affairs professionals who self-identified as a campus manager, also shared the view that the campus manager role had become more dominant as they progressed throughout their career. Zach, the conduct officer, stated:

Really at this point in my career, it really is that manager of, behind the scenes,

ensuring that we are either trying to be as proactive as possible in advances we're

trying to navigate. Whether that's through a policy perspective, or setting up

protocols.

Clare felt the same way; when asked if she had always played the campus manager role she stated:

I think there has been a shift and part of that is just I've been doing it for 20 years

before my roles have shifted. It shifted from, working directly with individual

students and student groups, to kind of sitting back and coordinating and

supervising the folks to do that direct work and focusing more on broad scale

policy, procedure, compliance.

Even student affairs professionals who were more split between roles or even on the advisor side shared they felt as though the campus manager had become more dominant in their work. Betty who serves mostly as an advisor to students stated, “I would say the 97 manager role has become more dominant.” Brianne also has felt this shift “early in my career that was more about advising.” Much of this shift from advising to campus manager is because often times younger professionals are tasked with advising student groups, Clare stated, “I think advisors are often younger or newer professionals.” As the student affairs professional advances in their career, they may then be looked at to represent the institution and therefore have to play the campus manager role. While the shift in roles makes it more difficult for mid-level student affairs professionals to reconcile, they all seemed resolved to the shift being a natural progression. Even though most viewed the advisor role in a more positive light, everyone also seemed to understand that in order to move up in an institution they would have to adopt more campus manager tendencies.

These six factors (identity, the preferred role, activism is positive, institutional push, communication pipeline, position level) play into how mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their role as either a campus manager or advisor. While each professional has their own way to reconcile their role, these common factors were considered by most of the participants. These factors in some cases assist in the reconciliation and in other cases make it more difficult. Understanding these factors may help mid-level student affairs professionals in the future and may help supervisors better assist these professionals when disruptive campus activism occurs. 98

Chapter 5: Discussion

In this basic qualitative research study, I studied how mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their roles of either advisor or campus manager in times of disruptive campus activism. I investigated the following research questions:

• How do mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their role when assisting

with disruptive campus activism?

In investigating this question, two sub-questions were addressed:

• How do mid-level student affairs professionals operationalize their role as an

advisor and a campus manager?

• What considerations inform the approaches taken by mid-level student affairs

professionals in dealing with disruptive campus activism?

Participants of this study expressed that while their work would often lean toward either the role of campus manager or of advisor, they were often asked to play the opposite role. There was often inherent tension in functioning in these two roles.

Participants had different factors that played into how they individually reconciled their roles. All participants expressed that they struggled to reconcile the positive aspects of campus activism with the reality of higher education institutions not wanting that type of activity.

Summary of Answers to Research Questions

In answering the main research question, “How do mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their role when assisting with disruptive campus activism?” I 99 posed two sub-questions: First, how do mid-level student affairs professionals operationalize their role as an advisor and a campus manager?

Sub-Question I

Most participants expressed that operationalizing their positions was often easy to accomplish because it usually depended on their job duties outlined in a position description. Many of the participants held roles as advisors to student organizations. I refer to this type of position as a formal advisor. These individuals knew that their main purpose was to advise, and they were comfortable operationalizing that role. Other participants did not have direct advising responsibilities but did help to advise students in some way. I refer to this as being an informal advisor. While a bit less defined, this was still a role that most participants could operationalize through meeting with students and helping them reach their goals.

Participants found it more difficult to operationalize the role of campus manager than that of advisor. This role was broken into two groups. The first group were individuals who were responsible for drafting policies and procedures that addressed issues relating to campus activism on their campus. This group was able to articulate what they did and how they did it. The other group consisted of individuals who were responsible for actually managing and trying to halt disruptive campus activism. The participants responsible for managing activism had a harder time expressing how they operationalized their role. This group discussed how they are often just expected to handle the situation, either because of their title or their oversite of space. 100

While operationalizing these roles in a time of calm on a college campus has its challenges, all participants agreed that it was much more difficult when campus activism occurred, such as during a demonstration or event. There were many factors that went into how they reconciled their roles. This idea was addressed the in the second sub- question: What considerations inform the approaches taken by mid-level student affairs professionals in dealing with disruptive campus activism?

Sub-Question II

In answering the second question, I identified six main factors that influenced mid-level student affairs professional. While the degree to which each factor influenced a participant varied, each participant discussed one of these six factors. One factor that was discussed at length, mostly with minoritized participants, was the influence of one’s identity on the role they played around disruptive campus activism. Many of the of the minoritized participants discussed that when they were asked to play the campus manager role, they felt it was because of their identity, making them feel like “sellouts.” The factor of identity was a key factor for minoritized participants, and one that seemed to weigh most heavily on minoritized participants. Institutional pressure was a factor that all participants reported as being a major influencer.

All participants discussed the institutional pressure they felt to defend or promote a positive image for the university. This pressure made self-identified advisors nervous about their positions, and led them to wonder whether they would be in jeopardy if their student groups caused a problem. It also made self-identified campus manager nervous that they would not be able to handle a disruptive campus activism episode. Participants 101 of this study also struggled when they agreed with the position of the protesters. Many participants shared they would sometimes like to be out with the protesters championing their cause. The conflict they felt when they agreed with the position(s) of the protestors only added to the role conflict they were feeling.

For student affairs professionals that were more often the campus managers, there was a sense they were playing the “bad” role when stopping the disruptive campus activism. The feeling of playing the bad role was often hard for campus managers to overcome, and they would often refer to the pressure they felt from the institution in order to reconcile their part. When the institution heard about the activism played a factor in how student affairs professionals reconciled their roles as well. If the potential disruption was known before, and a plan was put into place on how to handle the disruption, then student affairs professionals felt that the role they were assigned made sense. This was often because in these situations the students had a student affairs professional playing each role. The last factor that had influence was position level. Often mid-level professionals that dealt more with upper lever administrators had an easier time playing the campus manager role than entry level professionals.

Understanding how student affairs professionals operationalize their roles; and the factors that go into them reconciling during disruptive campus activism was the goal of this study. The answers to these questions will help inform graduate programs and professional development opportunities for future and current student affairs professionals.

102

Discussion

Advocacy

The purpose of this study was to look at how mid-level student affairs professionals handle their specific roles when it came to disruptive campus activism. The participants of the study were asked if they more often played the part of advising students during this turbulent time or served as the campus manager to end the disruptive campus activism. I posed these two roles as being at odds with one another in this study, because it often is the reality that student affairs professionals face. However, the main problem I sought to address is this study related to the manner in which mid-level student affairs professionals handle the tension between these roles in the context of campus disruptions. Instead of putting one professional on the “side” of students and one professional on the side of the institution, could they not just both advocate for students?

Students view the administrator that is on their “side” in a positive light (Ropers-

Huilman, Carwile, & Barnett, 2005). However, being on the students’ side put the student affairs professional in a difficult situation as discovered through this study. Ropers-

Huilman et al. (2005) determined students viewed administrators, when it came to campus activism, in four categories: Gatekeepers, antagonists and enemies, supporters, and absentee leaders. These categories mostly outlined a negative view of campus administrators. Even in the supporter category these were administrators who would simple talk to the activism or provide some university resources (Ropers-Huilman et al.,

2005). Ropers-Huilman et al. (2005) suggested students wanted real connections with administrators when it came to activism: 103

Whether student activists viewed administrators positively or negatively, their

characterizations seemed to imply that they were keenly aware of the different

roles that students and administrators played on campus. What they seemed to

desire was a reconceptualization of those roles, one that allowed more opportunity

for joint efforts to work toward positive social change. (Ropers-Huilman et al.,

2005, p. 309)

The results of this study coincided with Ropers-Huilman findings, as student affairs professionals did not like choosing sides but instead wanted to work with the students on change. The idea of advocacy, while never directly mentioned by participants, was suggested by many in this study.

Advocating for students is a way that student affairs professionals would be able to support students but not have to “fight” their institution. However, this is not a skill that many professionals learn formally through graduate programs. Harrison (2014) stated,

Findings indicate participants’ graduate preparation programs in student affairs

rarely covered advocacy. Some participants did study advocacy in their formal

education, but these were overwhelmingly people with backgrounds in social

work and ethnic/gender/queer studies as opposed to student affairs (p. 171).

Student affairs professionals who do not learn advocacy are put at a disadvantage when they are placed into stressful situations like disruptive campus activism. By not learning and potentially mastering the skill of advocacy, student affairs professionals revert back to advising and having to choose if they are with their students or against them. A 104 participant in this study, Cecilia, stated, “Is it operating on a continuum, where there are times where you have to be more Benedict, and less for the people. There are times when you have to be more for the people, what does that look like? How do you navigate that without losing your job?” “Benedict” refers to Benedict Arnold, a traitor.

This idea of being a traitor to your students or fearing losing your job was also discussed by Harrison in a 2010 study. Harrison viewed it as either being a “martyr” and confronting institution powers, or being a “sell out” and finding different ways while maintaining self-preservation (Harrison 2010). While these options did not fit the exact roles researched in this study, it had the same “this or that” connotation. Harrison (2014) suggested that students should be taught formally about advocacy:

Teaching students specifically and concretely that there will be power structures

to navigate in their advocacy efforts as well as tools for approaching them could

provide a valuable foundation for the informal learning student affairs

professionals experience on the job and in other venues. (p. 175)

Teaching advocacy would allow student affairs professionals to not have to choose their job or their cause and instead choose their students.

Conflict for Students

This study was designed to explore how mid-level student affairs professionals reconciled their roles when it came to disruptive campus activism. Participants were asked how they negotiated their roles as either a campus manager or an advisor. While student affairs professionals struggled with this role negotiation around activism, so do 105 many of the student activist themselves. Harrison and Mather (2017) discussed this issue, stating the following:

Findings revealed student activists and administrators frequently engaged in this

kind of role negotiation, constantly reevaluating responsibilities in an effort to be

fair. The process of weighing decisions, assigning roles, and working through the

myriad nuances that arise in the context of campus activism thus engaged students

and administrators alike in reflective practice on their respective campuses. (p.

125)

Discovering how students may also face role conflict when it comes to disruptive campus activism would help student affairs professionals better advise, or advocate, for them. The participants of this study were asked about the stress and uncertainty that happens for them when they are put in a position to handle disruptive campus activism.

Many in the study discussed being in that position was the hardest part of their job.

However, understanding that both groups are going through a stressful situation may allow student affairs professionals and students to find common ground. In the same study by Harrison and Mather (2017), they stated, “As a result, activism contained a highly emotional element for both administrators and activists in this study” (p.124).

Students as Part of the Solution

When activism happens on a college campus, it can be a stressful time. Student affairs professionals are forced to make decisions that could greatly impact the outcome of the situation. Many participants of this study shared they felt under pressure to make the right decisions. Likewise, students involved in protests also feel stress. They are often 106 passionate about their cause, but they do not understand how they can further their cause through regular university channels. The protest option may be the only tool they are aware of in order to further their cause (Binder & Kidder 2019). Students will look for guidance that is available to them in order to advance their cause. Currently most of the guidance available around activism come from groups that are often considered to be political extremes. Binder and Kidder (2019) stated,

These separate conservative and progressive channels are decades in the making,

and students are inclined to build on the directives and resources the structures

make available to them. As a result, politically engaged students become more

polarized, much like the rest of the nation (p. 3).

Institutions have the opportunity to challenge students to think differently and encourage them to develop new ways to move causes forward. If institutions provided more of a cultural of shared governance with students or student groups, student activists maybe able to advance their cause through those means. Creating a true shared governance model for students and staff would provide opportunities to voice concerns to student activists. Olsen (2009) stated, “Genuine shared governance gives voice (but not necessarily ultimate authority) to concerns common to all constituencies as well as to issues unique to specific groups” (para. 17). By creating a dialogue between students and administration students help to shape their college campus in a collaborative way instead of and adversarial manner. This new partnership may lead to changes on a campus as well as developing students’ commitment to civic engagement. Martin (2014) stated,

“Educators might call on student activists to assist institutional administration in 107 operationalizing what desirable college outcomes such as social action, civic engagement, and social responsibility might look like on their campus” (p. 90).

Implications for Practice

Define the Role

Institutions can help student affairs professionals reconcile their roles by informing them of what role they are playing. Most often campus managers have the backing of the institutions to stop activism, so the reputation of the campus is not impacted. However, advisors are usually put in uncomfortable situations, in that they want to support their students but fear that their jobs may be jeopardized based on their actions. This is not only confusing to the advisor but to the students as well. The students are used to being able to work with their advisor on challenging ideas and problems.

However, when it comes to challenging their institution, students may not have the support they are accustom to. Because of the institutions desire to always support students’ education, institutions should look to provide independence to the advisor in order to allow that person to freely support their students.

This model of independence for an employee is not a new one for most institutions. Most universities have an ombudsman whose responsibility is to assist employees and students when they have a complaint. This position is given a sense of independence so they can work to find the best solution even if it is not in the best interest of the institution as a whole. Adapting this model to the advisor of a student group that is protesting against the university would allow advisors to be and advocate and help students learn through their activism. 108

Teach Advocacy

While the focus of this study was the conflict between the role of campus manager and advisor, there can also be harmony in those differing roles. If student affairs professionals were taught advocacy in their graduate programs and professional conferences, they would have a better idea of how to support their students without fear of impacting their jobs. This education would have to include lessons about how to operate within a power structure. Navigating power at an institution can be the trickiest part of playing one’s role with disruptive campus activism. Teaching this skill at the graduate level would be a great start, but because every university is different, providing training at staff and division meetings that is context-specific is also necessary.

If institutions and supervisors discussed how the office or position would hypothetically handle disruptive campus activism to trainings, staff would be better prepared to respond. When disruptive campus activism is happening at an institution, it can be a stressful time for all parties involved. Having trainings on who would play what roles and how they play that role may allow for rich conversations outside of a stressful situation. If mid-level professionals are clear on what their responsibilities may be, then they will be better able to assist with less stress about the role they are performing.

Professional Development

Because each higher education institution has a slightly different orientation toward disruptive campus activism, individual professional development for student affairs professionals is needed. If chief student affairs officers held professional development opportunities for staff mid-level professionals would be able to ask question 109 about disruptive campus activism. Taking time to discuss this issue when there is not a situation would allow staff to talk through multiple scenarios. This training would allow for the whole staff to have a better understanding of expectations how a situation may be handled.

Implications for Research

This study helped to understand how mid-level student affairs professionals reconcile their roles when it comes to disruptive campus activism. The study focused on mid-west mid-level student affairs professionals at public institutions. Future research should expand that focus to include participants at different career levels.

Private Institutions

This study looked at professionals at public institutions that are all governed relatively under the same laws and policies. When looking at private schools, policies may be stricter, and, therefore, change how staff respond to disruptive campus activism.

The institution may also vary response if the protesters champion a cause that the institution does not agree with. Private schools do not have to remain as content neutral as a public university does. Applying this study to religiously affiliated institutions would provide a richer understanding of role-conflict around disruptive campus activism.

Faculty

Due to the realities of tenure and their different roles on campus from administrators, it would be valuable to also examine the ways in which faculty experience the dual role of educator and university employee. When a faculty does not have to worry about potential ramifications of their actions, it may change how they reconcile their role 110 into disruptive campus activism. A study to discover how different levels of faculty respond to activism would allow for a better understanding of how schools, including faculty, respond to such issues.

Position Level

Mid-level student affairs professionals were chosen for this study due to the perceived conflict they may face. This conflict is the between the students that they serve and the institution that they work for. Mid-level professionals often times have close connections to both students who that may be disruptive and higher lever administrators.

A study to discern if either upper-administration or entry level professionals face the same role conflict would be a great addition to the research.

Who is Doing the Disruptive Campus Activism

For this study I focused on disruptive campus activism that was conducted by students of the institution. Future research could look at disruptive campus activism that was carried out by off-campus entities. The role conflict that student affairs professionals felt when it was their students may or may not apply as much when it is an off-campus entity.

Types of Activism

This study did not take into account if the disruptive campus activism was targeted at the institution or not. Future research could distinguish if the activism is to try and change the behavior of the institution, such as admissions practices, or if it is trying to change behaviors off-campus, such as police brutality. The target of the disruptive 111 campus activism may play into how student affairs professionals feel about their role conflict.

Final Researcher Thoughts

Disruptive campus activism has been a staple of the college campus since the inception of higher education in America. As outlined in Chapter 2 institutions have handled these movements differently throughout history. As we head into the next decade universities will be forced once again to look at how they respond to these movements.

The summer of 2020 has shown a large increase of disruptive activism across the county.

Colleges and universities will need to adapt and work with student affairs professionals to ensure that disruptive campus activism does in fact have a positive outcome for students and institutions alike. Throughout this study the roles that student affairs professionals may play in disruptive campus activism were present as a binary option. However, as the movements on college campuses because more complex we may need to take a more educator approach and not simply choose one role.

As educators we look to challenge or students to better themselves and their understanding of an idea. At the same time, we look to support them as a student and as a person. This model of challenging and supporting is one that should be adopted by student affairs professionals when it comes to disruptive campus activism. When a movement on our campus starts, we should challenge students to understand how their institution may or may not play a part, this would be preforming the campus manager role. At the same time as educators we need to make sure we are supporting the whole student while they are going through a stressful time. In most situations there is not a 112 clearly defined “right side” and “wrong side” and therefore we need to challenge our students to better understand multiple dimensions of social realities while supporting them in their development through their activism.

Conclusion

In this study I sought to examine how student affairs professionals reconcile their roles when faced with disruptive campus activism. Findings from the study discovered that there are many factors that affect student affairs professionals’ personal reconciliation. The factors are as follows: personal identity of the professional; the advisor role being the preferred role; the issue causing disruptive campus activism; institutional push; when activism was learned about by the institution; and, finally, the position level of the professional. Implications from this study include better preparing student affairs professionals to be advocates for change and helping student affairs professionals better understand their particular role. This study looked to help student affairs professionals better understand their roles and how they operationalize them. In a climate of heightened disruptive campus activism, student affairs professionals will continue to have to ask themselves, will today be the day I am asked to start or stop a revolution?

113

References

ACPA/NASPA. (2016). Professional competency areas for student affairs practitioners.

ACPA—college educators international & NASPA—student affairs

administrators in higher \education.

https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Comp

etencies_FINAL.pdf

Altbach, P. G. (1973). Student politics in America: A historical analysis (Alden 6th Floor

LA229 .A69 1973 copy: 1). McGraw-Hill [1973, c1974].

Altbach, P. G. (1979). From revolution to apathy: American student activism in the

1970s. Higher Education, 8(6), 609–626.

Altbach, P. G., & Cohen, R. (1990). American student activism: The post-sixties

transformation. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(1), 32–49.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1982033

Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. (1971). Before Berkeley: Historical perspectives on

American student activism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 395, 1–14.

American College Personnel Association/National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators. (2010). Professional competency areas for student affairs

practitioners. ACPA—College Educators International & NASPA—Student

Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Comp

etencies_FINAL.pdf 114

Amey, M. J. (1990). Bridging the gap between expectations and realities. New Directions

for Higher Education, 1990(72), 79–88.

Amos, T., Gardner, D., Bradshaw, F., Bridgman, D., Cowley, W., Elliott, E., Fowler, B.,

Hawkes, H., Hopkins, L., Kelly, F., Lee, E., Lloyd-Jones, E., Paterson, D.,

Wrenn, C., Marsh, C., Shank, D., & Zook, G. (1937). The Student Personnel

Point of View (3rd ed., Vol. 1). American Council on Education.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater Expectations: A New

Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College.

https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/GreaterExpectations.pdf

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited (Alden 6th

Floor LA229 .A7948 1993 copy: 1). Jossey-Bass.

Barnhardt, C. (2016, March 2). Embracing Student Activism. Higher Education Today.

https://higheredtoday.org/2016/03/02/embracing-student-activism/

Barnhardt, C. L., Sheets, J. E., & Pasquesi, K. (2015). You expect “what?” students’

perceptions as resources in acquiring commitments and capacities for civic

engagement. Research in Higher Education, 56(6), 622–644.

Beichman, A. (1933, January 4). Student anti-war activities begin after adjournment of

convention; to oppose R.O.T.C., C.M.T.C and foster recognition of Russia.

Columbia Daily Spectator, 1.

Biddix, J. P. (2014). Development through dissent: Campus activism as civic learning.

New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(167), 73–85.

https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20106 115

Binder, A., & Kidder, J. L. (2019). Student activism is often uncivil. We can change that.

Chronicle of Higher Education, 66(4), N.PAG-N.PAG.

Boyle, K., Lowery, J., & Mueller (Eds.). (2012). Reflections on the 75th Anniversary of

The Student Personnel Point of View. ACPA – College Student Educators

International.

Broadhurst, C. J. (2014). Campus activism in the 21st century: A historical framing. New

Directions for Higher Education, 2014(167), 3–15.

https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20101

Broadhurst, C., & Martin, G. L. (2014). Part of the “establishment”? Fostering positive

campus climates for student activists. Journal of College and Character, 15(2),

75–86. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcc-2014-0012

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of

American colleges and universities. Transaction Publishers.

Cole, E. R., & Stewart, A. J. (1996). Meanings of political participation among Black and

White women: Political identity and social responsibility. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 71(1), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.71.1.130

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

Crookston, B. B., & Atkyns, G. C. (1974). A study of student affairs: The principal

student affairs officer, the functions, the organization at American colleges and 116

universities 1967-1972. A Preliminary Summary Report. Technical Report No. 3.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED095762

Crossman, A. (2017, May 17). How and why role conflict affects our lives. ThoughtCo.

https://www.thoughtco.com/role-conflict-3026528

Curwen, T., Song, J., & Gordon, L. (2015, November 18). What’s different about the

latest wave of college activism. Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-campus-unrest-20151118-

story.html

Dickey, J. (2016). The revolution on America’s campuses. Time.

http://time.com/4347099/college-campus-protests/

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F. 2d 150 (Court of Appeals, 5th

Circuit 1961).

Eagan, E. (1981). Class, culture, and the classroom: The student peace movement of the

1930s (Alden 6th Floor HN90.R3 E15 1981 copy: 1). Temple University Press,

1981.

Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado,

S. (2015). The American freshman: National norms fall 2015 (p. 96). Higher

Education Research Institute.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2710405/The-American-Freshman-

National-Norms-Fall-2015.pdf

Ellsworth, F., & Burns, M. (1970). Student activism in American higher education.

American College Personnel Association. 117

Frances Piven. (2006). Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America.

Rowman & Littlefield. https://rowman.com/isbn/9780742563162/challenging-

authority-how-ordinary-people-change-america

Furedy, C., & Furedy, J. J. (1985). Critical thinking: Toward research and dialogue. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1985(23), 51–69.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219852307

Gaston Gayles, J., & Kelly, B. T. (2007). Experiences with diversity in the curriculum:

Implications for graduate programs and student affairs practice. Journal of

Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-

6605.1761

Gaston-Gayles, J. L., Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Tuttle, K. N., Twombly, S. B., & Ward, K.

(2005). From disciplinarian to change agent: How the civil rights era changed the

roles of student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 42(3), 263–282.

Geiger, R. (2014). The history of American higher education: Learning and culture from

the founding to World War II. Princeton University Press.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1954). Role, Role Conflict, and Effectiveness: An

empirical study. American Sociological Review, 19(2), 164.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2088398

Gonzalez-Vaillant, G., & Schwartz, M. (2012, May 2). Student Movements and the

Power of Disruption. Mobilizing Ideas.

https://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/student-movements-and-the-

power-of-disruption/ 118

Graham, D. A. (2017, July 13). Why do Republicans suddenly hate college so Much? The

Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/why-do-

republicans-suddenly-hate-colleges-so-much/533130/

Hamrick, F. (1998). Democratic citizenship and student activism. Journal of College

Student Development, 39(5), 449–459.

Harrison, L. M. (2010). Consequences and strategies student affairs professionals engage

in their advocacy roles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2),

197–214. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.6003

Harrison, L. M. (2014). How student affairs professionals learn to advocate: A

phenomenological study. Journal of College and Character, 15(3).

https://doi.org/10.1515/jcc-2014-0020

Harrison, L. M., & Mather, P. C. (2017). Making meaning of student activism: Student

activist and administrator perspectives. Mid-Western Educational Researcher,

29(2), 117–135.

Hartocollis, A. (2016, August 4). College students protest, alumni’s fondness fades and

checks shrink. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html

Hartocollis, A. (2017, July 9). Long after protests, students shun the University of

Missouri. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-

protests-fallout.html 119

Higher Education Research Institute. (2016, February 10). College students’ commitment

to activism, political and civic engagement reach all-time highs. UCLA

Newsroom. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/college-students-commitment-to-

activism-political-and-civic-engagement-reach-all-time-highs

Industrial-Organizational Psychology. (n.d.). Role conflict. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from

https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/industrial-organizational-psychology/job-

satisfaction/role-conflict/

Ireland, C. (2012, April 19). Harvard’s long-ago student risings [News]. Harvard

Gazette. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/04/harvards-long-ago-

student-risings/

Jaschik, S. (2016a). As protests increase, student demands get more ambitious. PBS

NewsHour. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/as-protests-increase-student-

demands-get-more-ambitious/

Jaschik, S. (2016b). Rancorous November. Inside Higher Education.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/16/student-walkouts-anti-trump-

protester-assaulted-second-student-implicated-racist

Jaster, E. (2017, April 26). University renames Freedom and Remembrance Halls in

honor of descendants of 1838 slave sale. The Georgetown Voice.

http://georgetownvoice.com/2017/04/25/university-renames-freedom-and-

remembrance-halls-in-honor-of-descendants-of-1838-slave-sale/ 120

Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014). Collective action on campus toward student development

and democratic engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(167),

31–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20103

Kolowich, S. (2016, July 11). When does a student-affairs official cross the line? The

Chronicle of Higher Education. http://www.chronicle.com/article/When-Does-a-

Student-Affairs/237069

Komives, S., & Woodward, D. (2003). Student Services: A handbook for the profession

(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Lee, P. (2011). The curious life of in loco parentis at American universities.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967912

Lloyd-Jones, E., & Smith, M. R. (1938). A student personnel program for higher

education,. McGraw-Hill.

Markowitt, X. (2009, October 12). Is it my job to teach the revolution? CWG Director’s

Blog. http://cwgdirector.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-it-my-job-to-teach-

revolution.html

Martin, G. L. (2014). Understanding and improving campus climates for activists. New

Directions for Higher Education, 2014(167), 87–92.

https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20107

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4 edition). Jossey-Bass. 121

Miser, K. (Ed.). (1988). Student affairs and campus dissent: Reflection of the past and

challenge for the future (1st ed.). National Association of Student Personnel

Adminsitrators.

Moore, K. M. (1976). Freedom and constraint in eighteenth century Harvard. The Journal

of Higher Education, 47(6), 649–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/1979120

Nichols, D. D. (1990). The delirious decade, 1965-1975: A social history of Oakland

Community College (1st edition). Tri-Nic Press.

Olson, G. A. (2009, July 23). Exactly what is “shared governance”? The Chronicle of

Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Exactly-What-Is-

Shared/47065

Pearson, M. (2015, November 10). A timeline of the University of Missouri protests.

CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-protest-timeline/index.html

Pew Research Center. (2017). Sharp partisan divisions in views of national institutions.

http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-

national-institutions/

Rhoads, R. A. (1998). Student protest and multicultural reform: Making sense of campus

unrest in the 1990s. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 621–646.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2649211

Ropers-Huilman, B., Carwile, L., & Barnett, K. (2005). Student activists’

characterizations of administrators in higher education: Perceptions of power and

systems. The Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 295–312.

https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2005.0012 122

Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university, a history (Chillicothe General

Stack LA226 .R72 copy: 1). Knopf, 1965.

Sherwin, A., Coleman, N., & Butala, N. (2015, November 9). A historic day: Top 10

stories. The Maneater. http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2015/11/9/historic-

day-top-10-stories/

Sorey, K. C., & Gregory, D. (2010). Protests in the sixties. College Student Affairs

Journal, 28(2), 184–206.

Stewart, A. J., Settles, I. H., & Winter, N. J. (1998). Women and the social movements of

the 1960s: Activists, engaged observers, and nonparticipants. Political

Psychology, 19(1), 63–94.

Tangri, S. F. S. (1969). Role-innovation in occupational choice among college women

[Ph.D., University of Michigan]. https://search-proquest-

com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/pqdt/docview/302442416/citation/B88A9BB6398B4

CC9PQ/2

Tsui, L. (2000). Effects of campus culture on students’ critical thinking. The Review of

Higher Education, 23(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0020

Watanabe, T., & Rivera, C. (2015, November 13). Amid racial bias protests, Claremont

McKenna dean resigns. Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-claremont-marches-20151112-

story.html

Wolf, S. (2008). Role Conflict. http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-

law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/role-1 123

Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Gmelch, W. H. (1999). The impact of role conflict

and ambiguity on academic deans. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 80.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2649119

Wong, A. (2015, May 21). The renaissance of student activism. The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/05/the-renaissance-of-

student-activism/393749/

5/20/2019 G - LEO: IRB PROTOCOL 19-E-178 APPROVED

Ba Heee 124

LEO: IRB PROTOCOL 19­E­178 APPROVED Appendix 1 message

cace@.ed Mon, Ma 20, 2019 at 11:40 AM IRB TApprovalo: [email protected]

Project Number 19­E­178

Project Status APPROVED

Committee: Office of Research Compliance

Compliance Contact: Rochelle Ream (ream@ohio.edu)

Primar Investigator: Brian Heilmeier

Project Title: Role Conflict when Encountering Disruptive Campus Activism

Level of Review: EXEMPT

The Ohio Universit Office of Research Compliance reviewed and approved b eempt review the above referenced research. The Office of Research Compliance was able to provide eempt approval under 45 CFR 46.104(d) because the research meets the applicabilit criteria and one or more categories of research eligible for eempt review, as indicated below.

IRB Approval: 05/20/2019 11:40:57 AM

Review Categor: 2

Wae: N ae ae gaed.

If applicable, informed consent (and HIPAA research authoriation) must be obtained from subjects or their legall authoried representatives and documented prior to research involvement. In addition, FERPA, PPRA, and other authoriations / agreements must be obtained, if needed. The IRB­approved consent form and process must be used. An changes in the research (e.g., recruitment procedures, advertisements, enrollment numbers, etc.) or informed consent process must be approved b the IRB before the are implemented (ecept where necessar to eliminate apparent immediate haards to subjects).

It is the responsibilit of all investigators and research staff to promptl report to the Office of Research Compliance / IRB an serious, unepected and related adverse and potential unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others.

This approval is issued under the Ohio Universit OHRP Federalwide Assurance #00000095. Please feel free to contact the Office of Research Compliance staff contact listed above with an questions or concerns.

The approval will no longer be in effect when the Primar Investigator is no longer under the auspices of Ohio Universit, e.g., graduation or departure from Ohio Universit.

Research Compliance 117 Research and Technolog Center 740.593.0664 [email protected]

://..///0?=265&=&=&=-%3A1634066089113871360&=-%3A1634066089113871360 1/1 125

Interview Protocol

Interview Questions

Question Asked: Theory Behind Question: Why?: What kind of campus This is a questions that activism happens on your elicits conversation, campus? and is meant to help build rapport with the participant. What do you perceive to be Role Theory: Script To discern basic job the primary roles you play functions of the in your job? participants. Have you had to work with Understanding the campus activism in your professionals career? experience with activism will help me better understand their point of view When it comes to disruptive Role Theory: Script Understanding what campus activism, such as the professional does protests, sit-ins, or rallies, when it comes to what role do you play in a disruptive campus professional capacity? activism will help inform the study as to what potential conflicts may arise. How strong do you feel Role Theory: Actor Understanding how your role of advising the professional views students is? their role as an advisor to the student body or the student organization. How strong do you feel Role Theory: Actor Understanding how your role of campus the professional views manager is? their role as a manager of the campus or the student body. Between the role of campus Role Theory: Actor Understanding how manager or student advisor, the student affairs which one do you feel you professional feels have to perform more? when it comes to the two different roles 126

around disruptive campus activism. Have you performed either Role Conflict Theory This will help the me of the roles, campus understand how the manager or student advisor, student affairs during disruptive campus professional activism? operationalizes each of If so, how did those roles these roles. look? How do you encourage Role Conflict Theory Understanding how students to develop through the professionals campus activism but still operationalize their keep peace on a campus? actions will help to answer the second question in the study. Do you feel that your Role Conflict Theory Understanding if their institution encourages you campus points them more to one role or the towards one role or the other? (advisor/educator or other will help to campus manager) answer the third question in the study.

127

Consent Form

Ohio University Adult Consent Form With Signature

Title of Research: Role Conflict when Encountering Disruptive Campus Activism Researchers: Brian Heilmeier IRB number: 19-E-178

You are being asked by an Ohio University researcher to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks of the research project. It also explains how your personal information/biospecimens will be used and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are answered, you will be asked to sign it. This will allow your participation in this study. You should receive a copy of this document to take with you.

Summary of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine how student affairs professionals reconcile their role as advisors and campus manager in the context of disruptive campus activism. For the purposes of this study, student affairs professionals are administrators, working at universities, who primarily work with students and are not classified as faculty. These participants will be interviewed an a recording will be made of the interview.

Explanation of Study

This study is being done because disruptive campus activism continues to be an issue on college campuses and student affairs professionals are often put in the middle of the situation.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to answer a series of questions to better understand if you face role conflict in your position when you encounter disruptive campus activism.

You should not participate in this study if your primary role is as a faculty member and if you work solely at a private institution.

Your participation in the study will last 60-90 mins.

Risks and Discomforts 128

No risks or discomforts are anticipated.

Benefits

This study is important to science/society because understanding how student affairs professionals handle role conflict in their position can help us educate future professionals.

You may not benefit, personally by participating in this study.

Confidentiality and Records

Your study information will be kept confidential by assigning all participants a pseudonym and keeping the institution where the conflict took place private. All the data will be kept in on my password protect computer. The recordings of the interviews will also be kept on my password protected computer and will be destroyed in December of 2021.

Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with:

* Federal agencies, for example the Office of Human Research Protections, whose responsibility is to protect human subjects in research; * Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees the research at OU;

Compensation

No compensation will be provided.

Future Use Statement

Identifiers might be removed from data/samples collected, and after such removal, the data/samples may be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from you or your legally authorized representative.

Contact Information

If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact the investigator Brian Heilmeier, [email protected], 330-352-1024 or the advisor Dr. Pete Mather [email protected], 740-593-4454.

129

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Chris Hayhow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664 or [email protected].

By signing below, you are agreeing that:

• you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered; • you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to your satisfaction; • you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you might receive as a result of participating in this study; • you are 18 years of age or older; • your participation in this research is completely voluntary; • you may leave the study at any time; if you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.

Signature Date

Printed Name Version Date: [05/17/19]

130

Coding Process

Line Page Comment scope Comment text # Oh, there's a lot. I mean, I think it keeps us in check, in terms of, it's a reality check for us. In higher ed, we sometimes live in our bubble and Activism is a 5 18 we, we talk a lot about inclusion and we talk a lot positive about belonging. And we talk a lot about how everybody matters I think it is. I think for both students and the university because it forms communication and Activism is a 2 18 dialogue between both sides, and how people are positive looking at things. And I think that campus activism really helps us Activism is a 6 2 define that in a better way. So there's a big benefit positive to the activism 3 3 I would say probably the advisor role Advisor I just kind of jumped into it and brought the groups, those organizers together, those students. And it was a very difficult conversation because obviously they're diametrically opposed. And so, I 6 8 really challenged them all in that and said that Advisor what we see in the national media is not what we have here. We are all (removed for privacy). We generally probably live six hours geographically from (removed for privacy). And I think it got to the point where I had a conversation with the students and let them know that I personally would not be present at their 3 31 Advisor protest, but I would be in the black culture center. So if they needed me, that's where they could find me of set that boundary from the beginning and they 4 21 understood that and then, you know, everything advisor seemed to be okay in my relationship with them. We actually have a workshop and say, if you want 4 16 to protest, here are some things you need to know Advisor and here's what you need to keep in mind I think that they, like I said before, have that 6 8 Advisor responsibility without too much authority 3 22 I would much rather be the advisor Advisor is better 131

Okay, what are we dealing with here? All right. The law says blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The Student Handbook says, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Here's what we're going to do, even though this isn't what we should do, we're going to do it Advisor influence 13 26 because we recognize." Again, that is what is manager critical for me is when you're with an administration that can recognize that this is not breaking Ohio law, but it may be against university policy, and that you have control of. So luckily in that situation I felt like I was more of 3 7 Advisor is better an advisor I knew there were other colleagues who are 4 12 playing the advisor role so I didn't feel like the Advisor is better students had no support the manager role which I don't feel which is 5 13 Advisor is better ideally not what I want . I don't know if I'm happy about that, but I think 2 20 Advisor is better that's the fact. I would love to tell you, "Oh, I get to be the 3 1 Advisor is better advisor I would have to say, probably, right now it really is more of them managing versus advising. If I 3 9 had a preference, it would be the other way Advisor is better around. But that's just not the way it always works. Yeah, because I think in some ways, as an advisor, you advise and support the students. And 5 28 that we can be a little bit more, to some extent, Advisor is better part of them, I guess for lack of a better term. Like you can pick a side, you can actively support. For me, I would be very uncomfortable because that goes against everything I believe in about what universities are, what they should be, what 9 8 Advisor is better we should be doing for students, et cetera. Would I take the job? Absolutely, I need to pay my rent and I need to take my dog to the vet. The thing with advising is that stuff pops up, I think it's more inconsistent, and you're just trying 9 4 to make the best decision you can with the student Advisor is harder group that you're working with, and I think that would definitely be the harder of the two roles 9 23 Advisor is most challenging Advisor is harder 132

And so a lot of student protest was happening around that. And again, acting as an advisor to the 8 28 Advisor role students saying, "Okay, so here, what is your plan of attack? The transactional piece of what we do in terms of helping students understand your role is saying, 7 17 "Look, if you do this, you may be arrested. Maybe Advisor style do this instead, don't jump off the handle and do this." Yes. At that moment, that's how I felt, because they called me saying, "They are trying to throw 13 21 Advisor vs manager us out of the Student Union, what should we do?" I said, "Hold on, let me call Yes. And it's not campuses, it's institutions in 17 15 general. It's when you have these formalized Campus Activism structures in place, it is the: no news is good news Looking at the issues that may be impacting marginalized students and trying to help Formal Campus 2 17 proactively address them so that the order is Manager maintained As opposed to the campus manager piece, which I 10 5 Campus Manager see more as a transactional piece They resented me for even bringing the campus 10 13 Campus Manager manager piece in ... and continues to function in that way in terms of the policies, the rules, the buildings, who the Campus manager 9 27 buildings are named after, the laws, the people around privilege who were working there, Probably not. I think that it's so policy-focused Campus manager is 4 1 and the agendas aren't necessarily student-focused bad in that. "So why are you here?" "I'm here for the students. I want to groom young minds. I'm here to prepare Campus Manager is 11 6 the next generation of leaders." "Come on Homes, bad we know." campus management, but that 20% is heavy. It's Campus manager is 3 34 definitely more policy-focused hard Yeah, like I said, I could wear both hats and wear 9 6 Cant do both them interchangeably Probably not. I think, just being honest, I think it's 3 18 looking at, as you continue higher in your career, Career path it's what are you most comfortable with? 133

I think early in my career if you had asked me that 4 16 question, I probably would have been more on the Career path ethic of justice than the ethic of care . Advisors are often tasked with being the face or mouthpiece of a problem but often times are not empowered to make decisions or are not yet 9 25 Career path seasoned enough in their careers to have the experience to rely on with how to respond to an upset individual I think definitely more of the campus manager. I think there has been a shift and part of that is just I've been doing it for 20 years before my roles have shifted. It shifted from, working directly with 3 4 individual students and student groups, to kind of Career path sitting back and coordinating and supervising the folks to do that direct work and focusing more on broad scale policy, procedure, compliance, things like that I think advisors are often younger or newer 6 5 professionals, because they are, they have Career path potentially capacity in their job and I could very easily see a younger professional or faculty member advisers really put in an 6 23 Career path awkward situation. In that situation to have much more impact from a career standpoint And I think once you've kind of been around for awhile, once you're at that campus manager level 6 26 and you're managing the risk on behalf of the Career path institution, and you're trying to set up policies and procedures And before that, early in my career that was more 4 15 Career path about advising So the kind of you're further into your career is 2 6 what's dictated more of the campus manager role? Career path AM: Yeah and I think because the amount of time I've been 6 22 Career path in my position . I think because of, again, the amount of time that 6 27 I've been doing it, interacting with the differences, Career path is the way that I can do that Yeah. I would say the manager role has become 3 13 Career path more dominant- 134

So I definitely think like I think in my previous role I was very hands on. So working with a lot of student organizations and advising them and my role now I feel like, I'm more kind of behind the 10 26 Career path scenes, like more so like invested in the policy and that kind of stake. And so I think when we've had unrest here, I feel like I've been more of that campus manager at this point in my career, it really is that manager of, behind the scenes, ensuring that we are either 3 3 Career path trying to be as proactive as possible in advances we're trying to navigate. And so I do think some of that has happened 3 8 Career path naturally as my career has progressed In some ways, a lot of it has to do with I think, the 4 15 Career path uniqueness in which I came into my role. But it's a new president October 1st and we'll start to get a feel of what that looks like when it comes 4 25 Campus Climate to how important is the collegian atmosphere, the college atmosphere, and the overall perception of The president before was more... He was more willing to take risks, and wasn't really worried 6 28 Campus Climate about image as much. The president now, I think, is really concerned about university image. In fact, I like, I had this role where I needed to advocate for the students that I was working for, 2 19 but also understanding that I worked for the Conflict institution so I often felt kind of stuck in the middle when it came to decision making What does that mean? How much do you do it? Is it operating on a continuum where there times where you have to be more Benedict, and less for 4 36 the people and there are times when you have to Conflict be more for the people, what does that look like? How do you navigate that without losing your job? But at the same time not create more problems. 7 23 And so I guess I was campus managing even in Dual role my advising role- 9 16 I was pretty split Dual role That one was more advisory. That one I was much 8 24 Filled position more, I don't want to say appreciated but accepted. 1 8 advisor of undergraduate student government Formal Advisor 135

1 13 undergraduate student government Formal Advisor 1 22 formal mentor program Formal Advisor formally with the student government. They speak at board of trustees meetings. They're the official 1 20 Formal Advisor voice of the students. And so, I serve as advisor for them, as their primary advisor. 1 7 advise the (Removed for privacy) Formal Advisor I oversee the events and conference services area Formal Campus 1 6 for the Kent campus, so anything that is an event Manager related runs through my office Formal Campus 1 31 I think I play that quite often Manager development of policy and procedures related to Formal Campus 1 18 student behavior on campus Manager Formal Campus 2 11 manager of outdoor space in an official capacity Manager campus manager thing sort of took on an additional role besides if a vice president would Formal Campus 2 15 say "What's Delta Delta Delta doing?" And they Manager would come and they would ask that managing kind of question I'm not sure if you're talking with people at 3 32 HBCUs, is how do you navigate this Benedict Identify Arnold role with I'm down for the people role. that based on my identities, I am not going to participate in that situation because I am clearly being manipulated to play this campus manager 9 33 Identify role and to just keep things safe, and then like, "No, somebody else can come in there and talk to those students and tell them whatever But when you're not in that marginalized role, you don't necessarily have that foresight. And so trying to help them work through, again, to get to 5 5 Identify the point where they can be productive in supporting their students that are also very triggered. So with my marginalized identity aligning with theirs, still having that conversation in a way that represents the interests of the institution and tries 10 2 Identify to create that balance and create that understanding for the folks who are on the opposite side of that 136

particularly when people don't have that 10 23 Identify marginalized identity, and they don't feel that push . But yeah, and I don't know that it's that way for people who have majority identities. I don't know 13 5 if it's easier for them to serve as the manager, Identify because they don't have that empathy or that historic viewpoint I am cognizant of my identity, and I'm aware that as I go to help, or support, or wear my manager or 9 17 advisor hat, that I'm speaking from a heterosexual Identify white male perspective, and that can be perceived one way or the other but I also identify as a black man. And so, you know, if somebody's out there a counter protester or they're not going to, you know, differentiate 3 36 Identify between me as a student. And so my goal was to avoid putting myself in any sort of compromising situation. I just have always been raised and I absolutely 4 23 Identify recognize that I'm a product of my own privilege When you are a person of color working in a predominantly white institution, and students of 3 21 Identify color are mad at the institution, for one reason or another, how do you help them navigate That I am a sellout to the culture because I should be telling my students, "You need to challenge the administration." I strongly believe that because we're preparing our students to be leaders, but I also recognize that my students also need skills 4 22 Identify that will help them lead in a 21st century United States and what that means in terms of the racial demographics, socioeconomic demographics, et cetera. I want them to walk away with skills that they can use broadly. I don't want black students to be arrested, particularly black males. A lot of them were thinking of going on to law school and medical school and graduate school, I don't want them to have a record. Even though it's a record that 15 6 Identify because they were fighting for something, oftentimes people look at that and they get dismissed right away, particularly if they have their name is Ray Ray or Trayvon or Tyrone, you're going to get dismissed anyway and Tyrone- 137

Because again, a big piece of that is... One of the things that we don't realize that we often not... that we do tend to not think about is it's not just black parents who are calling to find out if your kids are 17 7 Identify fine. It's also white parents, which is the majority. What I don't want is for the president's office to be overwhelmed with calls about stuff is falling apart at my institution. I think my identity plays a critical role. I'm talking about my identities as a woman, a woman of 20 21 Identify color, and also someone who attended the institution for graduate school They don't... It's more implicit versus explicit, but there's that implicit kind of pressure, like, "You 10 12 Identify can connect with students or with folks that share similar identities better than we can." it's more interpersonal and more about leadership development. So, as they're looking to build their own skills and abilities, we will catch up at 1 29 Informal advisor retreats, at conferences, and then kind of strike up a conversation and a relationship, and then sometimes they have career aspirations I think we're advising students, individual students 1 17 Informal advisor and student orgs, on a weekly basis, if not daily. informal when I had relationships with specific 1 26 Informal advisor students Oh my gosh, we're struggling with this, what do 2 22 you think? I know you're not our advisor on Informal advisor record but you're the only person we see And so, right around there's times where it's really more of a reactionary, and so upper-level Informal campus 2 29 administration will call meetings and I'm often on management that list. I see it as a mixed, formal and informal. Informal in the sense that it's not a part of my job description. There's no way that is written, that if the students would like to protest or take any kind Informal campus 3 3 of action, that my job is to be there in some form manager or capacity. But as a cultural center director and understanding that role, I also know that I play that role in some way. 2 37 I think they blur that Institution Push 138

And I think the climate includes who are your superiors? What type of president do you have? 4 17 Institution Push And how involved are they in the whole atmosphere of campus? And so therefore the upper administration was in 6 9 an uproar about what were we doing and how Institution Push were we... I'm like, it's not a major event. And who from administration is going to be in the 6 14 Institution Push crowd?" And I said, "In the crowd for what?" I guess general counsel would let me to reconcile it on a given day in which they pushed me last 8 23 Institution Push week was, "And we don't want to go to court over this." In that role, I see that there are greater 9 25 expectations from administrators especially in Institution Push challenging times. they're forcing me into being the one that sets the 2 12 Institution Push rules and the administration was putting restraints on the organization if they wanted to do it. So they 3 26 were taking policies that we had and enforcing Institution Push bits and pieces of multiple policies to try to make this No, I felt very supported- Brian: Okay. AnB: ... both times. I think with the "catch the illegal 10 7 immigrant," the Dean of Students at that time was Institution Push an incredibly thoughtful person, and very well measured in response. And so, yeah, at this institution in particular, I 10 28 Institution Push have always felt a pretty good balance. and felt much more pushed toward that student 11 5 Institution Push adviser side I do feel like has an institution that our culture can be conservative which often then propels or 4 35 Institution Push promotes the role of campus manager versus one that embraces activism etc. It's really more about how can the university stay 4 2 Institution Push out of the media and not get bad publicity for it It was definitely the campus manager role. You know, it was implicit, they didn't explicitly say it, 8 7 Institution Push but just really did not want something bad to happen 139

that based on my identities, I am not going to participate in that situation because I am clearly being manipulated to play this campus manager 9 33 Institution Push role and to just keep things safe, and then like, "No, somebody else can come in there and talk to those students and tell them whatever , I feel like I'm more connected with the university leadership, and answering questions, and solving 2 15 Institution Push their problems, than I am with the student advisory piece 6 24 There is a pressure to play both roles somehow Institution Push There is a push and pull, obviously, and I think it is predicated a lot by our current administration, and what their wants and needs are, and their 6 34 Institution Push appetite for conflict a little bit. Yeah, it's very difficult question. It really is. You know this, right? And so being kind of that middle person or that 2 33 Institution Push person that the upper administration would go to I think in my role being an administrator, I understood that they were kind boundaries. Then I 4 17 also worked for the institution and so again, I Institution Push didn't want to put myself in a compromising position I thought both then, I thought they wanted both because I mean like I said, they were still programming and then like the organizations and 6 25 the chapters don't have to run, but I think they also Institution Push again wanted me to be that middle man to kind of be like, well what are the students concerns, what are the issues . Like they did call to see if I could talk to students 6 30 out of doing a hunger strike, but by then it was too Institution Push late I think the chaos ensued when the protest started to happen and when it became like a national 7 13 thing, so when the news crews started showing up Institution Push and then protesters from outside of the Mizzou area also came 140

I think at different points I became frustrated cause I'm just like why the president of the chancellor and the vice chancellor calling me all 8 32 the time. But there's like the whole cabinet, there Institution Push is a dean of student and his like there's always people between us in the org chart, but yet I was the one that was always getting the phone calls And so, that's really kind of my role, is to think 2 24 about it from all perspectives as an institution of Institution Push what is our holistic institutional response. conflict of institutional policy versus, but you 6 3 could argue, but it was for a really good topic that Institution Push the message was for without just relying on what the institution is or is 9 29 Institution Push not required to do. What does it look like outwardly to media , what does it look like to constituents groups who may 3 36 Institution Push or may not have opinions and thoughts on that situation And that as a state institution, we have obligations to promote your speech but has to be content 4 32 Institution Push neutral, and we can't just punish or stop the speech we don't agree with I feel like my skillset is better used in that way. I think sometimes we have too many people in these campus manager roles who’s main focus is 5 16 what the press is going to say, what things are Institution Push going to look like, and not necessarily the educational learning opportunities of other students, and really the rights of our students And so I think there is this desire to quote unquote 6 22 Institution Push "fix it", or address with the situation . So I do think that they do tend to be a little bit 7 18 Institution Push more campus manager friendly you have an obligation to both the student and the 3 15 university, and you have to decide how you're Institution Push going to play that role However, the people who are above me, they're not necessarily doing that dance, although they 10 30 say they are, that's rhetoric, because they have to Institution Push make sure that the university is... we're not going to get sued, there's not going to be and so 141

now what is going to be expedient and what is 14 2 Institution Push going to keep us from getting bad press? You have to talk about when you're dealing with a major campus-wide issue, the university's 14 18 reputation, national international media, et cetera, Institution Push how are you going to... have you ever dealt with anything like that When that happens, no one's told me this, but in many ways, I feel more like the campus manager at that point. No one's told me to be but that's just 16 13 Institution Push oh, I feel like I need to have the university's back. Which is somewhat in my view, unfortunate and goes against everything that I believe in. we do not want the world to think we're some 17 29 place where if you are different, you don't feel like Institution Push you belong As a university administrator, and someone who's in leadership at the highest level, that's not what I wanted people to see about my university, because that's going to determine, that's going to impact enrollment. As the person at that level, I'm going 18 5 Institution Push to be coming down on those people below me to say, "We need to nip this in the bud. This is not good for enrollment. This is not good for our global image. This is not good for national image, et cetera." 2 3 At this level Level of position I think by staff get to play more of the advisory 2 8 Level of position role especially the Frontline staff I certainly believe that the associate dean it can even be a little more Campus manager. And then 2 10 at this level at I do believe that the more Level of position pronounced role that I feel I am expected to play is that of campus manager. And the position I was in put me front and center 5 31 with the students which made it easier and more Level of position comfortable to be in advisor elevate more within a position, you get more and 2 14 Level of position more disconnected to that I feel like I'm more connected with the university leadership, and answering questions, and solving 2 15 Level of position their problems, than I am with the student advisory piece 142

I think what was frustrating with like this was all over like today's show. Good morning America, no administrators came and checked on us. And campus was a ghost town that day. And so our 7 33 specific department went ahead with our manager department meeting that morning. And I remember sending the email at about like 9:30 to like our Dean of students and their leadership team The management aspect in some instances is way 3 24 Manager is bad more political People who tend to like that, because they don't 14 12 want to be the bad person, and they don't want to Manager is bad see students to blame. , I feel like I can have more of an impact on more students through that that campus manager role, as Positive of Campus 5 13 opposed to advising one group or a small group of Manager students So I definitely think in that campus managerial Positive of Campus 7 33 role, if I'm not stepping into that, that panel that Manager happened after, it definitely does not happen. When you're the manager, everybody's looking at you when you're the campus manager role. If you 8 16 manager is harder don't have it right, then you're getting held accountable. 9 20 Yeah, I think the campus manager role is harder Manager is harder But I would still say in large part that it's more Manager is 2 35 reactionary. reactionary I would probably perform campus manager more More campus 2 5 often manager campus and where are we in the loop about what 6 3 Pipeline they were doing I'm more of the, it started through the process and the little checks where this is a problem, we need 4 14 Pipeline to ... this could potentially be a problem, we need to find out more type of information Because we find out a lot of things front end, that we're the advisors for the organizations, a lot of 6 1 Pipeline our student organizations fall in different pockets too. 143

But especially in the student facing role, it's much more about the advising piece and, again, guiding 3 6 Pipeline them in the right direction so that they, proactively rather than reactively. And that's why that proactive piece is so 16 6 Pipeline important- 4 30 So I think it really is where I enter the pipeline at Pipeline 4 44 getting them in early Pipeline student group that wanted to protest came in and 5 2 through dialogue we were able to resolve the Pipeline problem That committee is a feel of it. We looked at that and really tried to work with the students, said, "Yes, you can do this. We're never actually going 5 14 to say no you can't. Here's some things you maybe Pipeline want to consider," or different things like that. And agreeably work with them to be able to do that. We haven't had a situation where they've been told they can't do something. But even in that point then you know, kind of shifts over to the campus 9 13 manager role of, "Okay, you all want to do this." Pipeline Play a little bit of advisory role and then shift to, "Okay, now it's time to execute it. Let's make sure we do this smart, safe." You know, along that line. We try to get to them and say, "Listen, you absolutely can do this, and here's the avenues in 5 9 Pipeline which you can do it, and please let us know how we can help if there's anything we can do." We found out, one of our protests in the trustees, and we sat down with the group ahead of time. 7 16 Pipeline We knew they were going to protest, and we knew they were going to get arrested Well, most of the proactive stuff, we have been in contact with an advisor, and the group is being 8 15 Pipeline well advised, and we walk through all the campus policy I think it's, we are getting out ahead of it, with as 9 34 many conversations as we can, regarding use of Pipeline our space and policies. 144

, I mean I've made sure that they understood like there are regulations and rules when it comes to 5 18 Pipeline protesting and we had a free speech area, and they understood that More often than not, though, it feels near reactionary, is that something happens and so it's 3 6 how do we manage an institutional response or a Pipeline departmental response or even just trying to respond to concerns. . But there were also explicit planning meetings, where we would hear or know something was about to take place, and we meet to talk about it 2 11 Pipeline and try to figure out who was going to do what, what things we needed to interact, how do we, like you said, keep the flow of campus going . So we knew that she was aware of what they were planning to do, and that she'd given them 7 29 Pipeline some advice and I think in both of those situations, I think the bulk of the these, in some ways, that particular situation was really helpful, because 7 36 Pipeline you have to talk to both to them about the cost of civil disobedience I need to make sure, I also need to make sure the 10 7 university knows if the students are planning Pipeline something, so we can be ahead of it. Me, specifically, just because of the amount of issues that arise in trying to help the campus 2 5 Position Level adhere to their policies and procedures, and answer questions quite often On the flipside I also know that when you look at history of things that have really changed the Activism is a 3 30 college experience and have it times even changed positive laws has been connected to student activism However, and nobody's told me but it's just in my role, how I feel it's like, I need to protect the Protect the 16 17 university, I need to protect the university, I university need... we need to make sure that we have bad press, we need to make sure that our students... Which is what the feedback I got from people at 3 27 this conference I was at that I always encourage Student push my students to go out and fight the administration 145

I'm the super advisor, right? You know, you're a Type of 8 5 super user in a computer system. relationship If I have a personal relationship with them, but Type of 8 18 the, the gentleman who oversees student orgs in relationship our area, he's taken that active role too. Type of 16 9 as trying to stay engaged with the students relationship Type of 3 13 relationship we got to develop in the dialogue relationship Type of 3 44 I didn't have the relationship or the contact relationship building a relationship and report with those Type of 4 43 students relationship Type of 5 10 doesn't trust me relationship I really want to connect with students and Type of 2 14 understand what they're doing, in a little bit more relationship formal training sense Type of 9 7 I guess it would be more relational relationship Type of 5 9 We try to get to them and say relationship I try to get out in front of that as best I can, and go Type of 9 20 meet with the communities, I think, that are relationship . I think it's, we are getting out ahead of it, with as Type of 9 34 many conversations as we can, regarding use of relationship our space and policies. I had a relationship with them and then worked with them in so many different instances, whether it was student being a part of the Greek Type of 4 36 organization or working at the center or being on relationship black student government. Like they understood that and we had already built that rapport. Type of 7 1 so I had known him for some time relationship That was very convoluted, not only for me, but for him, about, okay, what role is Jeremy playing? Sometimes he's there to support me, sometimes Type of 8 1 he's there to comfort me when I got beat up, relationship sometimes he's there to hold me accountable, sometimes he's there to ask me questions about what happened to me. 146

They would talk about the University's expectations, but often would kind of give them Type of 1 29 advice and things to think about related to if there relationship was also a criminal component where there had been issue You can if they trust you and you have a good relationship with them, you can get in the weeds Type of 5 30 and you can help them to plan and do things that relationship are. . My relationship with the advisor and kind of the Type of 8 28 nature of the political situation at the institution. relationship Yeah, because it was student organizations and so I think that it would be assumed that that felt to me like these are student organizations so you Type of 7 10 need to handle it. You know these students. I did relationship not know the students. I looked them up on our database and emailed them.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !