When Activism Rises

COVID-19 Coverage : See how the pandemic is impacting the world of higher education.

When Activism Rises

September 2017

By Apryl Motley

Students on college and university campuses across the nation are protesting—and they are protesting a lot. Responding to everything from controversial speakers to politically-themed social events, students are more comfortable than ever with communicating their displeasure about what is or is not happening on their campuses.

In May 2016, TIME reported, in “The Revolution on America’s Campuses,” that major protests had occurred at more than 50 institutions where student protesters “made demands to right what they see as historic wrongs—demands for greater faculty diversity, new courses, public apologies, administrators’ ousting.”

Certainly, the results and aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, which ignited activism for and against President Donald Trump’s policies and decisions, presented another opportunity for unrest on campus in the form of various protests that ranged from petitions and signs to walkouts and rallies. Invitations extended to controversial figures to speak on campus also have been met with rigorous resistance by students who consider these individuals’ views so contrary to the values and ideals of the institution as to deny them a forum for addressing the campus community (see sidebar, “Speak Freely, But Not Too Freely”). And, protests against sexual assault and rape continue across the country, with a backdrop of data reported by the National Center for Victims of Crime indicating that as much as 60 percent of acquaintance rapes on college campuses occur in casual or steady dating relationships.

Whatever the issue or cause, according to the most recent results from UCLA’s annual CIRP Freshman Survey (2016), this trend in student activism is likely to continue. Close to 138,000 first-time, full-time students from around the U.S. were surveyed; and 22 percent report having already demonstrated for a cause; 51 percent have spoken up publicly about a cause; and 55 percent have helped raise money for a cause or campaign. In the 2015 survey, 8.5 percent of respondents indicated that they had a “very good chance” of participating in protests; this is the highest percentage in the survey’s 51-year history and an increase of almost 3 percent since the 2014 survey.

In 2016, participating students also expressed interest in becoming community leaders (43 percent), influencing social values (49 percent), and promoting racial understanding (47 percent).

Given these trends, higher education institutions are well served by efforts to better coordinate their strategic responses to social unrest on their campuses before, during, and after specific incidents take place.

Readying for the Rally

Students’ commitment to promoting racial understanding on their campuses and eliminating all forms of bias has generated numerous protests as evidenced by events last year at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Last April, several students staged a weeklong sit-in at the school’s Allen Building, which houses its administrative offices, to protest alleged racist treatment of employees.

During his tenure in higher education, Benjamin Reese, vice president of Duke’s Office for Institutional Equity since 2005, has seen his fair share of student protests. However, in his view, what distinguishes today’s student activism from that of previous decades, such as the 1960s, are methods of communication and student expectations. “If I think about a protest happening on Duke’s campus tomorrow, it likely will be in rapid response to some form of communication on social media,” Reese says, “which then influences students’ expectations in terms of how quickly we communicate and in what form.”

Additionally, according to Reese, students have greater expectations of those in leadership roles in terms of their ability to address their concerns. “Students expect them to be skilled in dealing with issues related to sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity,” he explains. “They expect them to be competent and responsive, which has led some of us in the higher education community to think differently about what’s appropriate preparation for leaders on our campuses.” To that end, following this most recent protest, the university put initiatives in place, including the formation of a Task Force on Hate and Bias Issues, the first to address student concerns as well as better prepare faculty and staff to address these issues.

While no specific incident precipitated the administration’s actions, similar measures were put in place at the University of Texas, Austin, to ensure that issues involving diversity were fully addressed. “We felt it was important to get out in front of this and not be reactive,” says Gregory Vincent, the university’s vice president of diversity and community engagement. “Because these issues are so high profile, it was critical to bring together the areas of the administration responsible for responding to concerns both on and off campus.”

In fact, it was an off-campus party hosted by a student organization in February 2015 that caused the most concern among faculty and students. The UT chapter of Phi Gamma Delta fraternity held an event deemed a “Border Patrol” party, at which some individuals dressed as construction workers and border patrol agents, while others dressed in ponchos and sombreros. The online reporting system monitored by the university’s Campus Climate Response Team (CCRT) provided a mechanism for tracking concerns about the event, which accounted for 20 percent of all reports of campus climate incidents received during the 2014–15 academic year. All reports filed about the party indicated race/ethnicity as the primary bias concern. Established in 2012, the CCRT plays a significant role in managing the university’s response to such potential incidents of bias on campus.

Both universities have put mechanisms in place that enable them to take a decidedly more coordinated and collaborative approach to responding to social issues on their campuses than they may have accomplished in the past.

Conversation and Collaboration

Perhaps student activism continues on higher education campuses because, in some respects, it proves effective in getting the leadership at these institutions to take action. A case in point is the establishment of Duke’s Task Force on Bias and Hate Issues—and subsequently the Bias and Hate Issues Committee—after a group of students staged the sit-in.

“After the takeover of the administration building, we established the task force and then the committee,” Reese notes. “One of the students’ demands was a better focus on addressing bias and hate issues on campus.”

The committee held its first meeting in February, met twice a month through May, and then began holding monthly meetings. Made up of students, faculty, and staff, the committee is charged with reviewing university policies and practices, examining educational and training programs, offering recommendations on university adjudication processes, and analyzing data on bias and hate issue trends. At Reese’s request, the committee will also provide guidance to the university president on specific incidents and issues.

According to Reese, this type of collaborative effort has become the norm and expectation on Duke’s campus. Here are a few examples:

The Office of Institutional Equity provided leadership in the creation of a revised Institutional Statement of Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion. “Five years ago, a few leaders on campus would have worked on this statement,” says Reese. “This time, a group of 40 people across campus participated in developing it. This was a community effort, which is the expectation that people have. Students expect that they will be included in leadership discussions.”
Reese’s office also took a collaborative approach to developing a video, “Building an Inclusive Work Environment at Duke,” to facilitate increased understanding of diversity and inclusion. “During the production process, I gathered input from the campus community,” Reese explains. “As a result, we went back and filmed three more segments based on their feedback after the first preview.” The goal is for 35,000 people to view the 15-minute video and respond to questions. More than 9,000 individuals have viewed the video so far.
Duke’s efforts include other resources to provide faculty and staff relevant education about diversity and inclusion. Reese’s office focuses about 20 percent of its efforts on students and the remainder on faculty and staff, so he has been very involved in coordinating and presenting training for the latter two groups, particularly in the area of implicit bias. (Reese describes such bias as “the positive or negative unconscious attitude we may hold about an individual or group.”)

At the beginning of their employee orientation, all new faculty members in arts and sciences participate in 90 minutes of training in recognizing implicit bias and techniques to temper unconscious beliefs and attitudes. “Doing this training at the beginning of orientation sends an important message,” says Reese. Additionally, attendance at workshops focused on unintentional biases is required before faculty can sit on search and selection committees within arts and sciences.

From Reese’s standpoint, all these efforts represent an important step towards addressing one of the primary challenges institutions face in their efforts to better address systemic bias on their campuses: “ … helping people at all levels of an organization to be more proficient in responding to the issues of the day around diversity and inclusion. Many people who are in leadership positions have not had that kind of formal learning experience.”

And leadership’s full commitment to an institution’s efforts is key. “Whether you have 9,000 students on your campus or 40,000, commitment from leadership is really critical,” Reese says. “After you’re six to eight months into your efforts, if addressing diversity and inclusion is going to remain a priority, senior leaders must view it that way and provide the necessary resources.”

Controlling Campus Climate

Significant resources have been allocated to support the work of Gregory Vincent’s office at the University of Texas, Austin. Since he began his tenure 10 years ago, Vincent has seen the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement grow to encompass a $50 million budget and more than 400 employees, 50 units, and 400 community partners.

The division includes the exemplary UT Charter School System, the Office for Inclusion and Equity (OIE), the Longhorn Center for Community Engagement, the University Interscholastic League, and the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health. The division also oversees initiatives to increase in the higher education pipeline the number of first-generation college students, and students from other underrepresented populations.

Other initiatives in the division’s portfolio include the Multicultural Engagement Center and the Social Justice Institute, which focus on building partnerships to solve challenges related to social justice, campus culture, equity, and access.

In general, all of these efforts are designed to encourage campuswide coordination around what can be, as Vincent notes, “very high-profile issues.” In his view, it was critical to bring together under one umbrella—the Campus Climate Response Team (CCRT)—all the areas of the university responsible for responding to concerns both on and off campus.

“This is a large university,” Vincent points out. “We felt it was really important to get out in front of potential issues and not be reactive, so we brought the leaders with strategic responsibility for ensuring a good campus climate together with the staff members who have the day-to-day responsibility for managing concerns that arise. Together they developed a good plan.”

This plan included the establishment of the CCRT, with the additional component of a comprehensive online reporting system. The CCRT is a universitywide strategy resource team that “develops and facilitates the implementation of appropriate responses to campus climate incidents impacting the UT Austin community.”

The team reports to Vincent, but is jointly coordinated through the division of diversity and community engagement and the division of student affairs. Its core functions include:

Gathering information about the specific incident and determining the best university office to respond or investigate the incident, if needed.
Supporting individuals involved, including both those targeted by the incident and those who initiated the incident.
Providing appropriate and effective education to everyone involved.
Identifying and connecting with appropriate support services.
Evaluating the response process post-incident.
Coordinating, when appropriate, activities with other campuswide entities, especially those involved with crisis management.

Triggering response. Most of the CCRT’s work is set in motion when a member of the campus community reports, via an online form, an incident related to bias or disrespect. While students make the majority of reports, the form is designed for use by students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents, and visitors. In addition to identifying themselves relative to their relationship to UT and the incident (victim, witness, or third party), those individuals filing reports are asked to describe the particulars of the incident (who, what, when, and so on) as well as what they believe is the perceived motive for the bias—and what type of response they would like to see as a result of reporting the incident.

From Vincent’s perspective, having this robust reporting system in place is crucial in leveraging the university’s resources to respond to and resolve these incidents. “Our primary goal is to get an accurate picture of what’s happening,” he says. “We can’t keep our heads in the sand.”

Still, he acknowledges that underreporting continues to be a challenge. “There’s a reluctance to report incidents because once you do, all the details are out there,” Vincent explains. “However, we’re trying to minimize underreporting by making sure that people know that we take this seriously, and we will take action.”

Continual communication. Educating UT Austin’s large campus community about the team’s work is important but also presents a delicate balance due to FERPA and other privacy concerns. “Because of such concerns, it is often not possible to share final actions and outcomes related to reported incidents,” says Leslie Blair, executive director of communications for the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement.

“We do try to educate the campus community about CCRT and the reporting system, so students, faculty, staff, and visitors know that reporting a bias incident or concern is possible. Every year, there’s a new incoming class that needs to be educated,” Blair explains, “so information about our work has been added to freshmen orientation. We also get the word out through campus presentations and publications, slides in the student union, and bus placards.” Certain members of the CCRT meet with the Diversity and Equity Student Action Council, which serves the team in an advisory capacity. However, because of confidentiality, there were no student representatives on the response team, a fact that concerned some students.

Student involvement. In line with students’ increased expectations of being involved in strategic campus discussions and processes, then-president of the UT Austin student body, Kevin Helgren, introduced a resolution to the student assembly in February supporting the creation of a Campus Climate Advisory Board. “CCRT currently lacks student representation, and we certainly want student voices to be heard during these climate conversations,” Helgren said in an interview with The Daily Texan, the university’s student newspaper. Composed of 20 students, the group was established and will begin meeting regularly.

Both Vincent and Blair underscore the importance of ongoing efforts to not only make stakeholders aware of the CCRT’s work, but to gain the response team’s trust and confidence in the process. “It’s really important that you empower complainants, and they feel that they have a say in the process,” Vincent says. “For example, if the complaint is about a professor and comments that he or she made in the classroom, we may coordinate a meeting between the complaining student and the faculty member, if that’s the desired outcome.

“Once you’ve got the right people at the table—representatives from student affairs, communications, and campus police, for example—you have to communicate that there’s a resource available on your campus for addressing bias issues,” says Vincent. “Then you must follow through. The process communicated to the campus has to work.”

APRYL MOTLEY, Columbia, Md., covers higher education business issues for Business Officer.

2016 – Students at Duke University staged a weeklong sit-in at the school’s Allen Building to protest alleged racist treatment of employees.

2012 – The University of Texas, Austin, establishes the Campus Climate Response Team to respond to potential incidents of bias.

$50M – The Division of Diversity and Community Engagement at the University of Texas, Austin, has a $50 million operating budget and more than 400 employees.

“It’s really important that you empower complainants, and they feel that they have a say in the process.”
—Gregory Vincent, University of Texas, Austin

Speak Freely, But Not Too Freely

To say that controversial scholar Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve (Free Press, 1994), hasn’t received a warm welcome on higher education campuses would be putting it mildly. At the end of March, protestors at Villanova University, Villanova, Pa., disrupted Murray’s lecture on “Trumpism” and liberty by chanting, “No Murray! No KKK! No fascist USA!”—and (as reported by the Associated Press) university public safety officers removed at least three protesters from the lecture hall.

As Taylor Becker, a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, observed in an op-ed for The Daily Pennsylvanian, Murray is one of those invited speakers that students “deem unworthy and prevent them from sharing their views.” Becker wrote these words in response to the hostile reception Murray received at Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt.

Murray visited the college in early March to debate Professor Allison Stanger. This university-sanctioned event ended with Stanger being hospitalized for injuries she sustained when student protesters assaulted the pair as they were leaving a campus building.

Undeterred by such behavior, Murray visited Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, two weeks after the incident, and news of his upcoming speech on public policy and social class as part of a BB&T–sponsored lecture series caused much angst and controversy on campus. As reported by Robby Korth in the Roanoke Times, numerous groups—both on and off campus—wrote open letters expressing their dissatisfaction with Murray’s upcoming visit.

This prompted Virginia Tech President Timothy Sands to write an open letter to the campus community in which he observed, “This will not be the last time that a student group, a faculty member, or the administration invites a speaker whose views will be regarded by some in our community as repugnant, offensive, or even fraudulent.” Sands concluded by encouraging the campus to “set an example for free speech and civil discourse.”

In addition to the war of words that took place leading up to Murray’s visit, several groups on campus also sponsored a counter-lecture given by University of Texas faculty member Jason Glenn. A group of protesters, comprising students, faculty, and other members of the community, greeted Murray when he arrived to speak. Private security officers checked attendees’ bags as they entered the venue to hear Murray’s lecture.

Therein lies the rub between freedom of speech and the trend towards holding higher education institutions responsible when controversial figures, undesirable to some, are given platforms from which to speak on their campuses. In a recent editorial in the Roanoke Times, Larry Hincker, associate vice president emeritus at Virginia Tech since his retirement in 2015, and the university’s primary spokesperson for more than two decades, weighed in on these issues: “One will not find a centralized ‘Office of Approved Speakers (OAS)’ on Virginia’s public campuses. When a student or faculty group invites a speaker to campus, they don’t first clear it with the president’s office,” he wrote.

“Yet, there is the public perception that holds a university administration responsible for the actions and speech of any individual speaking on campus, as if each speaker were first vetted and cleared by the fictitious OAS.”

Hincker contends that “defending free speech in the abstract is easy. Try it when emotions among key constituencies or the very powerful hit alert status.”

Murray’s reception at Virginia Tech is a case in point, and it was not an isolated incident. Other higher education institutions have been—or will be—faced with similar situations as the debate over free speech on campuses seems to only intensify.

So how should institutions manage them? Mark Owczarski, assistant vice president of university relations at Virginia Tech, offered, in an interview with Business Officer, his perspective on the university’s response to the controversial scholar’s visit.

Is there a specific group on campus that drives the way that the university will manage and/or respond to these types of speaker-related situations?

There is no central campus group that vets speakers. Speakers are invited to campus by individual student organizations, departments, or other university units. In the spirit of free speech, student and faculty invite whom they wish to invite. To invite a speaker (and to hold an event), you must register the event, so that you have a designated space and time, to prevent double bookings. This process also allows for review for public safety issues.

Which divisions of the university participate in planning or preparation for high-profile or potentially controversial events?

A variety of university units, such as student affairs, emergency management, police, and others, will collaborate once an event is scheduled. There are protocols in place that are initiated depending on the type of event. For example, if the event organizers or sponsors schedule an event that may draw a large crowd then crowd management and security resources may be required to ensure a safe environment.

For instance, if College Republicans invited a presidential candidate, you can be assured that police will be present to work with the Secret Service to coordinate required security. University relations, would also be brought in to manage media that would attend as well. The way in which the university responds is situational, recognizing that those situations can change at any time during an event.

What specific policies or processes are in place?

Again, there’s no particular university policy, other than the U.S. Constitution, that determines who can speak on campus. There are policies related to event management—such as the need for a permit for amplified sound for an event outdoors. All events must have a university sponsor (student club or university unit) and must have a registered location (to ensure public safety related to the event). Events that will have, or are believed to have, large numbers need minimum levels of ushering (professionally contracted service) and police for public safety. This is for all events, not just “controversial” ones. (Read more about the business office’s role in mitigating costs and potential damage of campus protests and related incidents in “Playing It Safe.”)

Who makes the decision to enlist private security?

Virginia Tech has a sworn police department, and they provide security on campus. We will hire professional management services to assist in event management. The use of that service is typically triggered by the anticipated number of attendees or the venue selected. In the event of a presidential candidate, for example, where extra security is needed, VT Police would work with other law enforcement agencies (e.g., Town of Blacksburg, Montgomery County sheriff, and/or state police), to meet security requirements, in addition to usher support. This is common during home football games, which draw crowds of 70,000 people.

Education as a Preventative Measure

The image of almost 1,000 young women wearing white dresses as they march from Barry University in Miami Shores to Johnson & Wales University in North Miami each February has become fairly commonplace. Now in its seventh year, Barry University’s annual College Brides Walk draws a large group of women (and some men) dedicated to ending domestic violence and raising awareness of dating violence on campus.

Barry’s march is one of several that grew out of the original 2001 march held in New York City on the second anniversary of the death of Gladys Ricart, who was murdered in 1999 by her ex-boyfriend on her wedding day.

For the past two years, planning for this event has been the core component of Barry’s Sociology 200 (SOC 200) course, Perspective Consciousness and Social Justice, for which students can earn the 10 service learning hours they are required to complete prior to graduation. “This service learning component of this course grew out of the need to create more courses to support the university’s strategic direction towards social justice,” says Laura Finley, associate professor of sociology and criminology since 2005 at Barry, one of the largest Catholic universities in the Southeast.

Collaborative communication. Finley worked with other faculty in numerous disciplinary areas, as well as with staff and students, to design a holistic, transformative domestic violence educational program that’s been in place at the university since 2006. “Students weren’t getting enough information about dating violence and domestic violence,” Finley explains. “How do you get this information to your student body? Do they recognize the signs of domestic or dating violence among friends and feel empowered to help them? They might hear about this in other courses, but maybe not. We wanted to make sure they were aware of resources on and off campus,” she explains.

“Some students don’t want to go to our counseling center in the student union. Further, people who are in abusive relationships often don’t see the problem; they miss the signs. Perhaps, other students can see the problem before a situation escalates.” To that end, all service learners receive orientation about the signs to look for in the progression of abusive behavior that may lead to violence.

According to Barry University’s 2015 annual security report, issued in compliance with the Jeanne Clery Act, only seven incidents of dating violence and two related to domestic violence were reported that year. However, most in the higher education community agree that these incidents are grossly underreported. A 2014 fact sheet issued by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women indicated that women between 18 and 24 years of age are at the greatest risk for intimate partner violence, and estimates of dating violence among college students range from 10 to 50 percent.

In 2014, Barry launched a “Victims Advocate Program” that provides support and assistance to students who have concerns specifically relating to sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and bullying. However, Finley notes, “Small campuses like ours (an institution with approximately 8,000 students enrolled) have some unique issues.”

Issues in action. To keep these issues in the forefront, the domestic violence education program (executed largely through SOC 200) incorporates year-round activities, with special emphasis in November for Domestic Violence Awareness Month and in February for the College Brides Walk. February is also Teen Dating Violence Month as well as the month of Valentine’s Day, a time when people’s thoughts often turn to relationships, healthy or otherwise.

In a 2013 article in the Journal of Peace Education and Social Justice, Finley noted that “although October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, November was selected as a month of focus, because organizers noticed that students found it difficult to choose between involvement in this program and other programs designed to raise awareness about breast cancer, disabilities, and other issues featured that month.” To develop the most effective, participatory program, scheduling and other factors were taken into consideration. For example, the program also includes arts-based components, such as theater, dance, and film in hopes of reaching a diverse population of students.

Service learning at the center. Also key to the curriculum’s design was focus on the service learning component. According to Finley, prior to the establishment of the university’s Center for Community Service Initiatives, in 2012, “the service learning requirement for students was very loosely structured.” From its inception, the domestic violence education program’s primary goal was to provide students with opportunities to engage in service that addressed the issue of gender-based violence, on and off campus, by aiding the community and victims in need.

“We want to help students better reflect on how their service connects to class and the community,” Finley explains. “For instance, when we better guide students in their reflections about working on the College Brides Walk, we’ve seen improvement in the quality of the academic papers they submit as part of the course.”

Finley also makes note of a less-traditional example of how students’ learning and service can be connected through their coursework. “Students make yard signs that are case studies of people in Miami who died from domestic violence, and we post them all over campus,” she explains. “Students are good at identifying relevant themes by researching and creating the signs.”

Students are definitely learning something, but are there ways to measure the impact of service learning programs on actual behavior? While evaluations and surveys have been distributed at past events and focus groups held, Finley acknowledges that “assessment is still a work in progress, and one can’t say that attitudes are being measurably impacted.”

Financial viability. In addition, she has concerns about the financial sustainability of the College Brides Walk. “I struggle to find funding each year,” Finley said. “Each year I front the costs and get reimbursed, which is not a sustainable model.” Currently, the event is funded through outside grants and two academic departments that also contribute funds.

Finley originally launched the event without administrative support from the university, but had hoped that its success would translate to financial support. In retrospect, to others considering similar initiatives on their campuses, she advises “going to administration ahead of time and getting all the institution pieces in line first. If you want to make your effort lasting and sustainable, that’s best.”

Despite these difficulties, there has been qualitative return on investment. “Students see me and others on campus as people they can talk to about these issues,” Finley says. “One of the best things that I’ve observed is that students come back year after year to participate in the walk, even after they’ve met their service credit requirement or even after graduating. A student whose mom had been a victim of domestic violence came back two years after his graduation to attend the event. They want to stay involved.”