New Directions for Student Services, no. 82, Summer 1998

Our institutions have become so blinded by the need to protect the rights of students that they have lost sight of the responsibilities of membership in our communities. Creeds, community standards, and learning communities are but a few of the mechanisms and methods being explored as we look for ways to balance individual responsibilities within an educational environment.

Institution Policy and Individual Responsibility: Communities of Justice and Principle

John Wesley Lowery


Over the years since the court’s decision in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961), campus judicial systems have become increasingly legalistic in their orientation. Other campus policies governing student life have followed suit. Although the changes brought about by Dixon and the cases that followed were needed to rectify constitutional inadequacies in campus judicial systems, there is some evidence that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of legalism. This trend has been exacerbated in recent years by the federal government’s micromanagement of student affairs and higher education as a whole (Gehring, 1994; Lowery, 1995). This chapter will examine the implications of student judicial systems and other policies regarding student life for the development of communities of justice and principle. Further, recommendations will be made for the development of institutional strategies to address the goals of justice and principle both within and beyond the policies in question.

Historical Perspective on Institutional Policies

From the beginning of American higher education, colleges and universities were concerned with students’ moral and ethical development, in additional to their intellectual growth (Rudolph, [1962] 1990). The rules that governed students’ live were often quite severe during the colonial period, and faculty were responsible for the administration of this system. The president of Princeton, Ashbel Green, blamed the six student rebellions that occurred at Princeton between 1800 and 1830 in part on these restrictive disciplinary policies (Brubacher and Rudy, 1968; Rudolph [1962] 1990). At the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson pursued an innovative course of action for dealing with the difficult problem of student discipline that involved students in the campus discipline system. He was forced to cease his effort during the university’s first year after a late-night disturbance by students including his own nephew, resulted in an attack on two faculty members. This incident struck such a serious blow to Jefferson’s fundamental belief in the concept of student self-governance that he soon abandoned his plans in the area of student discipline (Bruce, 1921). Similar programs were developed a few years later at Amherst and Colgate but were also short-lived. Only after the Civil War would such policies become commonplace (Smith, 1994)

Until Dixon, the relationship between students and their colleges was governed by a legal and educational doctrine of in loco parentis, colleges acting in the place of parents. Colleges and universities were expected to stand in the place of parents while making decisions governing students’ lives. There are four main aspects to action by an institution under the legal doctrine of in loco parentis (Hoekema, 1994 p. 34):

A broad authority to direct student behavior
The authority to punish infractions of disciplinary rules
A special responsibility of care for the welfare of students entrusted to is charge
A legal exemption from some of the legal requirements of due process in the carrying out its disciplinary procedures
Although the courts did not begin expressing this legal relationship until the time of the Civil War and would not use the term in loco parentis until Gott v. Berea in 1913, the relationship between students and colleges was parental from the beginnings of American higher education (Hoekema, 1994; Szablewicz and Gibbs, 1987). In the 1960’s, the courts began rejecting the legal doctrine of in loco parentis in Dixon, and they have continued to do so (Kaplin and Lee, 1995). As Rhatigan remarked "Paternalism has gotten a bad rap; the lawyers are now ‘in’" (Appleton, Briggs and Rhatigan, 1978, p. 99).

Although the legal doctrine of in loco parentis appears dead, the underlying philosophy of standing in place of parents still characterizes some colleges’ relationships with their students. Furthermore, a number of groups in society are calling for colleges and universities to supervise student life more closely in a manner that reminds some observers of the in loco parentis doctrine that the courts have repeatedly rejected (Dannells, 1997). The fact that no new philosophy has been created to replace the discredited in loco parentis has led many institutions to turn to legalism and proceduralism as a guiding theory (Carnegie Foundation, 1990). Judicial affairs officers and other student affairs professionals over the past several decades have been challenged by the need to balance the legal requirements imposed by the courts and Congress with student development principles (Caruso, 1978; Cooper and Lancaster, 1995).



Since the 1960’s, student affairs professionals have grown increasingly concerned about the legal dimensions of their work, which has directly affected the development of student judicial systems and other policies governing student life (Cooper and Lancaster, 1995). Travlestead (1987) suggested that much of this excessive proceduralism and legalism is self-inflicted. The courts only established broad principles governing student judicial system and did not require the elaborate systems that some institutions have chosen to create (Dannells, 1997). However, since 1989, Congress has also sought to influence policies concerning student life directly through legislation. The federal government has long followed a pattern of broad intrusion into higher education, but in the past decade a more specific pattern of intrusion into student affairs has emerged. Congressional micromanagement of student affairs began with the passage of the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1989 and continued with the passage of the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act the following year and its substantive amendment in 1992 by the Campus Sexual Assault Victim’s Bill of Rights Act (Gehring, 1994; Lowery, 1995). Although earlier legislation, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), affected student affairs, this new trend was different in that the legislation directly targeted areas traditionally associated with student affairs such as judicial matters and residence life. The trend has continued in the 105th Congress; the House of Representatives is considering several bills that would have an impact on student affairs. These include the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act (H.R. 715), the Freedom of Speech and Association on Campus Act (H.R. 980), and the College Campus Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Education Act (H.R. 1980). Similar trends concerning the micromanagement of higher education have been reported in several states. The evidence suggests that these trends will continue (Sabloff, 1997).

However, as student affairs professionals were criticizing federal regulation of high education for creating a culture of minimum compliance, the codes of student conduct and policies reflected a level of proceduralism and legalism that created a similar minimalist mind-set on the part of students regarding their conduct. The increasing proceduralsim of policies and federal intervention in higher education present concerns about the efficacy of these approaches. Two examples of these approaches are policies concerning alcohol and hate speech.



Research by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1990) found that college presidents where very concerned about substance abuse on campus and that 67 percent considered alcohol abuse a problem on their campuses. This is not a new problem for higher education; most of the disciplinary incidents that Thomas Jefferson struggled with at the University of Virginia were fueled by students’ alcohol consumption (Bruce 1921). Many institutions have responded by developing elaborate policies governing alcohol use on campus. The federal government has mandated such policies through the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C.. sec 1145, 1989). Despite such approaches, student alcohol use remains high. As Spitzberg and Thorndike (1992) observed, "More rules have no assured compliance. We must hope that the improvements in prevention, education, and cross-constituency cooperation will begin to modify student behavior positively" (p. 77).

Hate speech regulations are another example of such policy efforts. In response to concerns about racist of intolerant speech, a number of college in the late 1980’s developed codes that prohibited certain forms of speech. Aside from the fundamental issues about constitutionality, a broader concern is that these policies do not address the underlying racism and intolerance that they were established to combat. Hate speech codes is argued, push bigotry behind closed doors but do little, if anything, to eliminate it.

Although institutions must develop clear rules, rules alone are not enough to change student attitudes. Colleges and universities must seek to develop educational programs that support the underlying values of these policies and the development of individual responsibility.



A Clarion Call for Reform

One of the most important calls for the reform of higher education over the past decade has been the Carnegie Foundation’s Campus life: In Search of Community (1990). The Carnegie Foundation urged colleges and universities to seek to develop communities that are purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative. Investigators were specifically concerned about the problems posed by student discipline and policies governing student life. In his foreword to the report, Ernest Boyer stated, "This focus on renewal is motivated, at least in part, by concerns about the darker side of student life.

Confusion about governance and incidents of excessive drunkenness, incivility, and sexual and racial harassment could no longer be ignored, but more inspired motives are also involved" (p. xiii).

Clearly this search has a direct bearing on the task of developing communities of justice and principle. The creation of such communities stands at the heart of Campus Life. Just communities are those "where sacredness of each person is honored and diversity is aggressively pursued" (Carnegie Foundation, 1990, p. 25). A focus on the rights of the members of the community is a necessary step in the development of communities of justice. Disciplined communities are those where "individuals accept their obligations to the group and where well-defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good" (p. 37). Institutions cannot assume that justice is something that simply happens; they must address the issue in a deliberate manner.

The need to encourage and promote the individual responsibility is at the center of such a community. However, one aspect of the description of higher education today seems inaccurate. The Carnegie Foundation report observed that "in nonacademic matters, standards are ambiguous, at best, and what we found particularly disturbing is the ambivalence college administrators feel about their overall responsibility for student behavior" (1990, p. 37). Though upper-level administrators may be ambivalent, there is little evidence to support the charge that disciplinary policies are ambiguous. A more appropriate criticism in recent years charges that disciplinary policies have become too legalistic and specified (Dannells, 1997; Hoekema, 1994).

Although the Carnegie report was subtitled A Search for Community, it did not provide a working definition of this often used and seldom understood term in higher education. The report observed, "Today, there seems to be a lot of unspoken frustration which could explode anytime" (Carnegie Foundation 1990, p. 1). And at the heart of these concerns was what yet another president called "the loss of community," a feeling that colleges were so administratively and socially divided that common purposes are blurred or lost altogether.

Too often in higher education, "community" has been interpreted to mean the absence of conflict or disagreement. Parker Palmer (1987) offered an alternative definition of community based on his experiences in a Quaker living-and-learning community: "Community is that place where the person you least want to live with always lives. At the end of my second year, I came up with a corollary: When that person moves away, someone else arises immediately to take his or her place" (p. 20).

The Carnegie Foundation (1990) urged colleges and universities to use its report as the foundation for a campus compact for community. Institutions were encouraged to use the six dimensions of community (purposeful, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative) as the central feature of this compact, along with the institutions own values. This compact could then be used to guide academic and administrative decision making. The recommendations for creating campus compacts were expounded on by two of the report’s primary investigators, Spitzburg and Thorndike (1992), in Creating Community on College Campuses. Each of these works addresses the need for creating greater community. But there are other methods for addressing this need to develop communities of justice and principle.

In The Spirit of Community, Amitai Etzioni (1993) proposed a restructuring of the nation around this goal of community. American society, and its higher education system, has traditionally focused on rights to the exclusion of responsibility. American society placed preeminence on the individual, not the community. Etzioni and the communitarian movement believe that inherent rights on which our government is founded through the Constitution and its amendments are corresponding responsibilities that have been forgotten. The communitarian agenda for reshaping America would rely heavily on the schools to prepare students for life in this new society. Etzioni focused on the elementary and secondary education system, but his comments could be applied with equal force to higher education, particularly as it relates to developing communities of justice and principle, which require not lecture but experiences.

There are a variety of possible approaches for addressing the goals articulated by the Carnegie Foundation. Among these explored here and in other chapters of this volume are culture and values audits, creeds, community standards, and character and moral development.

Culture and Values Audits

An important first step in the development of programs to encourage communities of justice and principle, or any form of social change, is the examination of personal and shared community values (Astin, 1996). Institutions have a host of methods available to encourage students to examine their personal values within and beyond the classroom setting. Miami University has created a noncredit seminar in which students "examine questions about conviction in their own lives and the ways these convictions have inspired them to take leadership in various circumstances" (Roberts, 1996, p.8)

The identification of institutionally shared cultures and values involves a more difficult struggle that is fundamentally important in resolving issues. As Hoekema (194) has reported, "On any campus, we have noted, the rules for student conduct ought to reflect local traditions, and particularly vexing institutional problems that may exist, and the changing expectations and capabilities of students" (p. 143). Although his comments specifically address campus judicial codes, they can be applied with equal force to other policies governing student life. The first step in creating an environment that supports academic integrity, a value that most authorities would agree is central to higher education, is an affirmation that the institution is dedicated to the pursuit of truth, which require certain values including honesty (McCabe and Pavela, 1997).

Kuh and Whitt (1988) have defined culture in higher education as "the collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs and assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and groups in an institute of higher education and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events and actions on and off campus" (pp 12-13). Given this definition of culture. A culture audit is clearly one means to developing communities of justice and principle.

Whitt (1993) has identified eight principles for performing and institutional audit to gain a better understanding of campus culture. The first step is to identify and acknowledge one’s own assumptions regarding culture. One must also "respect the uniqueness and integrity of institution or division" (p. 84) to be studied. Furthermore, it must be recognized that to develop a true understanding of institutional culture requires the joint participation of members of the community and individuals from outside of it. It is also important to recognize that this process requires a dedication of resources and cannot be achieved without devoting the necessary time and effort. Whitt urged investigators to "try to get as much and as diverse information as you can by looking for contradictions and differences of opinion" (p. 85). She also recommended that diverse methodologies be used for gathering information.

Feedback should also be sought from members of the community on their perceptions of the culture audit process. (For more information in the process of a culture audit, see Whitt, 1993).

One alternative to culture audits is the values audit, developed the Society for Values in Higher Education to "systematically assess beliefs, goals, standards of choice and the manner in which they are lived or enacted; it also helps formulate recommendations according to the values proclaimed and practiced" (Wilcox and Ebbs, 1992, p. 255). Kuh and Hall (1993) have defined values as "the espoused as well the enacted ideal of an institution or group" that "serve as the basis on which members of a culture or subculture judge situations, acts, objects and people" (p. 6). Wilcox and Ebbs reported on one institution’s values audit, which can serve as a model for other institutions. The process included a large campus-based committee and outside consultants who conducted structured interviews, focus groups, document analysis, and surveys of the campus community. The results of these efforts were compiled, and members of the university community, including members of the values audit committee and others who did not initially participate, were asked to respond to the findings. This is a lengthy process, but as with culture audits, the "process is the important element" (Wilcox and Ebbs, 1992, p.258).

Through culture or values audits, colleges and universities can come to understand "the collective, mutually shaping patterns norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and groups" (Kuh and Whitt, 1988, pp.12-13) within the community. This understanding is a vital step in the development of policies and programs that will foster the development of communities of justice and principle. The process of gaining an understanding of culture and values is lengthy; the importance of this issue to future of higher education can reward institutions that dedicate the resources necessary to gain this understanding.

Creeds

In the late 1980’s, the University of South Carolina (1990) developed a unique approach to the growing problem of intolerance and decline of civility on campus, the Carolinian’s Creed (see Exhibit 2.1). The creed was not developed as another policy handed down by the administration; it was a positive expression of institutional values drafted by a broad-based group with representation from the entire university community (Pruitt, 1996).

In the years since the creation of the Carolinian’s Creed, a number of other institutions have developed their own institutional creeds. The difficulty inherent in this approach, or any method that seeks to fundamentally alter institutional culture, is the challenge of integrating the creed into the fabric of the institution. The University of South Carolina has taken every opportunity to introduce its creed has appeared in a variety of campus forums, including letters to the editor of the student newspaper and the officer installation ceremonies of student organizations. This would seem to indicate acceptance as part of campus culture.

Exhibit 2.1 The Carolinian’s Creed



The community of scholars at the

University of South Carolina is dedicated to personal and academic excellence.

Choosing to join the community obligates each member to a code of civilized behavior.

As a Carolinian...



...this introduction submits that membership in the Carolina community is not without its obligations. It is assumed or understood that joining is evidence of a subscription to certain ideals and an agreement to strive forthe level of achievement and virtue suggested by the following...



I will practice personal and academic integrity;



...a commitment to this ideal is inconsistent with cheating in classes, in games, or in sports. It should eliminate the practice of plagiarism or borrowing another student's homework, lying, deceit, excuse-making, and infidelity or disloyalty in personal relationships...



I will respect the dignity of all persons;



...a commitment to this ideal is inconsistent with behaviors which, compromise or demean the dignity of individuals or groups, including hazing, most forms of intimidating, taunting, teasing, baiting, ridiculing, insulting, harassing, and discriminating...



I will respect the rights and property of others;



...a commitment to this ideal is inconsistent with all forms of theft, vandalism, arson, misappropriation, malicious damage to, and desecration or destruction of property. Respect for others' personal rights is inconsistent with any behavior which violates their right to move about freely, express themselves appropriately, and to enjoy privacy...



I will discourage bigotry, while striving to learn from differences in people, ideas, and opinions;



...a commitment to this ideal pledges affirmative support for equal rights and opportunities for all students regardless of their age, sex, race, religion, disability, international/ethnic heritage, socioeconomic status, political, social or other affiliation or disaffiliation, or affectional preference...



I will demonstrate concern for others, their feelings, and their need for conditions which support their work and development.



...a commitment to this ideal is a pledge to be compassionate and considerate, to avoid behaviors which are insensitive, inhospitable, or incitant, or which unjustly or arbitrarily inhibit others' ability to feel safe or welcomed in their pursuit of appropriate academic goals...



Allegiance to these ideals requires each Carolinian to refrain from and discourage behaviors which threaten the freedom and respect every individual deserves.

...this last clause reminds community members that they are not only obliged to avoid these behaviors, but that they also have an affirmative obligation to confront and challenge, to respond to, or report



the behaviors whenever or wherever they are encountered.

The value of the creed lies not only in its words but also in the process by which it was developed and the inherent institutional values its expresses. As Elizabeth Kiss (1997), director of the Kenan Ethics Program at Duke University reported, "The values which college communities affirm in their policies and even more crucially, reinforce in their everyday practices have a powerful socializing effect on students as they remake themselves in the journey into adulthood" (p. 614). All too often, institutional values are buried in the prose of mission statements or lost in the administrative formality of student judicial codes and other policies governing student life. The Carolinian’s Creed and similar approaches at other institutions clearly express these core institutional values and provide the university community with a language by which members of the community can confront one another.

Community Standards

Like creeds, community standards are expressions of shared values and expectations, but they govern relations among a much smaller group of individuals. For example, George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and the University of Nevada in Las Vegas have used community standards extensively with groups of students within a residence hall (Piper, 1997). Early in the academic year, the residents meet and discuss their expectations for operation of the community through the year. These meetings are often lengthy, and topics addressed include almost everything from quiet hours to leaving empty pizza boxes in the hallway. Students do not have completely free rein in the establishing rules; however, the university does typically set some guidelines within which the group must function. These meetings are facilitated by trained volunteers or resident assistants who prepare a written statement of the community’s agreement or community compact that can be referenced throughout the year. Should members of the community decide that the statement needs amending, they can elect to do so during the academic year.



This approach stands in stark contrast to the traditional manner in which student discipline is addressed in most residence halls, as Gathercoal (1991) described: "One of the more glaring contradictions in college living organizations today is the autocratic approach many residence halls use to prepare their students to be responsible citizens in a democratic society. Students live under a management system of rules and decisions not unlike that authority they encountered at home, an authority, which rewards obedience, punishes offenders, and needs no justification other than ‘I am the authority here.’ It is no surprise then that hall staff are continually asking their students, ‘When are you going to grow up and begin thinking for yourself?'" (p. 41). Community standards replace the traditional emphasis on control with a philosophy of individual and group empowerment (piper, 1997). Community standards initiatives seem to have potential to prepare students to contribute as productive citizens in a democratic society.

Community standards differ dramatically from creeds in the enforcement of compliance: with community standards, members of the community are expected to confront one another when violations of the agreement occur, and procedures are in place for addressing complaints of noncompliance within the community. Creeds, by contrast, exist outside the institutional student judicial system and do not include enforcement mechanism. The goal of the informal adjudication process for community standards is to encourage members of the community to take responsibility for their actions and to challenge others who fail to abide by these shared values. The community does not have sanctioning power but can refer cases to the campus judicial systems if necessary (Piper, 1997). By having students develop the expectations themselves, the students have a greater stake in the expectations and should be more likely to intervene when another community member exceeds the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

The potential exists for the development of community standards within any community on campus. However, the possibilities seem greatest in a residential setting where students have sustained contact with one another throughout the year and cannot simply elect to leave the community. The nature of this consensus-building process dictates that the size of these communities be limited to allow full participation by each member. The greatest benefit of community standards is the opportunity for students to take ownership for the expectations of the community and to confront the others with in the community who fail to fulfill those expectations.

Character Education

During the 1970’s, Catholic colleges and universities under the leadership of the Association Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) began developing programs in peace and justice education (Johnson, 1981; Keenan, 1981; McInnes, 1981). These programs would be the first wave in a resurgent interest in character or values education. Character is comprised of two related issues: the capacity to understand the right action in a given context and the ability to take that action. Character development refers to the "progression of an individual’s capacity for understanding what is right or good in increasingly complex forms, and the willingness or courage to act on those conceptions" (Whiteley, 1982, p. 14). Character education is a series of experiences, formal and informal, promoting character in students.

This is not a new development in higher education. From the earliest colonial colleges, faculty saw their roles as attending to the moral and ethical development of students in addition to the intellectual (Rudolph, [1962] 1990). Over time, this view has changed substantial, and most faculty now view their role as limited solely to the latter of these areas. As Love and Goodsell Love (1995) observed, "The culture of higher education includes the assumption that while moral and ethical development occur while students are in college, they are no the purview of educators (that is, faculty) and this have been relegated to student affairs professionals" (p. 21). This movement seeks to incorporate discussions of character and ethics into the college environment both in and out of the classroom.

By encouraging students to become emotionally, socially , and intellectually involved in discussions about character and ethics, colleges and universities can develop a more seamless approach to this important issue. The benefits of this approach can include greater appreciation of diversity and fewer problems with student misconduct on the whole (Love and Goodsell Love, 1995). However, there are no magic bullets for teaching about character. "You can learn moral sensitivity and leadership through multiple choice tests, but only though practical engagement with others...We need to create opportunities for students to link their academic work with experiences, on and off campus whose lives differ from their own" (Kiss, 1997, p. 614).

Although most faculty have abandoned their role as moral educators, their active involvement is needed to keep the moral education movement alive and thriving (Pavela, 1997b). Many have criticized moral education as dogmatic and a result of religious conservatism. Though some proponents of character education might fit that description, it is important to recognize that moral education is something more. "Moral education is not about having all the answers but about a shared process of moral inquiry" (Kiss, 1997, p. 618). Character education programs are being introduced rapidly into the elementary and secondary education systems, and colleges and universities need to develop programs that will support and reinforce them (Pavela, 1997a).

Conclusion

Over the past several decades, institutional policies governing student conduct and other aspects of student life have become increasingly legalist and procedural in their attempts to seek justice, often at the cost of discouraging responsibility among students. Our institutions have become so blinded by the need to protect the rights of students that we have lost sight of the responsibilities of membership in our communities. All too often, the rights we are seeking to protect go far beyond the basic procedural requirements set forth by the courts in Dixon (1961) and the decisions that followed it. Before colleges and universities can develop programs of communities of justice and principle, the must examine their own institutional cultures and values and develop programs and policies that honor and reflect them. From this understanding will flow programs of justice and principle. Higher education must consider the values at the core of each institution and communicate them openly to the entire community.

It is important to recognize that there are no simple answers regarding how best to achieve these lofty goals or even strive toward them. As Elizabeth Kiss observed in an interview with Gary Pavela (1997b), "How we teach character in college is a complex question. I think it needs to be done in myriad ways. Explicit discussion of ethics is important, but so is the way rules are formulated and enforced, and the implicit message about the school’s values which are conveyed, for instance, in the alumni it celebrates" (p. 612). Colleges and universities should bear in mind the admonition of the Carnegie Foundation (1990) to be "an educationally purposeful community, a place where faculty and students share academic goals and work together to strengthen teaching and learning on the campus" (p. 9). As Kiss (1997) has admonished, this is not an easy process but rather a long and potentially treacherous journey that our college and university communities must make together. In many ways the journey is more important than the destination.