Public Interest in Higher Education: How Students, Staff, and Faculty Access Participation to Secure Representation and Justice for Their Lives

By Ella M Sudduth

Public Interest in Higher Education explores the evolution of student activism on college campuses, how students, staff and faculty work together to identify collective problems they experience, and what challenges they must face to determine the best solutions.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Dec 12, 2023
• ISBN: 9798823018203

Book preview

© 2023 Ella M Sudduth. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 11/29/2023

ISBN: 979-8-8230-1821-0 (sc)

ISBN: 979-8-8230-1820-3 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023922259

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

CONTENTS

Abstract

Preface

Introduction

Historical Background

Argument Further Explained

Chapter Summary

Conclusion

Literature Used in this Study

Argument Further Explained

Conclusion

Chapter 1 Student Organizations and Social Capital

Introduction

Argument Further Explained

Legacies of The Higher Education Act

Shared Advocacy Mechanisms

Social Capital Theory

Student Government Organizations

College-wide Surveys

Conclusion

Chapter 2 Negotiation and Accountability

Introduction

Echoes of Dixon v. Alabama

Argument Further Explained

The Garbage Can Model

Devolution

Professionalism

Principled Negotiation

Conflict Resolution

Conclusion

Final Results

Introduction

Final Results

Bibliography

My work with the poor and the incarcerated has persuaded me that the opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice…I’ve come to believe that the true measure of our commitment to justice, the character of our society, our commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and equality cannot be measured by how we treat the rich, the powerful, the privileged, and the respected among us. The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned (Stevenson, 2014; p. 18).

The only thing they needed was hope…not a preference for optimism over pessimism, but rather ‘an orientation of the spirit.’ The kind of hope that creates a willingness to position oneself in a hopeless place and be a witness, that allows one to believe in a better future, even in the face of abusive power. That kind of hope makes one strong (Stevenson, 2014; p. 219).

— Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. Founder of the Equal Justice Initiative.

America is no longer the land of opportunity. Nothing illustrates what has happened more vividly than the plight of today’s twenty-year-olds. Instead of starting a new life, fresh with enthusiasm and hope, many of them confront a world of anxiety and fear. Burdened with student loans that they know they will struggle to repay and that would not be reduced even if they were bankrupt, they search for good jobs in a dismal market (Stiglitz, 2013; p. 332).

— Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers our Future. American Economist and Professor at Columbia University.

ABSTRACT

A merican higher education in the 21 st century is compared to a private industry. College institutions are structured like hierarchical business models (Beaudry & Crockford, 2015). However, some scholars suggest that corporatized governing structures have exacerbated economic problems, like college cost increases and stagnant degree completion rates (Bowen & Tobin, 2017). Hierarchical models of policy-making in SGAs and academic departments do not address the depth and complexity of environmental and social issues confronting students, staff, and faculty members on their campuses (Bowen & Tobin, 2017).

Policy-making cycles constantly evolve and shift focus to meet the needs of diverse individuals and groups. This book argues that more advanced and preventative policy alternatives require multiple perspectives to fill knowledge gaps in policy information at every stage. Political scientist John Kingdon theorizes that three elements must exist simultaneously to implement ideas into laws. Problems, Policies, and Politics operate in unison when people work together and participate in developing each policy stage: Agenda-Setting, Constructing Alternatives, Legitimizing, Implementing, and Evaluating.

College-wide policies reflect actual policy-making practices in democratic institutions. Through social interactions about many policy issues, colleges and larger societies design financial, health, and social welfare programs to fit the needs and interests of their residents. University governance practices influence how professionals in training will handle future challenges and problems in their communities after graduation (Boland, 2005). Civic education is not confined to the four walls of a classroom. In tandem, formulating public-oriented laws also takes place outside the four walls of a governing session, wherever compelling voices reach listening ears.

Keywords: higher education, student affairs, student governance, conflict resolution, negotiation techniques, student surveys, Total Quality Management (TQM).

PREFACE

I t

is vital to understand why the governing structure of educational institutions impacts individual and community well-being. Governing practices in academic settings determine how and when residential communities are informed about their surrounding environment. This study explores how college-wide public policies influence a diverse group of individuals and their experiences navigating college, including mine. My connection to my concern for other student residents was intensified when I tried adjusting to the campus environment for two years.

I never felt adjusted to campus life because I faced challenges maintaining my physical and mental health in an environment where essential resources and services for success, like the Wellness Center, were limited in their capacity to assist my and other students’ unique needs. At my campus job, I could not earn enough income to supply necessities like food, even when I invested in a meal plan. My college experience was not only defined by my personal observations and narratives, but also through conversations I had with students from different backgrounds.

When we talked about the negative or darker aspects of adjusting to campus, it was clear that other students were experiencing economic pressures extending beyond the campus grounds. Some students face profound obstacles to afford the costs of residential living and academic costs, which are entirely out of their control. Public campuses should be physically conducive for any person, regardless of socioeconomic status or identity, to successfully meet educational expectations, secure essential benefits for maintaining physical health, and grow positively.

By asking questions about the physical and mental challenges of my peers, I developed a deeper understanding of how my financial and social privileges differed from people who do not have the same privileges. Because I am White and middle-class, it is my responsibility to learn how to help my underserved peers self-advocate to receive higher-quality services relevant to their lives. A sense of belonging and a stable living space are essential for every person to feel safe and fully supported in their community. If students initiate and lead discussions about specific issues they want to see represented in college-wide decision-making, they could begin to improve facilities, resources, and services directly impacting their daily lives.

For many SGAs, student representatives believe they are helping to advocate for the student body, so they draft legislation and propose ideas. However, SGA overlooks many campus problems and solutions in their discussions because elected people are busy internally focusing on their discussions and ideas that grab their attention first. Because Student Speak-Outs and open-ended surveys are the only opportunities for non-elected students to give program feedback, urgent issues are neglected because most students do not submit feedback or attend SGA meetings. I was never involved with SGA, but I quickly realized that most people were not paying attention or interested in observing these meetings.

Policy making without including informed student feedback or recommendations does little to address their goals and interests. Students, staff, and faculty significantly impacted by important decisions are neither participating nor present in governing sessions to testify about what is most urgent to them. Where do students, staff, and faculty go when they need assistance or want to make impactful changes in their community? In modern economic conditions, students do not have excess time or energy to advocate for causes in SGA while fighting to live and survive daily on public campuses.

INTRODUCTION

L iving independently for the first time comes with unexpected obstacles, but some challenges cannot be overcome alone. When college students live on campus, they are confronted with situations where they must ask for help from their peers, communicate their stories, and advocate for their survival and success. However, when assistance is required, the resources available may be insufficient to support them in complex financial and social situations.

Assuming that we know what environmental conditions ensure every student’s success undermines the need to discover new and unforeseen problems emerging over time. To prevent individual and community issues from being treated as insignificant, this work explores which types of policy advocacy effectively address environmental challenges. In light of this, there is no fixed formula for reliable governance because it depends on a willingness to communicate and each person’s power to improve someone else’s life.

College-wide policies have the most influence on students’ lives and campus living conditions. Public policy-making and reaching decisions follow a cycle of defining, formulating, implementing, and evaluating ideas. This cycle does not always function optimally, but it is routinely shaped by human actors involved at each step of the process. Once policies are implemented, written doctrines and statutes often fail to reflect the objective outcomes of residential communities. With this in mind, the greatest challenge for any community is to explain why misrepresentation occurs and how public representatives can advocate better for future generations.

While there is extensive knowledge about the nature of higher education as a developing product to improve the quality and culture of the institution, current shared governance literature lacks knowledge regarding advocacy channels and access to justice for students, staff, and faculty under the authority of the Board of Trustees and President. As a result of few participation methods, most community members are excluded and marginalized from the college governing process.

This topic will concentrate on the policy-making relationships between the fluctuating student body and the long-term leadership at an institution. Student government associations, joint committees, and other methods of participation at universities will be analyzed to see whether current structures are effective or ineffective at solving community problems.

Current research seeks to identify policy solutions that create a learning environment most conducive for student success. However, it must first take steps to acknowledge that verbal student input is specifically required to discover the necessary conditions. A lack of policy attention to accessing supportive resources designed for students to transmit feedback perpetuates more disempowerment and half-developed definitions of policy problems, leading to ineffective implementation and evaluation of solutions.

In the United States, students, young people, and other voters in the present are fatigued, apathetic towards political engagement, and feel like their representatives need to be more in touch with their distinct needs. Why do students become politically disengaged at their institutions, and what are the challenges and barriers students face with college leadership?

On campus, students lack collective bargaining tools and have limited opportunities for shared advocacy at a governing table. Therefore, they require a myriad of choices and negotiation methods to initiate civic projects, access justice, and protect their livelihoods. American higher education institutions must direct their purpose towards discovering the problems, policy alternatives, and collaborative models most conducive for policy-making to accurately communicate the unique challenges of their evolving body of citizens.

Historical Background

The American Federation of Teachers, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, defines shared governance as ...a set of practices under which college faculty and staff participate in making significant decisions concerning the operation of their institution (AFT). Academic collective bargaining has historically been used as a governing tool by college faculty. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) ...supports collective bargaining as a means to advance the goals of the organization in their Statement on Collective Bargaining (AAUP).

Shared governance is a form of decision-making and political activity adopted by colleges and universities in the 19th century to maintain a balance between the authority of governing executives and the authority of faculty, so each has legitimate input.

In 1862, Harvard University professors felt dissatisfied with the unilateral decisions made by their governing board and president. The size and landscape of higher education have changed dramatically since the 1800s. Shared governance was initially intended as an alternative model to one group dominating authority over the other or a unionized faculty and staff. Today, shared governance mechanisms have social relevance and credibility as viable democratic tools for policy-making.

The university industry is considered fast-paced, dynamic, and often subject to external pressures to change. From the outside, they appear as isolated and autonomous enclaves; however, colleges and universities more often behave like interconnected governmental organizations. Resources and financial advantages vary for each university campus, so the governance structure resembles each unique place’s specific needs. For example, sizable unionized university campuses will more likely absorb the costs associated with collective bargaining agreements.

Public university faculty are encouraged to unionize, while formal unionization for private colleges is much more uncertain as it is governed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution. In 1980, the decision-making abilities of college faculty came into question in the U.S. Supreme Court case, National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University.

In a case over university decision-making authority, the Supreme Court ruled that the Yeshiva faculty held substantial control in academic and non-academic matters; therefore, the court compared their decision-making abilities to managers in a traditional industrial structure; To the extent the industrial analogy applies, the faculty determine…the product to be produced, the terms upon which it will be offered, and the customers who will be served (NLRB v. Yeshiva, 1980, para. 43).

Since the Yeshiva Doctrine regards faculty as managerial employees, private-sector faculty are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees the right for professionals in the private sector to form unions and legally engage in collective bargaining with their employers or superiors. The courts do not view faculty members as advocates in the community, but they are perceived as managers serving their clients or students.

In the 21st century, public and private universities and colleges widely employ shared governance principles in their standard operating procedures. Community colleges in some states have state-mandated shared governance structures. Over time, private institutions have faced increasing economic and political pressures to make operational changes detrimental to democratic principles.

The concept of shared governance in higher education contexts supports that faculty input in educational discussions is necessary to take into account. Administrators’ roles and responsibilities vary across institutions, but roles for students in decision-making are omitted entirely from standard operating procedures. This shift away from shared governance principles has advantages and disadvantages for the reliability of higher education institutions.

Faculty governance is often criticized for the inability to adapt to economic realities due to personal interests, inefficiency in decision-making, and ineffectiveness at expanding revenue streams. On the other hand, cost-cutting measures force administrators to bypass governance procedures to make swift, business-like decisions that have lasting implications (Beaudry, Crockford, 2015). In an article titled, Resurrecting Shared Governance: A Model to Face Uncertain Times in Higher Education, the researchers from Colby-Sawyer College in New Hampshire outline the advantages and disadvantages of less shared governance in this era.

The advantages are becoming more financially adaptable to change with the times, making decisions efficiently and swiftly when handling emergency crises, and expanding revenue streams for operational effectiveness. However, the disadvantages of eroding shared governance principles far outweigh the benefits. While there is more speed and efficiency with fewer people at the decision-making table, the disadvantages are that fewer faculty get involved in the governance process if tenure faculty are expected to take on more responsibility than part-time professors.

In addition, there is poor morale when faculty and staff voices are diminished, and they typically find a way to voice their concerns through methods like unionization. Some faculty may speak out about the imbalance of shared governance when a disfavorable decision is made, but at what point should leadership address their concerns about excluding essential input as a severe problem and take appropriate steps to be held accountable?

Beaudry and Crockford state, Concerns surrounding the political climate, eroding numbers of tenure-eligible, full-time faculty positions, and college governance have played a role in attracting unionization (Riley, 2011). Even though unionization leads to higher pay, it can negatively impact productivity and decision-making due to inflexible rules. Larger colleges may be able to absorb the costs of unions, but smaller, tuition-dependent colleges