Running head: POLICY PAPER

Policy Paper

Jeffrey Eng, Julia Leavitt, Callie Moothart, Leezel Ramos

Seattle University

SDAD 5760 Leadership and Governance

Thai-Huy Nguyen

June 2, 2016
 POLICY PAPER 1

Introduction

From Kent State to Mizzou, even expanding to Seattle University's Matteo Ricci College,

student protestors have advocated for the ideas and causes that they believed in. Looking through

a historical lens to understand student protestors and their role in reforming institutional

governance, this paper will elucidate the most salient issues relating to university governance and

student activism today, highlight key responses to activists, and discuss implications for each

level of university governance. Themes of implementing students voices in governance, acting

on a swift timeline, and being transparent in proceedings emerge from modern and historical

examples. As presidents, boards, faculty, and student affairs professionals move forward in

response to student activism, it is essential to emphasize shared governance and respect for

student voices in the process of implementing changes. Student activists challenge the policies

and places where shared governance has gone astray, and their actions have widespread

implications for institutional governance in the future.

Higher Education Structure and Governance

Institutions of higher education function in fascinating ways. From historical institutions

to modern day innovators, the structures and leadership of an institution guide every decision.

With aspirations of shared governance, stakeholders within an institution, including faculty,

administration, and the board of trustees, collaborate and make decisions that shape the future of

the school (Shattock, 2006). This notion of shared governance, from which the authority and

responsibilities granted to the board of trustees are delegated to the president, faculty, and other

leaders, is the standard mode of operation for an institution of higher education (Olson, 2009).
 POLICY PAPER 2

How much authority and what specific responsibilities are delegated depends on the

institution type, mission, and structure. Typically, presidents oversee the operations of a

university, faculty are responsible for teaching, research, and curriculum, and boards of trustees

hire and oversee executive personnel, garner financial support for the institution, and dictate

university policy (Pierce, 2014). Within each role there is further delegation and collaboration

with other campus officials and leaders, developing an organizational structure that is unique to

the institution. Depending on public or private affiliation, institutional history, and organizational

style, each institution will approach shared governance differently. But the spirit of collaboration

is essential to the effective work of the institution and the successful leadership of its

administrators.

While higher education governance structures revolve around power and decision-

making, like any business model, the uniqueness of institutional makeup and mission differ from

the corporate world. State institutions can be held to strict laws that dictate the structure and

makeup of governance systems, including appointing board members, determining financial

support and overall budgets, and calling for transparency and accountability (Eckel & Kezar,

2006). State and institutional relations is one example of a conflict area for higher education

governance. As can be expected, the challenges of implementing effective shared governance are

many. Further, social changes can also impact shared governance on campus, leaving slow-

moving institutions in difficult situations.

The challenges to shared governance that have emerged in the modern era of higher

education are largely reflective of societal changes. Calls for accountability and transparency

have intensified the scrutiny of higher education (AGB Statement, 2010) and their leaders, which

can impact the reputations of institutions and lead to distrust. Vulnerable to criticism, higher
 POLICY PAPER 3

education in the US has been blamed by the public sector for poor graduation rates, increased

student debt, and the devaluing of a college degree (Pierce, 2014). The era of accountability and

transparency in higher education has deep implications for the notion of shared governance.

Financial changes in the private sector not only impact students who are looking to pay

for college, but institutions who may be operating without an endowment or sufficient resources

(Eckel & Kezar, 2006). Financial woes have caused smaller institutions to close their doors over

the last decade, while many others have experienced a downgrade in credit rates, cuts to

employee salaries and benefits, and layoffs (Pierce, 2014). These financial challenges can impact

an institutions leadership and management, often leading to difficult decisions.

Changes to academic leadership and faculty roles also threaten shared governance,

wherein many adjunct positions are taking over for full time and tenured professors, leaving

many faculty members without a voice or vote in academic senate or other governing bodies

(AGB Statement, 2010). The responsibilities of faculty members have also shifted, with the

rigors of research and teaching often taking priority over tasks of shared governance (Eckel &

Kezar, 2006). These changes from the academia of old are all part of the shifting nature of shared

governance within higher education.

The structures and leadership of higher education have shaped individual institutions for

better and worse. With the goal of shared governance, boards of trustees, administration, and

faculty work through the responsibilities of educating students and operating an institution.

Facing new challenges such as increased accountability, financial concerns, and shifts in faculty

influence, these institutions are charged with leadership and governance in the modern era of

higher education. When student activism is added to these challenges, often calling for the same

transparency and accountability as others outside the institution, the responses of university
 POLICY PAPER 4

leadership vary widely. From historical activists to modern movements, the structures and culture

of an institutions leadership has been challenged and changed.

Historical Context

Historically, higher education was created by a white upper class society to maintain a

highly educated and powerful white upper class. In fact, women were not matriculated into

higher education until 1837 when Oberlin College became the first institution to not only admit

women but also African American students (Graham, 1978). However, the intention of admitting

Black students and women is a motive to question and analyze, rather than to celebrate a

revolutionary inclusive practice in the 1800s. While in the 1800s it was most certainly

revolutionary considering the political climate around slavery and women's suffrage, historians

reveal that the development of women's colleges and historically black institutions were to

maintain a lower class to keep upper class white folks in power (Graham, 1978; Brazell, 1992).

In doing, colleges and universities became a primary influence on social roles and expectations

for men, women, and students of color. The historical development of admitting marginalized

populations into higher educations has had many implications for today's climate of inclusive

practices (Alford, 2013; Williamson, 2013; Wong, 2015).

Today it is not uncommon to read about students protesting against administrative

decisions and policies (Kingkade, 2015). Not surprisingly, this has been an ongoing struggle

since the inception of historically black universities and colleges (HBCUs) (Alford, 2013).

Brazell (1992) recounts the development of Spelman College, a Black women's college in

Atlanta Georgia during the post-emancipation era when Georgia was back in the union and

Blacks were gaining new freedoms. During this time, white upper class founders created

Spelman College to re-establish Black femininity, morals, and social roles because it was
 POLICY PAPER 5

believed at the time that the civil war and slavery destroyed such characteristics in Black culture

(Brazell, 1992). Spelman College was not the only HBCU to be created by upper class white

men and women. History shows a pattern of a white upper class reinforcing "legal" segregation

in the post-emancipation era to reinforce racial dominance and superiority (Alford, 2013). The

implications of this will have students fighting for the injustices that were not solved at the end

of slavery, but restructured through segregated education.

Administrative practices and roles in the development of higher education has led to

students' resistance and empowerment through protesting for inclusive and equal access to

education (Alford, 2013; Williamson, 2013). As women and students of color were admitted

unfair treatment, exclusive practices, and oppressive ideologies continued to control from the

executive administration and trickle down through the student body resulting in upset and protest

(Alford, 2013; Williamson, 2013). For example, James E. Alford Jr. (2013) studied the role of

alumni and student activists at three HBCUs that were developed and ran by a predominantly

white, upper class, board of trustees between the 1920s and 1950s. During this thirty year period

at Fisk University, Hampton Institute, and Lincoln University, the board of trustees controlled

everything from academic programs, admissions, student affairs, and every facet of institutional

authority. For the first time in history alumni associations and student organizations joined forces

to demand that the board of trustees make changes to promote integration, student autonomy,

direction of their academic programs, and alumni participation on the board of trustees (Alford,

2013, p. 11). After a thirty year period of ongoing student and alumni protests, Fisk, Hampton,

and Lincoln finally reconciled with their stakeholder's demands and "effectively transformed

their institutions, their administrations, and their policies to accurately reflect the population and

community for which the schools were established" (Alford, 2013, p. 145).
 POLICY PAPER 6

Another example of student activism resulting in social change is at the University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from the 1960s to the 1970s. During this period Black Student

Associations replicated the Black Power principles, demanded for Black Studies, cultural

centers, increased enrollment of Black students, and more faculty and staff of color (Williamson,

2013). In September of 1968 upset over unfair housing and financial aid roared throughout

campus. Black students would aggressively disrupt the social order at Illinois and demand

institutional reform (Williamson, 2013, p. 81), which resulted in students arrests. Following the

arrests, external stakeholders such as the government and members of the community demanded

that the University take control of their student activists; however, the University of Illinois

sought out to accommodate two of the students demands: for a Black Studies program and a

cultural center to improve underachievement rates of Black students. As a result of this

progressive administrative action, alumni and government stakeholders shared their discontent.

Despite the Chancellor advocating for more social order and control of student activists, the

Black student protests and demands results in positive institutional change during a time of

heightened racial tensions (Williamson, 2013).

Student activism, whether aggressive or passive, is not a new phenomenon. Despite

decades of reform and liberation, injustice and inequity continues to persist in the United States.

Perhaps Fisk University, Hampton Institute, Lincoln University (Alford, 2013), and the

University of Illinois (Williamson, 2013) are a few example of how students, when heard, can

bring positive institutional change. However, in all of the examples cited above, it is important to

note that students of color were the key stakeholders responsible to demanding such changes

from predominantly white board of trustees who were satisfied with maintaining the status quo.

While student activism remains prevalent in higher education, what is not as clear is how
 POLICY PAPER 7

executive administrations listen and respond to students demands. While students continue to

demand for educational equalities administrations continue to seek control instead of

accommodations. For example, the University of California, Davis, in 2011, when a campus

police officer pepper-sprayed a group of seated students involved in an Occupy protest (Wong,

2015); as well as, the University of Chicagos social media campaign with #Liabilityofthemind

in response to renewed efforts by the UChicago Electronic Army (UEA) to threaten and

intimidate marginalized students and campus activists (Bolger, 2015).

Recent Student Activism

What may appear to be a sudden escalation in the number of cases of student activism on

college campuses around the country is in fact not a new phenomenon, and a majority of these

protests centered on racially charged incident(s). Arguably the tipping point in 2015 for all these

demonstrations started at the University of Missouri where the culmination of student protestors

discontent over the administration handling of racist incidents that occurred on campus erupted,

and the ensuing fallout that permeated across college campuses around the country. Typically

what follows are that student activists will create a list of demands that are often extreme, but not

necessarily unjust (Grenoble, Kingkade, & Workneh, 2015). The role of the president and

administration in this process is not readily apparent. There is a clear disconnect between

students view of the role for the president in these incidents compared to the administration.

Students view the president as someone who should be accessible and responsive, but what that

looks like is debatable (Dickey, & Luckerson, 2015).

The University of Missouri is a prime example of how an institution's administration has

largely been perceived as not having done enough to address the rising needs and concerns of

their students. However, this perception of what it means to respond in a timely and appropriate
 POLICY PAPER 8

manner can be subjective depending on whom you ask. In our context we define timely as an

institutions ability to provide an organized and transparent timeline of next steps that an

institution will take. We define an institutions ability to adequately respond as the ability to

gather evidence, the formation of working committees, and implementing appropriate

interventions based off of committees research findings and utilizing best practices. The through

line for a proper administrative response when handling student protests revolves around the

concept of shared governance and the inclusion of students voice in the process. Administrative

response that acts independently without bringing in students perspectives will see a less than

effective outcome.

The following is a brief outline of the pertinent events that transpired near and at the

University of Missouri: August 9, 2015 police officer in Ferguson, Missouri shoots and kills

unarmed black teen Michael Brown spurring the Black Lives Matter movement; October 8

Chancellor Loftin amid a slew of racially charged incidents that occurred the month prior on

campus orders diversity training for faculty, staff, and students; October 10 student protestors

block Missouri University System President Tim Wolfe's car and the driver clips a student. Wolfe

was silent during the encounter (Kingkade, 2015); October 20 the student group Concerned

Students 1950 (in reference to first year that black students were allowed admissions to MU)

makes their list of demands; administration does not respond immediately and on October 26

Wolfe meets with students privately and does not agree to demands; November 3 MUs graduate

student Jonathan Butler goes on hunger strike; November 6 Wolfe issues apology to student

group but inflamed students when he made a statement appearing to blame students for systems

of oppression; November 8 football team goes on strike until Wolfe resigns; and November 9

Wolfe resigns (Pierson, 2015).

 POLICY PAPER 9

Applying our definitions on what constitutes a timely and adequate response to the list of

protestors demands that was generated from the Concerned Students 1950 group, the

administration and Tim Wolfe did little to acknowledge or address students concerns on the racial

injustices occurring on campus evident by his silence during the infamous car clipping incident,

and Wolfes outright refusal of their demands. We are not arguing the Wolfe should have simply

agreed to protestors demands, but there did not appear to be a clear timeline for addressing any

of their demands with the exception of Chancellor Loftins ordering diversity training for faculty,

staff, and students, which occurred weeks prior to students demands. Addressing students

demands that were clearly outlined in students list of demands, and enacting appropriate action

in a timely fashion on how the administration intends to improve the campus racial climate must

take priority. As the graduate student Jonathan Butler who launched a hunger strike puts it, Mr.

Wolfe had ample opportunity to create policies and reform that could shift the culture of Mizzou

in a positive direction but in each scenario he failed to do so."

As the Chronicle of Higher Education reported by Stripling (2016) things are improving

at MU after Tim Wolfes resignation, Michael A. Middleton who is a veteran civil-rights lawyer

was named interim system president. He has since recommended a system-level diversity officer

and charged in creating a task force to look at best practices. He is quoted in saying that the

administration had no concerted, consistent effort" in making diversity a system wide priority,

which adds credibility to students perception of the administrations inadequate response. "The

students are not in charge," Middleton assured. "But the students' not being in charge does not

mean that they don't matter." His statement shows the fine line that a president needs to take to

appease to both administrators and students. MUs administration still has a long road to
POLICY PAPER 10

recovery to build confidence amongst its students that that racial campus climate will improve

through review and implementation of best practices.

On the other side of the spectrum is student protests at Emory University that was spurred

on by the protest occurring at MU to stand in solidarity. The list of demands shared many

similarities with MUs, including increasing faculty of color, and increasing funding and

resources for diversity training initiatives. However, the approach that the administration took

during their student protest highlights how an administration can act in a timely manner, and

appropriately in times of student unrest. Ajay Nair (2016) who serves as Senior Vice President

and Dean of Campus Life at Emory wrote in the Student Affairs Administrators in Higher

Education on how they transformed students demands into action. The inclusion of students in

the process of creating working groups to receive feedback for next steps was key in creating a

transparent process, and also serves to mitigate students concerns. A Racial Justice Retreat was

created where working groups that consisted of students, faculty, and staff would meet to make

action items, timelines, and accountability measures to address each of the 13 demands listed.

This epitomizes the concept of shared governance with the inclusion of university's major

stakeholders, and the value of including student voices in the decision-making process. A draft of

the report that was generated was posted online for all to view and a deadline set to modify any

of the recommendations or action items. This highlights what a timely and transparent process

can look like. A number of initiatives and changes have occurred as a result of the retreat

including creating a bridge program for underrepresented minority and first generation students

for STEM, revising the process for reporting and managing bias incidents on campus, and

counseling and psychological services will provide support specifically to students of color with

a number of other services and programs still in progress for implementation (Nair, 2016).
POLICY PAPER 11

Between the protests starting in mid November until late February the administration was able to

implement a number of programmatic and policy changes in a timely manner that aims to

improve the racial campus climate at Emory.

The road to improving the campus climate at Emory is still a work in progress as evident

by the recent Pro-Trump chalking on campus and students discontent with how the

administration handled the incident. Overnight chalking was found across campus in support of

Trumps presidential campaign (Budnyk, 2016). Perceptions among students were mixed on how

the administration handled the incident, but ultimately the end result was an administrative

response that was in line with the above definition of a timely and appropriate response, that

valued students voice in the process.

Themes

Through analysis of the historical and modern examples, three major themes emerge from

student activists. Students are calling for greater representation and for their voices to be heard

and considered in campus decision making. With the implementation of changes and

restructuring, students request expedited timelines and swift action on the part of the institution.

Finally, students demand transparency and accountability from their institutions, leading to

clearer structures of governance and availability of information. These themes represent the

changes that are still needed as higher education seeks to modernize for the 21st Century, offering

insight into how shared governance can be implemented with current needs in mind.

Students calls for representation are not new, as historical and modern examples attest.

Historically marginalized populations have fought for greater presence in higher education and

for access to quality and comprehensive curriculum (Williamson, 2013). Listening to the voices
POLICY PAPER 12

of student activists has been more difficult for some institutions than others, as examples above

illustrate. The call for student voices in governance decisions is not new, as student activists

often employ innovative techniques to amplify their voices and get their points across (Pierce,

2014). With modern technology and avenues for expression, students are able to promote and

draw attention to their causes, amplifying their voices and their positions. In administrative

responses to student activism, representation has been a key theme that must be addressed.

Swift action has been a key theme of student activists, across the wide issues that students

have sought to address. Without immediate action, students argue, institutions are stuck in the

same trappings of slow processes and bureaucratic red tape (Nair, 2016). Universities that have

successfully demonstrated quick movement on student demands, such as the Emory example

highlighted above, have seen greater reconciliation and collaboration than those that allow

protest movements to carry on without considering student ideas. Acting on swift timelines also

addresses the gravity of student concerns, sending a message that the administration values

student voices and seeks to find common understanding. University administration must address

student concerns in a responsive manner, managing the risk of prolonged student protest and

diminished student welfare (Pierce, 2014).

Transparency and accountability are essential not only to shared governance within an

institution, but in responding to student activism. Student protestors want transparency within the

leadership of their institutions, avenues to express concerns, and structures that clearly define

accountability (Nair, 2016; Pierce, 2014; Eckel & Kezar, 2006). Offering transparency in how

decisions are made is key for student activists, who may feel in the dark about decisions that

affect their education and experiences. University administrators can offer appropriate forums

and avenues of communication to address transparency issues, as well as install systems for
POLICY PAPER 13

airing grievances that are available to students (Pierce, 2014). In calling for increased

transparency and accountability, student activists offer an important emphasis on what shared

governance should look like at institutions of higher education.

These themes do not encompass the demands of student activists, but instead define the

circumstances under which positive change can develop. By offering students fair representation,

acting quickly to address concerns, and establishing accountability and transparency, institutions

can seek to learn from student protesters and create a path toward a better educational

environment.

Implications for Practice

If the above examples are any indication, there is no clear one-size-fits-all approach on

how an administration should respond to student protest that would be deemed satisfactory to all

parties involved, but that does not mean there are lessons that cant be learned from these

incidents. There are a number of implications for practice that can be drawn upon for presidents,

board of trustees, faculty, and senior student affairs professionals.

Board of Trustees

Historically the board of trustees have been endowed members of the community, alumni,

and key stakeholders who contribute to the longevity and institutional mission of colleges and

universities. Freeman (2004) identified five duties that boards are responsible for:

1) to select and support the president; 2) to formulate and pursue the institutions

mission; 3) to oversee the educational program; 4) to nurture the institutions tangible

assets; and 5) to care for the institutions in tangible assets, especially academic freedom,

the commitment to excellenceand its ethical standards (p. 15-16).

POLICY PAPER 14

In summary, the board of trustees are endowed with the responsibility of approving and

upholding institutional policies. The board is delegated the duty of governance while the

president is assigned with the responsibility of managing the institution (Rhodes, 2001 from

Freeman, 2004). However, in governing policies and procedures to uphold the mission and care

for both tangible and intangible assets, it is important to consider who or what that might even

be. While Freeman (2004) explains that intangible assets might be considered ethical standards

(p. 16), it is arguable that tangible assets be analogous to the students. The student body is

directly impacted by the boards governance because the students live the institutions mission

through their involvement and their academics. Therefore, it would be highly recommended for

the board of trustees to let student voices be heard and responded to in a timely fashion.

One tangible way of hearing and responding to student voices is through the role of the

student trustee. While the roles and responsibilities of student trustees varies across institutions

there are some implications of how universities can use them to capitalize on the student voice

(Alvarez-Breckenridge, 2010). According to the Association of Governing Boards, when student

trustees are elected by other students their contribution to the board "generally focuses on

operational, student-oriented issues and represents the student bodys voice on the board"

(Alvarez-Breckenridge, 2010). While it is often unclear how effective and contributive the role

of a student trustee really is, boards have an opportunity to engage and assess their institution's

mission through the participation of a student trustee. Alvarez-Breckenridge (2010) suggests that

in order for an institution's board of trustees to effectively work with a student trustee they

should create clear expectations, goals, and a timeline for the student's participation on the board.

Therefore, when the student trustee brings an issue or disagreement from the student body to the

board there will be clear expectations of how to meet a mutually beneficial goal.
POLICY PAPER 15

Senior Administration

Students' expectations of what presidents do is different than what the administration's

expectations are of the president. Presidents are elected by the board of trustees to serve on their

behalf to operate in the best interest of the financial makeup of the institution (Freeman, 2010).

Students' demands are often out of the scope of a presidents responsibilities (Kingkade, 2015;

Freeman, 2010). However, having such a high seated position of power it is reasonable for

students to expect more action on their behalf (Fisher, 1984); especially, since students too are

long-term financial investors (Neate, 2016). Fisher (1984) describes how holding positions with

influence and authority is synonymous with holding "power" (Fisher, 1984, p. 30). However, the

type of power that college presidents hold can be used to influence positive change if their roles

were structured to cater more inclusively to students (Fisher, 1984). Fisher (1984) describes

"expert power" as a way of influencing constituents based on proving one's prestige knowledge

in their office, institution, and in their role as president (p.39). Moreover, Fisher emphasizes that

presidents who demonstrate expert power admit their wrong doings, and strive to not make

mistakes (1984, p. 39). However, if students are unaware of the roles and responsibilities of

presidents and place higher demands than they are capable or knowledgeable to address, than

what can presidents do to improve their position and better meet students needs? Presidents and

board of trustees need to look at their job descriptions and reevaluate their roles. They need to

expand their duties and expectation to hold themselves accountable to serving students' needs.

Based on the consistency of student activism (Alford, 2013; Williamson, 2014; Stripling, 2016),

there is a clear need for presidents to expand their roles to be more inclusive of student needs.

Many colleges and university have been called by students to hire a Chief Diversity

Officer for their respective campus (WeTheProtesters, 2015); in essence, it is a charge to

POLICY PAPER 16

examine hiring practices to better reflect increasingly changing student demographics. Jones

(2016) writes that institutions would need to go beyond that to address systematic challenges:

[Student protesters] want more students who look like them, more faculty who

look like them, and they want people to be treated differently," [Mary Frances

Berry, a former chair and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights]

said [T]he latitude a chief diversity officer might enjoy likely would depend on

whether the college or university was a private or public institution -- with all its

various constituencies, including trustees, alumni and, for public schools,

legislators -- and how adapting the process for the hiring, promotion and

retention of faculty would work

Faculty and Staff

Staff and faculty have high student contact and can serve in influential roles for students.

What roles can these individuals and collective bodies play? Research demonstrates

that activism is a vehicle for student learning about democratic process, citizenship, and

leadership, an area of learning noted as being in decline nationally among students (Kezar &

Maxey, 2014, p. 32). Authors, Kezar and Maxey (2014) continue by describing the approaches in

ways faculty and staff work in allyship with students to achieve campus changes:

(a) developing plans for change,

(b) determining strategies,

(c) learning approaches to consciousness raising,

(d) learning the language of those in power and how the system works,
POLICY PAPER 17

(e) understanding mediation and negotiation,

(f) using data to influence decision makers, and

(g) navigating and overcoming obstacles in the change process

(p. 33).

Through one or many of these actions, staff and faculty can advocate in parallel with students. As

illustrated in Figure 3.1, it is also important to acknowledge that advocacy looks different for

everyone and can vary in visibility.

(Kezar & Maxey, 2014, p. 37).

Rising professionals can discern what type of action (or inaction) are most meaningful and

authentic for them. J. Patrick Biddix (2014) explains, in 2009, Dey and Associates stressed

the active role of secondary educators in producing an educated and engaged citizenry,

advocating civic learning as an essential outcome for college students the authors of Learning

Reconsidered (Keeling & Associates, 2004) urged educators to view activism as an expression of

civic engagement, later described as offering developmental opportunities for students (Komives,

Lucas, & McMahon, 2007) (p. 77).

Student activism on campuses provides the gift of urgency where all members of campus

community are invited to live their values through their leadership.

Limitations
POLICY PAPER 18

Each institution sits in very specific historical and present-day context. There are many

conditions that influence culture and processes. It is important to consider how these factors are

interconnected when determining the most appropriate next steps in the midst of acute situations.

Especially at public colleges and universities, with an expanded reach of constituents and entities

to report to including tax payers and elected officials. Furthermore, public institutions are held

accountable to constitutional law and tort liability as individuals navigate acting as private

citizens and/or agents of the state (Milam, 2015).

Conclusion

Historical and modern examples of activism in higher education have shown students

commitments to having their voices heard. In calling for transparency and swift action, students

demands have highlighted institutional shortcomings and places where shared governance has

failed. Student activism has key implications for campus stakeholders, including the board of

trustee, presidents, chief diversity officers, faculty, and staff. In responding to student activism,

institutions have a responsibility to listen to student concerns, implement positive changes, and

model a shared governance system that is accountable and transparent. Student activism is more

than calls for the ideals of justice and the implementation of radical change, it is essential for

ensuring that the checks and balances of shared governance are working.

References

Alford, J. E., Jr. (2013). For alma mater: Fighting for change at historically black colleges and

universities. History of Education Quarterly, Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

POLICY PAPER 19

Theses A&I. (1364612106). Retrieved from http://login.proxy.seattleu.edu/login?

url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1364612106?accountid=28598

Alvarez-Breckenridge, C. (2010). Making the best use of student trustees. Trustee Magazine.

Washington, D.C. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Retrieved from http://agb.org/trusteeship/2010/julyaugust/making-the-best-use-of-

student-trustees

Author. (2010). AGB Statement on Institutional Governance. Washington, D.C.,Association of

Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
Biddix, J. P. (2014). Development through dissent: Campus activism as civic learning. New

Directions for Higher Education, 2014(167), 73-85. doi:10.1002/he.20106. Retrieved

from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=a9h&AN=103583032&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bolger, D. (2015). The University of Chicago: UChicago students speak out against institutional

failures with tranding #liabilityofthemind hashtag. Feministing.com. Retrieved from

http://feministing.com/2014/11/19/uchicago-students-speak-out-against-institutional-

failures-with-trending-liabilityofthemind-hashtag/

Brazzell, J. C. (1992). Bricks without straw: Missionary-sponsored black higher education in the

post-emancipation era. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(1), 26. Retrieved from

http://login.proxy.seattleu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/205312986?

accountid=28598

Brown, S. (2009). Exactly What Is 'Shared Governance'? Retrieved June 02, 2016, from
http://chronicle.com/article/Exactly-What-Is-Shared/47065/
Budnyk, S. (2016). Emory students express discontent with administrative response to

Trump chalkings. The Emory Wheel, Retrieved from http://emorywheel.com/emory-

POLICY PAPER 20

students-express-discontent-with-administrative-response-to-trump-chalkings/

Dey, E. L., & Associates. (2009). Civic responsibility: What is the campus climate for learning?

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Dickey, J., & Luckerson, V. (2015). Two college protests reveal growing divides on American
campuses. Time, 186(21), 34-35.
Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2006). The Challenges Facing Academic Decision
Making:Contemporary Issues and Steadfast Structures. In P. Eckel (Ed.), The Shifting

Frontiersof Academic Decision Making: Responding to New Priorities, Following New

Pathways(p. 2-14). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Fisher, J. L. (1984). Power of the Presidency. New York, NY, Macmillan Publishing Company.
Freedman, J. (2004). Presidents and Trustees. In Governing Academia. R. Ehrenberg. (Ed.)

Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press: (p. 9-27)

Graham, P. A.. (1978). Expansion and exclusion: A history of women in American higher

education. Signs, 3(4), 759773. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.seattleu.edu/stable/3173112

Grenoble, R., Kingkade, T., & Workneh (2015). Campus racism protests didnt come out of

nowhere, and they arent going away quickly. The Huffington Post, Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campus-racism-protests-didnt-come-out-of-
nowhere_us_56464a87e4b08cda3488bfb4

Jones, J. (2016). Demanding inclusion. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 4-8. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=113878733&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Keeling, R. P., & Associates. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the
POLICY PAPER 21

student experience. Washington, DC: The National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators, The American College Personnel Association.

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

democratic engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(167), 31-41.

doi:10.1002/he.20103

Kingkade, T. (2015, November 12). The incident you have to see to understand why

students wanted Mizzou's president to go. The Huffington Post, Retrieved

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-wolfe-homecoming-
parade_us_56402cc8e4b0307f2cadea10

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2007). Exploring leadership: For college

students who want to make a difference (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Milam, S. (2015). Lecture on Constitutional Law and Tort Liability. Personal collection of S.

Milam, Seattle University, Seattle, WA

Nair, A. (2016). Reimagining the university: A new paradigm for racial justice. The Huffington

Post, Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ajay-nair/reimagining-the-

universit_b_8921930.html

Nair, A. (2016, May 1). Racial justice initiatives. Emory College, Retrieved

from http://dialogue.emory.edu/racial_justice/index.html

Neate, R. (2016). Student deblt protests escalate after armed marshals arrest man for old loand.

Occupy.com. Retrieved from http://www.occupy.com/article/student-debt-protests-

escalate-after-armed-marshals-arrest-man-old-loans

Pierce, S. (2014). Governance reconsidered: How boards, presidents, administrators, and faculty
can help their colleges thrive. Hoboken: Wiley.
Pierson, M. (2015, November 10). A timeline of the University of Missouri protests. The Cable
POLICY PAPER 22

News Network, Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-protest-

Timeline/

Shattock, M. (2006). Managing good governance. Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education.

Stripling, J. (2016). Confronting a racial divide, Missouri's interim president finds anger, finger-

pointing. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved

from http://login.proxy.seattleu.edu/login url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/176

8221998?accountid=28598

WeTheProtesters. (2015). The Demands. Retrieved from http://www.thedemands.org

Williamson, J.A. (2013). Black power on campus: The University of Illinois 1965-

1975.University of Illinois Press.

Wong, A. (2015). The renaissance of student activism. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

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

activism/393749/