carolinedianecristal.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewI will first offer a brief summary of the book followed by a summary of Chickering and Reisser’s seven-vector theory. I will then

Running head: COGNITIVE & IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE STUDENTS

Cognitive & Identity Development in College Students:

An Analysis of Allie Walker and Cedric Jennings

Caroline Cristal

New York University

1

COGNITIVE & IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE STUDENTS

Introduction

As a professional in higher education and student affairs, I believe that college student

learning and development is an important concept to understand for all higher education

professionals. While the fact remains that not all professionals working in higher education will

work directly with students, if a person is planning to pursue a career in a field where the

ultimate goal is to welcome, work with, and develop students, then it is important to see how

students grow and develop as they go through higher education. However, because there are such

a variety of theories a good way to discuss the development of college students is to use

examples and apply theories to these examples. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to

examine three theories of college student learning and development and how they apply to two

students. The theories I will focus on are two cognitive theories: Lawrence Kohlberg’s Moral

Reasoning Theory, and Patricia King and Karen Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model, and

one identity theory: Arthur Chickering and Linda Reisser’s seven-vector identity theory. In order

to examine the cognitive theories more closely, I will first provide summaries for both theories,

and apply them to responses from an interview I conducted with a student at New York

University. I will examine Chickering and Reisser’s theory more closely through Cedric

Jennings, the main character in Ron Suskind’s book, A Hope in the Unseen. I will first offer a

brief summary of the book followed by a summary of Chickering and Reisser’s seven-vector

theory. I will then apply this theory to Cedric’s development throughout his first year of college.

After examining all of these theories and these students, I will offer my recommendations on a

program that would be suitable for both students based on my analysis of their student

development and learning. To conclude, I will provide my personal lens and assumptions that

proved to be challenges for me as I analyzed both Allie and Cedric.

2


Cognitive Development - Analyzing Allie Walker

To begin examining college student learning and development theory, I will start by

discussing the cognitive development in college students through an analysis of Allie Walker, a

sophomore at New York University. To set the context, I will first describe the interview I

conducted and then will discuss her responses to my questions in the context of first Kohlberg’s

Moral Reasoning Theory and then King and Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model. I will offer

a brief summary of each theory and then analyze Allie’s interview responses according to the

respective theory.

The Student Interview

In order to examine and apply Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning Theory and King and

Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model more closely, I conducted a 45-minute interview with

Allie Walker, a sophomore student at New York University. I met Allie at Bobst Library on the

New York University campus and held the interview in one of the graduate study rooms so we

could feel free to talk and discuss without worrying about anyone overhearing our conversation.

I started by asking Allie to tell me a little bit about herself, her major, and her activities on

campus before asking her two ethical dilemmas based on the Moral Reasoning Theory and two

vexing problems based on the Reflective Judgment Model.

Allie Walker is a current sophomore who came to NYU from Tennessee to pursue a

major in journalism. Since the journalism major requires that students double major, she plans to

add economics to her degree as well. When I asked her about her extracurricular academic

activities, Allie told me about a program she recently attended called Civic Camp, which seemed

to have a profound impact on her educational interests. Based on her description, Civic Camp

seems to be similar to a conference in that there were multiple speakers talking about their

3


experiences with social justice and working in that kind of environment. While in attendance,

Allie participated in a breakout session with Professor Ellen McGrath who inspired her to pursue

a minor in social entrepreneurship. Her interest in social justice issues was easily identified

throughout our conversation, so a minor in social entrepreneurship could be the right path for

her. For example, as President of Panhellenic Greek Council at NYU, Allie created a policy that

two women from every on-campus sorority must go through an LGBTQ-awareness program

called Safe Zone. She started this policy as a way to mitigate the negative stereotype about Greek

life and homophobia. She has also teamed up with a fraternity member of Delta Lambda Phi, the

LGBTQ-oriented fraternity on campus, to create a NYU Greek Ally group. Through her actions

and participation, Allie seems to be finding a way to combine her educational pursuits and

leadership roles as a way of taking full advantage of opportunities available at NYU.

As an arguably impressive young woman, it stands to mention that Allie first became

interested in NYU after becoming more familiar with New York City while working here as a

model through the Wilhelmina modeling agency. Originally she planned to stick close to home

for college because that was all she knew and she would be close to her family. However, after

realizing that she could work and attend school in New York City, she looked at schools in

Manhattan and realized NYU fit her interests with their journalism program and now with the

minor in social entrepreneurship. After modeling throughout her first year of college, however,

Allie decided to focus on school for at least the time being. Allie came across as a bright,

motivated, ambitious, and beautiful young woman who seems to have a strong head on her

shoulders that will allow to her accomplish all of the goals she sets for herself. That said, while

she seems to be headed for an optimistic future, I found that she has some maturing and

developing to do as she continues though her college experience. Allie was an excellent

4


interviewee in that she eagerly responded to my questions and seemed to always be thoughtful in

her responses. Based on our conversation and her responses to the questions, I believe that

college in an urban setting will prove to be an eye-opening experience for her. All of this

explanation is mainly to provide some background and context on Allie as a student before I

begin to analyze her through the lens of Kohlberg and King and Kitchener.

Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory is comprised of six stages of moral

thinking that describe a hierarchy for decision-making. They can be organized into three levels:

preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. According to Kohlberg (2005) at the

preconventional level, a person sees that “rules and social expectations are something external to

the self” (p. 550). Essentially, an individual at this level of moral development will place his or

her well being before the well being of others, and decisions made at this point are thought of in

terms of one right answer and one wrong answer. For example the answer to a scenario such as

the Heinz dilemma, where a poor man is debating whether or not to steal medicine for his dying

wife, is made by considering the rules and regarding them as the only authority. In other words,

an individual at the preconventional level might say that it is wrong for the poor man to steal

because the man will be punished and will go to jail, thereby disregarding the health of the dying

wife. This person sees the world as purely having a right and wrong answer.

At the conventional level of Kohlberg’s model, situations are no longer seen as purely

right versus wrong, but rather the rules and expectation of others, especially those of authorities,

have been internalized (Kohlberg, 2005). A person who considers the world at the conventional

level is concerned about how he or she is seen as a member of society. For instance, if a person

at this level was presented with the same dilemma of the poor man who is unable to purchase

5


medicine for his dying wife, this person’s answer might be that it is necessary to save the

medicine in order to save his wife’s life. On the other hand, the individual might say that the

medicine should not be stolen because it would be breaking the law and the law is in place for a

reason. In this example, stealing the medicine means that the poor man is concerned about

protecting his personal community, or, conversely not stealing the medicine upholds the rules

and laws that are in place for the good of society.

The third level of Kohlberg’s moral development theory is the postconventional level. In

this level, an individual considers situations from a moral standpoint rather than adhering to

societal rules (Kohlberg, 2005). Kohlberg (2005) goes on to describe a person in this level as not

assuming that they are in a society in which they need friendship or respect from others. Instead

of attempting to be the “nice boy/nice girl” when figuring out how to react to a situation, a

postconventional person will take moral obligations more seriously than legal or social

obligations (Kohlberg, 2005). Therefore when considering the example of the dying wife, an

individual at this level might believe that it is the man’s moral obligation to save the life of

anyone who is dying, regardless of his relationship with the person. While still recognizing that

rules and laws are in place for a reason, a person at the postconventional level sees and

determines situations based on moral-ground rather than on predetermined expectations.

The Kohlberg Analysis of Allie Walker

Allie seems to have a conventional perspective on the world around her. Her answers to

many of my questions took into consideration the loyalty and concern she has for her immediate

community and friends, and also showed a respect for authority and the rules. During the

interview, I asked Allie how she would approach two ethical dilemmas I created based on

Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning Theory. In order to show how her responses reflected a

6


conventional perspective, I will briefly summarize the scenarios and then discuss Allie’s

response to the respective questions.

For the first scenario, I asked what an orientation leader should do if she attended a party

hosted by fellow orientation leaders where incoming first-year students from the orientation were

being served alcohol. In this scenario the director of orientation has made it clear that anyone

who is caught drinking with the incoming students will be immediately dismissed from their

position as orientation leader. The scenario presented the student’s problem as whether she

should tell on her fellow orientation leaders and risk being labeled a snitch, or not tell and run the

risk of being fired for attending the party. Allie’s response seems to fall almost directly into the

conventional level as she initially begins discussing the idea that “in an ideal world that would

never happen” insinuating that ideally students would follow the rules and not drink at all. As

she continues, her response becomes continuously more conventional when she says, “but I also

know from personal experience the dangers of being perceived as a snitch and … the bullying

that can result from that.” Her response implies that telling on one’s coworkers and friends goes

against an unwritten social code amongst friends, and shows that Allie holds this unwritten rule

to a high regard. Allie does not want to appear as the “bad guy” in this situation, therefore falling

into the third stage within the conventional level of Kohlberg’s theory where the concern about

social approval and loyalty to groups outweighs the needs of an individual (Kohlberg, 2005).

Allie further shows that she is concerned about being the nice girl and has a high regard

for loyalty to groups and authority with the second part of her response to this scenario. She

shows her respect for rules and authority by saying that the orientation leaders who were

drinking with incoming first-year students will get themselves caught because “those kids are

going to put pictures on Facebook … and I feel like through something like that it could be easier

7


to get them exposed for doing something they shouldn’t have.” Allie goes on to say that the

orientation leaders should “not necessarily face the consequences of things, but they shouldn’t

have been doing that, and they shouldn’t get away with it.” Her suggestion is to notify the

director of orientation when the photos are inevitably posted to the Internet, by saying that she

“would just casually send an email if it was something I felt that strongly about.” Allie shows a

regard for law and order since she thinks that the orientation leaders should not get away with

breaking the rules, and believes that notifying the director might be necessary when the photos

appear on the Internet. While it is clear that Allie considers the loyalty between orientation

leaders as the stronger bond, she still recognizes the importance of respecting law and order and

authority figures. Additionally, in both parts of her answer, Allie’s desire to earn approval from

others, especially her peer group, is clear and places her firmly in the conventional stage of

Kohlberg’s theory.

The second scenario I posed to Allie asked what a student should do if he found himself

in a group setting where one friend is saying that participating in an a capella group is “gay.” The

issue is that a new friend has joined the group and it is unknown if he identifies as gay or if he

participates in an a capella group. Allie’s response to this scenario is to confront the offender in a

casual by saying “just a small comment that’s not offensive in any way, like ‘Don’t say that

around me.’ Just something like that because people, I don’t think, realize just how much of an

impact that can have on people.” With this response, Allie approaches this situation at the

conventional level as well. According to Kohlberg (2005) individuals who think at the

conventional stage have a strong “concern about the welfare of others and society” (p. 551).

Allie’s initial desire to confront the student saying the transgression shows her concern for the

well being of other people because she knows the damage saying negative things can have on

8


individuals. However, even though someone is saying something derogatory in this scenario,

Allie fears offending a friend and so wants to make sure that she approaches the situation by

saying a “small comment that’s not offensive in any way.” This aligns well with the way she

approached the drinking situation in that she values the approval from her peer group, and further

shows Allie’s current place in the conventional stage in Kohlberg’s theory.

Throughout our conversation, many of Allie’s answers reflect the fact that she considers

the world around her from at the conventional level. For example, I also asked her a question

about the necessity of affirmative action in higher education. Her response to the question comes

from a conventional perspective in that she centers her answer on the societies that she most

directly connects with: NYU and her friends from home. She thinks that NYU could increase its

diversity not by employing affirmative action but rather by offering “scholarships to people who

make incomes that are low enough that they literally would not be able to come here.” She

further stresses this by citing an example in her friend Dominic who planned on applying to the

NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, but could not afford to attend should he have been accepted.

Rather than considering the larger issue Allie creates her opinions and beliefs based on the

perspective she has as a student at NYU, therefore basing her opinion in a conventional way of

thinking.

Allie’s responses seem to come from a place where she has a strong concern for society,

yet she is still seeking approval and figuring out how she fits in to the world. According to

Kohlberg (2005) “the conventional level is the level of most adolescent and adults in our

society” which is also where Allie seems to fall based on her responses to my questions (p. 550).

Based on this, it seems to me that Allie is on point in regards to how she is developing based on

Kohlberg’s moral reasoning theory. She seems to understand the situations presented to her, yet

9


she is still considering her approach to these situations with the perspective of being the “nice

girl” and following the rules set forth by society rather than considering the moral aspects of the

situation. As mentioned previously, I found Allie Walker to be a smart, ambitious, and lovely

young woman with a lot of potential awaiting her as she continues to go through her

undergraduate career. However for now, Allie is in a place where she wants to please the people

in her community and this means that she approaches the world in a conventional way.

King and Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model

Patricia King and Karen Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model is a stage theory that

attempts to make sense of how individuals accept knowledge and explain their own point of

views on controversial issues (Love & Guthrie, 1999). Since each stage builds on one another,

individuals must move through each stage in order to advance (Love & Guthrie, 1999). King and

Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model consists of seven stages that can be categorized into

three levels. In order to briefly discuss their model, I will summarize each level.

The first level is the pre-reflective level where individuals assume that a correct answer

exists or will exist and that this correct answer will come from either an authority figure or from

personal observation (Love & Guthrie, 1999). This means that if an authority figure states a fact,

an individual will take this fact as the truth without question. The primary point of the pre-

reflective level is the development of right versus wrong and the introduction of multiple

viewpoints and incorporating evidence. As individuals transition into the second level, they must

face discrepancies in information that they can no longer deny. This means they begin to

recognize that there are unanswerable questions (Love & Guthrie, 1999).

The second level is quasi-reflective, which means that individuals in this level “realize

that ill-structured problems exist and that knowledge claims about these problems include

10


uncertainty” (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010, p. 131). Since knowledge is seen as

subjective at this point, the idea that judgment should be based in evidence is acknowledged yet

not completely accepted (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 44). The stages within this level show

individuals learning to interpret information and begin to make reflective judgment calls on their

own opinions. The important aspect in the quasi-reflective level is the incorporation of evidence

into how an individual forms opinions and interprets knowledge. As individuals transition to the

third level, they begin to seek a more defined relationship between evidence and their beliefs or

opinions (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 44). Yet, according to Love and Guthrie (1999), while the

ability to see and evaluate evidence exists, the individual cannot yet form them into a well-

reasoned argument and therefore holds on to the evidence that confirms the individual’s

opinions.

The third level is the reflective level. At this level individuals realize that they cannot be

certain that judgments about vexing problems are correct, but are able to come to defensible

conclusions about complex problems (Love & Guthrie, 1999). Individuals within this level come

to an opinion on an issue by looking “at different perspectives, identify the common elements,

and form a new perspective by integrating these elements” (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 47). Even

further, individuals at this stage are aware that over time evidence might change or evolve which

will affect the current accepted knowledge (Love & Guthrie, 1999). The goal of the Reflective

Judgment Model is to reach the reflective level where truth is based on evidence and is seen as

simultaneously certain, yet ever-changing.

11


King and Kitchener Analysis of Allie Walker

According to King and Kitchener, most undergraduate students function in the transition

to quasi-reflective level of their model (Love & Guthrie, 1999). Love and Guthrie (1999) suggest

that a pre-reflective person will be prompted to think in a quasi-reflective way when they “face

discrepant data that they can no longer deny” (p. 43). Once faced with this discrepant data, the

individual is forced to look for answers elsewhere, and therefore move towards quasi-reflective

thinking (Love & Guthrie, 1999). When considering Allie Walker, the results are no different.

When deciding on where to go to college, for instance, Allie says, “I was dead set on going to

Vanderbilt because it was two hours away from home, and I did a program over the summer and

I loved the campus.” Once she realized that Vanderbilt did not have an undergraduate journalism

program, she was “trying to figure out a way to still make the school work.” Attending

Vanderbilt was the only answer she knew, and therefore the right answer. Earning a modeling

contract exposed her to New York City, and thus led to the exploration of universities in

Manhattan that did have journalism programs. Armed with this new information, Allie ended up

at New York University. Allie initially approached this decision in a pre-reflective way of

thinking, but once other options were introduced, she recognized that there are no absolute

answers to certain problems and saw the decision in more of a transition to quasi-reflective way

in that she realized that there was not one right answer for where she should attend college.

In addition to this example, Allie’s responses to other questions fell in the transition to

quasi-reflective definition as well. During the conversation, I asked Allie her thoughts on two

vexing problems inspired by King and Kitchener’s model. Her answers to these questions show

that she seems to have processed information that she understands is important, but does not yet

understand how this information impacts her opinion on issues. The first vexing problem was

12


taken from an article written by Patricia King and Bettina Shuford (1996) questioning the need

for affirmative action based on ethnicity in higher education. The first part of her response has to

do with information she received from the NYU website giving statistics showing that “there are

a very low number of African-Americans here … A lot of that had to deal with the scholarships

that NYU offers, and that’s more of a financial problem about why they’re not able to come

here.” She uses this data to make a judgment that if NYU “started offering more generous

scholarships, the amount of diversity within this school … would make a lot more sense.” Her

argument that ethnicity-based affirmative action is wrong and that targeting diversity through

socioeconomic status would make more sense is an example of thinking in a quasi-reflective way

because she takes into consideration evidence available to her, yet has not taken time to reflect

on the evidence. Instead, Allie uses the information available to her to confirm her stance and

opinion on the issue of affirmative action (Love & Guthrie, 1999).

Allie goes on to discuss personal anecdotes, first about her friend Dominic who did not

apply to NYU because he knew that he could not afford the tuition and then says, “I can’t tell

you how many scholarships I was ineligible for here, or college in general, because I wasn’t

black or because I wasn’t some kind of minority.” These personal observations seem to back up

her opinion that “affirmative action, giving favoritism to someone based on race, is similar to

racism in the complete opposite way.” This stance seems to be coming from a pre-reflective way

of thinking in that her opinion is based on her own personal observation, and is therefore seen as

certain (Love & Guthrie, 1999). Similar to her approach with choosing universities, her

responses to the vexing issue of affirmative action seem to fall in both the pre-reflective and

quasi-reflective levels, therefore putting her in the transition to quasi-reflective way of thinking.

13


The second vexing problem I discussed with Allie was the issue of whether or not

religiously affiliated public-serving institutions should cover birth control as part of their

employee healthcare packages. Once again Allie exhibits a combination of pre-reflective and

quasi-reflective responses to this issue. Her initial response is to say that the employees are

“choosing to work there, and technically [the institution] can do whatever they want, especially

since they are a religiously affiliated institution.” Allie’s way of thinking aligns with the pre-

reflective level because she believes that the answer to whether or not religiously affiliated

institutions should cover birth control comes from them as the authority figure. However, similar

to her approach to the affirmative action issue, Allie shows movement toward the transition to

quasi-reflective way of thinking by recognizing “that there are true problems for which there are

currently no absolute answers” (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 43) in the next part of her response.

She clarifies her previous statement by saying, “I mean, me personally, I’m pro people having

birth control, but if it’s something where they’re not allowing their employees [coverage] and

they’re not covering that for both genders, then I feel like that’s okay.” By sharing the personal

belief that people should be able to use birth control she aligns with the quasi-reflective level

way of thinking because she claims to know what is right for herself, but is not judging or

evaluating others’ behaviors (Love & Guthrie, 1999).

Cognitive developmentally speaking, as a sophomore in college Allie seems to be in the

levels where most of her peers might be as well. Allie seems eager to learn and to be working on

figuring out how exactly she is absorbing the loads of information that she is getting on a daily

basis. As an aspiring journalist, as a bright, young woman, and assuming that her excitement for

learning and discovery persist, Allie seems to be well on her way to ascending through both

14


Lawrence Kohlberg’s Moral Development Model and Patricia King and Karen Kitchener’s

Reflective Judgment Model.

Identity Development – Analyzing Cedric Jennings

With the discussion of how college students develop cognitively complete, I will now

move on to discuss identity development in college students. In the next section, I will discuss

Arthur Chickering and Linda Reisser’s seven-vector model and how it applies to Cedric

Jennings, the main character in Suskind’s book, A Hope in the Unseen. To discuss Cedric in

terms of this identity development, I will first provide a brief summary of Suskind’s book, and

then move into an analysis of Cedric’s development throughout the story based on two of the

seven vectors.

Summary of Ron Suskind’s A Hope in the Unseen

Ron Suskind’s (1998) A Hope in the Unseen is the story of Cedric Jennings, a black high

school student from the inner city of Washington DC with a strong head for math and science

and a goal to attend an Ivy League university. From the beginning of the story we see that Cedric

is a bright and motivated student who keeps mostly to himself in order to stay focused on his

goal and away from the drugs and violence that surrounds him on a daily basis. With the help

from his mother, Barbara Jennings, a few teachers and classmates, and experience at a rigorous

pre-college program at MIT Cedric is accepted to Brown University. Once at Brown, Cedric

finds himself questioning his identity in regards to his faith, race, and the relationships in his life.

Through his first year in college, Cedric faces many challenges both academically and socially

that cause him to develop his identity by challenging the way that he views the world around

him. After returning to Washington DC for the summer, Cedric realizes that he has accomplished

a major part of his original goal, which was to escape from the poverty and depression that he

15


grew up in. With the sense of not belonging in the world in which he grew up at it’s strongest,

Cedric returns to Brown University in the fall where he goes on to graduate. Suskind (1998) ends

the journey with an epilogue updating us on Cedric’s post-graduation life as a successful social

worker hoping to impart some of the lessons he learned on future generations of inner-city

students.

Chickering & Reisser’s Seven Vectors of Identity Development & The Analysis of Cedric

Suskind (1998) follows Cedric Jennings throughout the end of his high school career and

through the first year of his education at Brown University. Through this time, Cedric’s identity

develops according to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven-vector theory that focuses on how

college students’ identity develops through college and beyond. In order to discuss the college

student identity development, the aspects of development are divided into seven vectors:

developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward

interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing

purpose, and developing integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). The purpose of these vectors is

to have a better understanding of how college students develop and provide a guideline to ensure

that higher education administrators and faculty understand “what student development looks

like and how to foster it” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 44). Different from the cognitive

development theories these vectors do not work as stages, but rather as pieces of a whole process

forming identity development.

While each vector is important in understanding identity development as a whole, for the

purposes of analyzing Cedric, I will focus on two vectors that I think most aptly describe

Cedric’s identity development: moving through autonomy toward interdependence and

establishing identity. Even though Cedric moves through identity development throughout the

16


book, I believe that focusing on a few instances throughout Cedric’s experience will serve to

better highlight Cedric’s development through these vectors.

Throughout his journey, Cedric shows development in moving from autonomy toward

interdependence. Since Cedric holds his academic goals to the highest level, his development in

this vector can be seen in regards to his academic pursuits. According to Chickering and Reisser

(1993) this vector involves three components: emotional independence, instrumental

independence, and interdependence. Emotional dependence is seen when an individual needs

continuous and pressing need for reassurance or approval from other (Chickering & Reisser,

1993). The need for reassurance on an academic level is seen once Cedric is at Brown, and his

classmates are sharing SAT scores. Cedric shares his score of 960, and then clarifies that he’s

“not ashamed of it or anything” (Suskind, 1998, p. 170) as though it is a part of his identity that

he needs to explain away. Suskind (1998) describes another example of his need for positive

reinforcement when he takes a paper to Helaine Schupack, a tutor at Brown. She tells him that he

has written a beautiful and compelling paper, and Cedric’s first response is disbelief when he

says, “You really think so?” (Suskind, 1998, p. 242). This is followed by a comment of

astonishment when Cedric says, “You really do, don’t you?” (Suskind, 1998, p. 242). Through

these exchanges, it is clear that Cedric so badly wants positive reinforcement and reassurance

that his goals and ambitions are valid and therefore is still dependent on reassurance and

approval from others.

As Cedric continues through the first, challenging year of college by working hard to

earn the support and admiration of his classmates, he begins to develop the emotional autonomy

that is necessary to move towards instrumental independence. Chickering and Reisser (1993)

define instrumental independence as “the ability to carry on activities and solve problems in a

17


self-directed manner” (p. 117). For example, during Cedric’s second semester at Brown, Suskind

(1998) depicts Cedric as feeling confident enough to register for five courses based on his

performance during his first semester. As the second semester continues, however, and Cedric

realizes that he cannot handle a five-course load that includes two math courses, Cedric shows

movement towards instrumental independence. Rather than get discouraged and rebel as he

might have in the past, Suskind (1998) describes how Cedric problem-solves and accepts the

need to withdraw from the fifth math class. By dropping the course, Cedric shows that he no

longer needs to prove himself by taking a heavier course load than his peers, and that he no

longer needs reassurance regarding his academic decisions. When it comes to his academic

journey, Cedric’s first year in his undergraduate career shows that he is moving from autonomy

and towards interdependency. While he does not yet show signs of total interdependence while at

Brown, Suskind’s (1998) epilogue provides assurance that Cedric moves along this vector to

realize that he is a part of a larger community and is contributing to it through his chosen career

as a social worker.

Another vector that Cedric moves through is the establishing identity vector in

Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) model, which involves a “growing awareness of competencies,

emotions and values, confidence in standing alone and bonding with others, and moving beyond

intolerance towards openness and self-esteem” (p. 173). While the entire seven-vector model is

about identity development, establishing identity is crucial as it involves individuals becoming

self-aware about who they are and becoming comfortable with this image. Movement through

this vector involves individuals learning about who they are, how they are seen as a person to

others, how they view themselves, and how they then view others. This idea can be seen

throughout Cedric’s journey as he works to establish his identity in terms of his ethnicity and in

18


terms of his academic self. Cedric’s sense of identity becomes confronted as he moves away

from one environment in Washington DC and enters another environment at Brown University.

Within the establishing identity vector, Chickering and Reisser (1993) discuss multiple

subcategories. One of these subcategories refers to an individual establishing identity by

becoming more comfortable with one’s sense of self in a social, historical, or cultural context. By

attending a predominately white institution, Cedric is forced to confront how he feels about

being a black student. Having lived his entire life in a black community, Cedric wants to “see if

there’s a place for him among non-blacks” (Suskind, 1998, p. 204). This idea is encouraged by

his friendship with Zayd who is genuinely interested in discussing race with Cedric, and Cedric

is equally as interested in using him as a soundboard for questions he has about white America

(Suskind, 1998). Both Zayd and Cedric ask each other with questions regarding race, class, and

socioeconomic status, which forces both of them to consider a sense of self in regards to their

own history and culture. Further, Cedric continuously rejects invitations from a fellow black

student, Chiniqua, to attend parties and get-togethers at Brown’s black dorm. This reinforces

Cedric’s quest to see how he fits into the non-black world.

For individuals moving through establishing identity, Chickering and Reisser (1993)

reference many other theorists who consider identity development. William Cross’s (2005)

Nigresence Theory is one referenced in order to discuss racial development in terms of

establishing identity. The examples mentioned above place Cedric in the pre-encounter stage of

the Nigresence Theory in that he wants to see how he fits in the predominate out-group of the

Euro-American perspective (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 2005).

However, as Cedric continues through his first year at Brown, he is confronted with challenges

that move him towards the encounter stage of the Nigresence Theory. While Cedric is interested

19


in knowing how he fits into the non-black world, he is beginning to realize that there is some

importance in maintaining a black identity. An example of Cedric’s struggle with this idea is

seen in an argument that he has with Zayd after returning to school from winter break. Whereas

before Zayd and Cedric used each other as soundboards for questions about the each other’s

ethnicity, now Cedric seems annoyed when Zayd asks Cedric what kind of hair he thinks looks

better on a black girl and continues with conversations about race (Suskind, 1998). Cedric starts

thinking that maybe he won’t talk about race as much anymore, and that Zayd and Cedric can

just be friends without noticing the other’s skin color and be “friends without category headings”

(Suskind, 1998, p. 280). By the end of the book, it seems that Cedric remains in the encounter

stage and working to figure out where he stands in terms of establishing his black identity.

Another aspect to Cedric’s movement through the establishing identity vector, involves

his identity as a student. As seen in Cedric’s experiences at Ballou, at the MIT summer program,

and then finally at Brown University, Cedric holds himself to a high academic standard. This

idea aligns with the self-acceptance and self-esteem subcategory that Chickering and Reisser

(1993) explain as students working to develop a strong sense of self-worth based on internal,

personal standards. Cedric places a lot of importance on his academic progress in terms of his

identity for better or for worse. Throughout his education, it seems as though Cedric’s academic

identity strengthens his self-esteem with one experience, and then weakens it with the next. An

example of this is when Cedric is waiting to be accepted to the MIT summer program discussed

earlier. Because he does not hear back right away, Suskind (1998) writes how Cedric starts to

question his determination and focus during the previous few years. He puts so much importance

on being accepted to the program, that when there’s a delay in notification he begins

reconsidering his entire academic identity. Once he is accepted, his self-esteem increases until he

20


is faced with another academic challenge in that he is not as academically advanced as his peers

and therefore struggles in the courses. By the end of the summer, however, he has learned

enough to increase his math SAT score by 50 points, which gives him the confidence to apply to

Brown University. Once at Brown, Suskind (1998) describes the new set of academic challenges

that test the strength of Cedric’s self-esteem such as the need to drop a fifth course during his

second semester because he was failing. However, while Cedric experiences challenges that test

is sense of self-worth, as he progresses through his education the ups seem to be more

continuous and downs are viewed not as a time to completely reconsider his identity, but rather a

time to reevaluate how he is approaching his academic identity.

In terms of his identity development, throughout A Hope in the Unseen, Cedric seems to

be embracing experiences that challenge him and therefore move him towards understanding his

identity. While I believe that identity development is an on-going learning experience, the fact

that Cedric is willingly putting himself in situations that challenge him show that his college

experience will help him to develop the self-awareness and self-esteem that is necessary to move

through Chickering and Reisser’s seven vectors, and continue working toward his goals and

ultimately toward his accomplishments.

Developmental Programming

As higher education and student affairs professionals, I believe that it is our job to create

programs that help all students to develop effectively and holistically by encouraging movement

through the various stages of development. The challenge for higher education professionals is to

create programming that will impact students coming from all walks of life. Both of the students

discussed throughout this paper, Allie and Cedric, provide good examples of students who come

from different backgrounds and have different experiences that frame their approach to higher

21


education. However, they do have a common ground in that their college experiences force them

into a new environment and introduce them to new and different types of people, ideas, and

experiences on a daily basis. With this in mind, I believe that a program that will be beneficial to

both students is a program called the Safe Zone Train the Trainer program.

Safe Zone Training is a workshop intended to educate individuals on and raise awareness

around LGBTQ issues, particularly in the higher education setting. The workshop goes through

the stereotypes, the misconceptions, the proper terminology and the definitions of those terms,

and provides and overall LGBTQ sensitivity training for participants. The overall goal of the

Safe Zone training is to create actual “safe zones” in faculty, administrators, classmates, and

peers for individuals who are LGBTQ identified or who are questioning their sexual identity or

orientation. Individuals who complete the trainings are then Safe Zone Certified and therefore

become these safe zones where LGBTQ students can go and know that they are welcome. The

program I believe will be beneficial for Cedric and Allie is a more involved layer of this program

called the Safe Zone Train the Trainer program. This workshop teaches individuals how to run

Safe Zone training workshops for those who are interested in becoming Safe Zone certified. The

Train the Trainer program is a more intensive training in that once the workshop is complete the

participants are expected to know how to run Safe Zone trainings on their own. This results in a

deeper understanding of the terms, definitions, and sensitivity towards these issues. Upon

completion of the program, participants are encouraged to work in pairs to run Safe Zone

training workshops.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model, which emphasizes the importance of experience

when learning in a cyclical manner, can be applied to both Cedric’s and Allie’s experiences thus

far with the LGBTQ community. Kolb’s theory centers around four modes of experience:

22


concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation, and active

experimentation (Atkinson & Murrell, 1988). Allie seems to already have gone through the

concrete experience mode, which “requires individuals to immerse themselves in the immediacy

of the moment, relying on their intuitive and affective responses to the situation” and seems to be

at the abstract conceptualization mode, which is described as “logical thinking and rational

evaluation to create ideas that integrate their observations into logically sound theories”

(Atkinson & Murrell, 1988, p. 375). Allie is already working on being an active LGBTQ ally in

that she created a policy within the PanHellenic Greek Council at NYU that at least two women

from each on-campus sorority must be Safe Zone trained. Additionally, Allie has some

awareness about LGBTQ issues when considering that understands using the word “gay” in a

derogatory form could be damaging to LGBTQ-identified individuals. Through these actions and

thoughts it is clear that Allie has been thinking about these topics and has strong feelings on

justice and equality surrounding LGBTQ issues. However, as mentioned before, Allie’s concerns

seems to be at the conventional level of Kohlberg’s theory since she seems to be primarily

concerned with changing the homophobic stereotype associated with Greek life, as opposed

supporting the LGBTQ community. I believe the Safe Zone Train the Trainer program would

help Allie move toward the postconventional level in Kohlberg’s theory, which will allow her to

see how her participation in LGBTQ rights impacts a larger community.

On the other hand, Cedric is initially completely new to the LGBTQ issues that he

encounters at Brown University, and has a more homophobic outlook on homosexual identity.

Cedric seems to be in the concrete experience mode since he is still immersed in the immediacy

of the moment and initially relies on his intuitive response to the LGBTQ community (Atkinson

& Murrell, 1988). However, by the end of the book, he seems to be more open to the various

23


types of communities that constitute Brown’s campus. With this in mind, it seems that Cedric

develops towards being more tolerant and open-minded as Chickering and Reisser (1993)

suggests is necessary when establishing one’s identity. For this reason, the learning outcome for

Cedric participating in the Safe Zone Train the Trainer program is to become more aware of the

issues and conflicts that LGBTQ-identified individuals face and therefore move him through

Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) establishing identity vector. Similarly, according to Kolb’s

experiential model, Cedric’s leadership role within this program will put him at the concrete

experience mode of learning that requires him to immerse himself in the moment and rely on his

affective responses to the situation (Atkinson & Murrell, 1988). Upon entering Brown, Cedric

seems to have gone through one cycle of Kolb’s experiential learning model, and I believe that

participating in the Safe Zone Train the Trainer program will effectively move him into a cycle

that works on a deeper level, which will help him to better understand others and to also better

understand his own identity.

In addition to working the individual-specific learning outcomes for each student,

participating as leaders in the Safe Zone Train the Trainer program will provide similar learning

outcomes for both Allie and Cedric. Since the expectation of Safe Zone Trainers is to lead Safe

Zone Training workshops, both Cedric and Allie will develop strong leadership skills. In order to

run an affective training, the trainers must be able to lead a meeting, to speak clearly and

eloquently, and be able to work with diverse groups of people. Another requirement of the Safe

Zone Trainings is that two individuals must run the workshop at the same time. The first reason

for this is so to provide at least two perspectives on the information. The second reason is so that

the leaders of the training can support each another throughout the training. This requires Allie

and Cedric to experience a component of leadership that requires teamwork and support when

24


working towards a common goal.

To ensure that Allie and Cedric are taking advantage of this leadership opportunity, my

recommendation is to require Cedric and Allie to conduct one Safe Zone training each semester.

Another requirement, I would suggest is that Cedric and Allie complete a two to three page

reflection after each Safe Zone Train the Trainer workshop they lead. These requirements will

push Allie and Cedric to put what they have learned as leaders into practice and also into the

active experimentation mode of Kolb’s theory, which emphasizes action and participation in the

learning process (Atkinson & Murrell, 1988). This also allows Allie to take on another form of a

leadership role that teaches others and therefore pushes her to think about the larger world

around her. This will help her to further develop through the conventional level of thinking and

approach the postconventional level in Kohlberg’s theory. This will also allow Cedric to

immerse himself in this world and move past his intolerance as he works to establish who he is

as a student and a person and therefore works through Chickering and Reisser’s (1993)

establishing identity vector by becoming more open, tolerant, and accepting of the various types

of people in his community.

My Personal Lens

As a higher education professional, I think it is important to be aware of my perspective

by sharing my personal lens and assumptions. The most prevalent perspective that influences my

assumptions is my identity and position as an academic advisor for undergraduate students in the

College of Arts and Science (CAS) at NYU. In this position I meet with CAS students such as

Allie, and offer encouragement, support, and advice on a daily basis. As an academic advisor, I

attempt to encourage my students to stretch and challenge themselves as well so that they can

continue developing and growing. I tell my students to consider their thoughts and actions, and

25


why they make which decisions before acting on them. I try to see where my students are coming

from and then attempt to push them a bit further beyond the way they are thinking. As a result of

this, I like to see the potential in the undergraduate students with whom I meet. Additionally, I

am a committed graduate student studying higher education and student affairs with a passion for

access and retention at the collegiate level. I have a firm belief in the idea that every student

should have the opportunity to attend and graduate from college. As a current graduate student in

the midst of learning about all of the social justice components associated with higher education,

I am admittedly caught up in the passion of my interests.

I found these perspectives to be a challenge while analyzing both Cedric and Allie. For

instance, during the interview process I found myself acting far more encouraging to Allie’s

responses than I should have been. If she was saying something that I agreed with, or I thought

of as particularly “developed” in the moment, I might have nodded encouragement or smiled

more enthusiastically than when she responded with answers that were more juvenile. As Allie

went through the new experiences that she was having, I realized that I was excited to encourage

her to do more and to expand upon those interests. Due to my inclination toward serving as a

support system and a mentor, I had to continuously remind myself to simply listen to Allie’s

responses and not provide my own advice or reinforcement. Additionally, it was difficult to read

Cedric’s story and not anxiously anticipate turning the page to make sure that his story continues

the way that I think it should be based on my assumption that college is the best route to take and

that this path is the best way for him. I was looking forward to seeing his development and

seeing his potential be finally realized at a higher education institution. Due to my personal

passion regarding the opportunity for under-privileged students to attend and graduate from

college, I could only initially read Cedric’s story as a novel with an anticipated happy ending. I

26


realize this difficulty lies in the fact that I want to encourage the potential in young women and

men to develop and mature and to open their eyes and mind to new experiences. I think these

perspectives are important to note because understanding these perspectives will hopefully

provide a better context for how I approached the theories discussed throughout this paper, and

why I analyzed both students in the manner that I did.

Conclusion

Based on the experience of writing this paper, two things have become more clear to me

as a higher education student and professional. The first is that it is necessary to remember that

each student has his or her own experience that shapes his or her collegiate experience. The

second is that while each student is different, there are fundamental similarities that can be

addressed through proper programming. Allie Walker and Cedric Jennings have provided a good

example of the variety of students that higher education and student affairs professionals must

consider. While both students entered college life having experienced very different upbringings,

both students could benefit from similar programming, such as the Safe Zone Train the Training

program. As a higher education professional, I believe that becoming familiar with the different

cognitive and developmental theories is vital in order to help students develop through their

undergraduate career and beyond. My hope for my current and future colleagues, as well as for

me in my own career, is that the use of developmental theories is always housed in the forefront

of our minds as we work to create curriculum and programs for our undergraduate students.

27


References

Atkinson, G., & Murrell, P.H. (1988). Kolb’s experiential learning theory: A met-model for

career exploration. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66(8), 374-377.

Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Cross, W.E., & Fhagen-Smith, P. (2005). Nigresence and ego identity development –

Accounting for differential black identity patterns. In M.E. Wilson, & L.E. Wolf-Wendel

(Eds.), College student development theory. (pp. 259-268). Boston: Pearson Custom

Publishing.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M, Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A., (2010). Student development

in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

King, P.M., & Shufford, B.C. (1996). A multicultural view is a more cognitively complex view.

The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 153-164.

Kohlberg, L. (2005). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In

M.E. Wilson, & L.E. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), College student development theory. (pp. 549-

568). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Love, P.L., & Guthrie, V.L. (1999). King and Kitchener’s reflective judgment model. In J.H.

Schuh, E.J. Whitt (Eds.), Understanding and Applying Cognitive Development Theory

(pp. 41-51). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Suskind, R. (1998). A Hope in the Unseen. New York: Broadway Books.

28


Appendix

Transcript of Interview

Caroline Cristal (CC): Could you tell me a little bit about yourself starting with your name and where you’re from?

Allie Walker (AW): I’m Allie Walker. I’m from Tennessee even though I moved around a lot. That’s where my family lives now. I’m majoring in economics and journalism, and I am PanHellenic President here at NYU. I’m a sophomore.

CC: Do you like it?

AW: I do! It’s really strange. I feel like they’re both different but great in their own ways.

CC: Where in Tennessee are you from?

AW: Knoxville.

CC: How did you choose to come to NYU?

AW: It was actually a very last minute decision. I was dead set on going to Vanderbilt because it was two hours away from home, and I did a program there over the summer and I loved the campus. And then I realized that they didn’t have journalism minor for undergraduates. So I was trying to figure out a way to still make the schoolwork and considering an English major or just doing economics, and I really wanted to do both, and it was really tricky. But I actually ended up getting a modeling contract with Wilhelmina here in New York at the end of my junior year. Once I signed there, I said at this point I’ve been to New York; I can work while I’m here. So I started looking at schools in Manhattan and found NYU and applied early decision, so it worked out well.

CC: And are you still modeling?

AW: I’m actually not. I did freshman year. I tried to balance the two of them and just realized that it was something where I’d have to do one or the other, and I chose school.

CC: What is your favorite thing about NYU? NYC?

AW: There are a lot of things. I really like the strength of their Journalism Department, but I think that the part that I like the most is the fact that I’m able to do two majors and that the people here are very open to the idea of learning on all levels, not just class. A lot of the professors have done their own things and have experienced so much and it’s more I think about learning those things from professors even than the actual course material. They’re very open to learning outside of the classroom, which I really like.

CC: What are some examples of some things you’ve done outside of the classroom?

29


AW: I’ve gone to a lot of really neat lectures and I just went to Civic Camp on Friday of last week, which was really cool. It was a last minute decision, I decided to stop by and there were all of these amazing speakers talking about their experiences with social justice and working in that kind of environment and I actually did one of the break-out sessions with this one professor, Ellen McGrath who works here, and decided to, you know, that might be something that I’m interested in minoring in social entrepreneurship, and so it was very kind of inspiring and I felt like I learned a lot. That wasn’t necessarily class, but I feel like I grew a little bit more.

CC: What is your major and how did you come to choose your major?

AW: I knew I wanted to do journalism, hands down. I knew that was something I was interested in and I did my newspaper and new station in high school and I really enjoyed it. So at the point I knew I wanted to do that. So that was very easy. But journalism majors here have to double major, so that was an interesting part because I really wanted to do something business related, my parents loved the idea that I wanted to do something like that. I probably would have done more marketing or PR, but they didn’t really offer that, so economics kind of was the end decision. It was the most business that I could do.

CC: Do you have an idea of what you’d like to do with these degrees?

AW: Well I have a couple of ideas that have just been floating around, which I feel like is good because I’ll have like more of a chance to get a job when I graduate. But I would love to either continue with journalism and do either writing or broadcast. Probably leaning towards more writing if I went into journalism, specifically. But I think the main thing I’m interested in is documentary work because I love video. I worked a lot with that in high school, and I really enjoyed it. That kind of combines the whole aspect of, like, social justice and all of that. So that’s definitely a possibility or something that’s more marketing related, but I would want to work for something that’s more, maybe a non-profit, something that’s more like a cause that I kind of agree with.

CC: What have you been doing to move forward with those options and opportunities?

AW: A lot of it right now is I’m just trying to do a little bit of everything that interests me, and trying to kind of eliminate things and find out more of what I don’t like. I did an internship last semester in a tabloid in the fashion and beauty department because for awhile I thought that entertainment journalism was more of the route that I wanted to go, but after that experience, I mean I’m very thankful that I did it, but I just didn’t really have a great time and I didn’t feel like it was something that I wanted to pursue, so now I know that’s out. So a lot of it has been a little bit process of elimination, but even just like getting involved in Greek life and kind of exploring that has been great. I feel like it combines like my leadership skills with pretty much really anything that I’m interested in. I’m able to kind of get the ball rolling on projects that kind of are going to be able to put stuff out there. Like I was really passionate about getting NYU’s Greek Life more LGBTQ friendly, not saying that we’re not, but it’s just kind of a stigma about Greek life. So I started this thing where I wanted at least two women from each chapter to be Safe Zoned Trained, which is something that they offer here, and that just passed last week in a motion. So that’s going to be done, so I’m really excited about that. And then my friend Van,

30


who’s in Delta Lambda Phi, which is the LGBTQ oriented fraternity here, he was like, and ‘This works out really well because I’m starting a Greek Allies group here.’ So we had lunch last week, and we’re collaborating, we’re trying to develop that. So just things like that to be able to kind of start that, and not just use my skills to kind of like plan things, but the PR aspects of it, social networking, just with people, just like getting people interested in it, and getting knowledgeable about the topic. It’s just a lot of the stuff I like to do.

Ethical Dilemmas

CC: Samantha McDougal is participating in her first year as an Orientation Leader (OL) for the College of Arts and Science. As a sophomore and “newbie” on the team, she is working hard to make friends with the more experienced and upperclassmen OLs. As seems to be tradition, at the end of the three-day orientation session, the OLs have a big party where there is alcohol. Samantha attends the party, but chooses not to drink. She makes this decision not only because she’s not 21, but also because she doesn’t like the taste of alcohol. However, while she’s there she sees that some of the incoming first-year students who were participating in the orientation session are at the party and they are drinking heavily. Samantha remembers the Director of Orientation stressing the importance of not drinking or partying with the incoming students. If caught, anyone who is at a party where incoming first-year students are drinking will be immediately dismissed as an Orientation Leader. If Samantha tells the Director, then she runs the risk of being labeled as a snitch and loses any friends that she might have made. If she does not tell the Director, she might be fired without question. What should Samantha do?

AW: That’s very interesting. I just want to clarify. She’s there, and also other instructors are there, but also their “babies” are there, like the ones that they’re leading. That’s an interesting situation because as much as, like, in an ideal world, first of all that scenario wouldn’t ever happen, because it doesn’t happen and whatever. And at the same time I’m sure that the program director, would love to hear from someone that these kids are breaking the rules. But I also know from personal experience the dangers of being perceived as a snitch and even if it’s something that logically like you should… I just know from personal experience even the bullying that can result from that, and it’s just kind of really an uncomfortable situation as is. What I would do, or recommend to this girl in the situation, I would leave the party, because first of all getting yourself out of there is going to put yourself in a better situation as is. I feel like when people kind of break the rules, they generally get themselves caught almost, like those kids are going to put pictures on Facebook, they’re going to do something like that. And I feel like through something like that it could be easier to get them kind of exposed for doing something they shouldn’t have without like explicitly saying, like ‘Hey, I was at this party, and I saw this and I wasn’t drinking.’ Because at the same time you want them to not necessarily face the consequences of things, but you know they shouldn’t have been doing that, and they shouldn’t get away with it. Because this other girl, like obviously didn’t break the rules. But what I would do is just kind of like, ‘Ohmigosh, I’m feeling so sick; it was nice to see you all. I’ll see you later.’ And as soon as those pictures go up on Facebook, I would just casually send an email, maybe, if it were something I felt that strongly about, to the person. If they like truly felt like this group of kids were damaging the relationship. I think that it’s kind of one of the things that you can kind of direct kind of a vague email that kind of implied. Just kind of say that you saw these pictures, and you’re a little, like if it was something that you were personally concerned about,

31


and I’m sure in that position you would be, just say there’s Facebook pictures, and I mean, if they’re willing to put it on Facebook, then I feel like they’re disrespecting the rules to like a certain point where they don’t care if they’re caught because it doesn’t sound like these kids were being very careful. But, yeah, it’s tricky because no matter what if they found out that this girl did it, she’s going to get labeled for it, and she’s going to lose those friends, for maybe a temporary time, but that’s what happens.

CC: James Munson invited a new friend he met in class, Tony, to hang out at the local pizza place with his friends this evening. At the pizza place, everyone is just chatting and getting along when someone starts to talk about how “gay” it is that his heterosexual roommate is in NYU’s acapella group and everyone laughs. Aside from class, Charles doesn’t really think that this is a funny comment, but after hanging out with this group of people for a semester, he has just been ignoring comments like this. However, now with a new friend that Charles doesn’t know well, the joke seems instantly inappropriate and rude. Additionally, Charles realizes that he doesn’t know Tony’s sexual orientation or whether or not he might be in an acapella group. Charles wants to say something, but is worried that his friends will laugh at him and maybe even call him “gay.” However, if he doesn’t say something, he’s afraid that Tony’s feelings could be hurt. What should Charles do?

AW: Well, I’ve had friends back home who are just like ‘that’s gay’ and that’s really annoying, and that’s really something like coming here and doing a couple of separate programs, you learn more about why specifically that is not okay, and why kind of being a bystander and letting it happen is almost worse. So that’s something, that I feel like I would be more comfortable kind of openly saying, because it sounds like for this kid it’s something that’s a value that is really important to him if he’s concerned when this person is saying it. And that’s something that’s like a little easier to approach, because no one’s technically breaking a rule. It’s more just kind of like a moral thing, just even if you were just like casually like, ‘Hey, could you not say that’ or just like a small comment that’s not offensive in anyway, just like ‘Don’t say that around me’ just like something like that. Because people, I don’t think, realize just how much of an impact that can have on people. For them that might just be something, because I know kids that will kind of say those things all of the time, and it’s just kind of something they’ve always done and it’s just been socially accepted wherever they’re from, and they just don’t really get it. To them it’s just something that they say and it’s not a really big deal. Especially if there is this new kid, I mean, you could be doing serious damage by doing it, and it’s such a like a little thing, and I’m sure that the person doesn’t realize it. So that’s something that I would say, you know what, say something. And you know what, if they’re really that good of a friend, they’re going to take your comment seriously; they’re not going to laugh at you. And if they do, then you should find better friends, because that’s just ridiculous.

Vexing Problems:CC: In your experience in college so far, is there a need for affirmative action based on ethnicity in higher education? Additionally, do you think that college campuses should then support minorities through clubs and organizations? (King & Shuford, 1996, p. 153)

AW: That’s an interesting topic. My newspaper was really weird and we talked about this all the time, but it was something that is a tricky situation, and the solution that we actually came up

32


with to this whole problem, and something that I believe is the biggest problem… Like NYU you can tell the breakdown online, they give you the statistics, there are a very low number of African-Americans here, and I’m trying to think of what other ethnicities there were, that were represented. There were just like lower proportions compared with the American population. And a lot of that had to deal with the scholarships that NYU offers, and that’s more of a financial problem about why they’re not able to come here. One of my really great friends from back home, Dominic, really wanted to apply to Tisch, but he just really couldn’t afford it. And it just kind of, I feel like, affirmative action, giving favoritism to someone based on race, is kind of similar to racism in the complete opposite way. I think it is a kind of racism, even though it’s a more positive thing because you are giving people, minorities more opportunities. But I feel like a lot of the problems with people, like getting into colleges is financial and I feel like a better way to target that would be to offer scholarships to people who seriously make incomes that are low enough where they literally would not be able to come here. Like if NYU started offering more generous scholarships, the amount of diversity within this school, even though you know we have international students, all of that, we’re diverse, but proportions would make a lot more sense. So, I think that financially is a better way to target it. But just from more of a moral perspective, I think I would almost be offended if someone was saying ‘Oh, we don’t have enough of your race so we’re going to offer basically a scholarship to you.’ I can’t tell you how many scholarships I was ineligible for here, or just like college in general, because I wasn’t black or because I wasn’t some kind of minority. And it’s not a negative thing. I just feel like there are better ways to go about it, and it is to me, something that it just doesn’t make sense to show anyone favoritism, because I think that in itself is a kind of racism. So if you truly want to kind of even the playing field, and make everyone equal, then you have to make everyone equal. Financially, it’s more of a different situation, but I like I feel like just basing something off of race is very dangerous and can lead to a lot of problems.

CC: Should it be required that religiously (specifically Catholic) affiliated hospitals, schools, and other public-serving institutions cover birth control as a part of their employee healthcare packages?

AW: That’s interesting because that’s like going through politics right now. And from my understanding the biggest debate in that is that it’s okay if someone basically doesn’t cover birth control, but the argument at least from my perspective, or my understanding of it, is that they’re covering drugs like Viagra, which technically aren’t necessary in any way. So, in that case, I feel like if you are supporting kind of like sex for one gender, you kind of need to support it for the other to keep things balanced. If it’s something where that hospital decides to back off of kind of any kind of sexual care that’s not necessary for both genders, then I feel like if they are a religious affiliated hospital, then they can do that. But they should know that they repercussion of that, not everyone going to your hospital is going to be affiliated with your religion, and you can lose a lot of people really quickly if you don’t have things like birth control.

CC: To clarify, this is for their employee health care packages, so this is more if you work for a Jesuit school, for example, then they wouldn’t cover birth control in your prescriptions.

AW: Well at the point, then I would say that if you’re working there, then you’re choosing to work there, and technically they can kind of do whatever they want. Especially since they are a

33


religiously affiliated institution. Like if you go to a Catholic school, you can be mandated to go to Mass, that’s just how it works. I mean, me personal, I’m pro people having birth control, but if that’s something where they’re not allowing their employees and they’re not covering that for both genders, then I feel like that’s okay. I feel like when they’re showing kind of like favoritism to like one gender and like giving one, covering one then there’s a problem. But yeah, I mean, they can do that in my opinion.

34

Documents

carolinedianecristal.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewI will first offer a brief summary of the book followed by a summary of Chickering and Reisser’s seven-vector theory. I will then