Author: ACPAAdmin

Abstract: An academic advisor at a rural liberal arts college meets with a premedical student and discusses applying to medical school.

Keywords/Phrases: Academic Advising, Medical School, MCAT

Primary Characters

Tom (He/Him/His)

Tom is a first-generation student. While going to college, he works part-time at a local bookstore. His brother did not go to college but works two jobs at a local hotel and a local supermarket. His mother is an office coordinator in the accounting department of a local hospital and his father is not working due to illness. Therefore, he, his brother, and his mother are the financial providers of his household. Although Tom and his family do not receive financial help from the government and public programs, their annual household income is below the low-income threshold. His father’s illness has inspired Tom to pursue a career in medicine. Tom comes from a Filipino-American background.

Mr. Lee (He/Him/His)

Mr. Lee has been a premedical advisor at the institution for more than 11 years. Mr. Lee has not met with Tom in the previous semester so this semester is their first meeting (Tom’s primary advisor was his biology professor who specializes in vertebrates). Tom’s biology professor recommended he see Mr. Lee as he specializes in medical school applications. Mr. Lee holds a B.S. degree in Chemistry and a master’s degree in Biochemistry from State University. Although Mr. Lee was accepted into medical school when he first applied, he opted to work as a pre-medical advisor to help undergraduate students who want to pursue medicine. He wants to use his experience in applying and getting accepted to medical school to guide students. Mr. Lee was born and raised in China, but when he was 10, his family relocated to the US for more opportunities. 

Case Study

Tom is one semester away from graduating with his bachelor’s degree in biology at the State University. Although he has plans to apply to medical school, he is unsure if he is ready. He does not have experience in volunteering, caring for patients, or participating in medical-related research. Furthermore, he has not prepared for the MCAT, the entrance exam required for all medical schools. The only experience he has is physician shadowing. As a result, he feels unsure and underprepared for his medical school application.

To ease his concerns, he has met with his new academic advisor, Mr. Lee, to discuss Tom’s plans to apply to medical school. Mr. Lee explained to Tom that his grades are competitive as his science GPA is 3.6 and his non-science GPA is 3.7. The advisor acknowledged that although Tom has the grades, he is at a disadvantage geographically. He lives in a rural area, which is classified as an underserved community and lacks the academic resources that other students have access to. In fact, students are often encouraged to pursue medical-related opportunities in urban areas.

However, Mr. Lee provided some suggestions for Tom to consider. For example, State University is strong in research related to marine and environmental science, education, and liberal arts. His university offers a summer research program in which he can participate. The program is open to undergraduate and graduate students, so Tom is eligible to participate the summer after he graduates. At the same time, Tom can contact and coordinate with local hospitals and clinics about obtaining experience caring for patients. Likewise, he can make volunteer arrangements with student clubs and organizations at State University. As a result, Tom will most likely spend one or two years expanding his experience in order to strengthen his medical school application. For his MCAT preparation, Mr. Lee suggests that Tom could self-study the material. Although Tom will not accumulate any debt from participating in these activities, he is not enthusiastic about the suggestions as they seemed stressful and Mr. Lee offered less guidance than he had expected. Tom hoped to gain more medical research and hospital experience as an undergraduate, however, his university was limited in offering those types of experiences.

The last suggestion that the academic advisor offered was for Tom to apply for a two-year premedical school postbaccalaureate program. The program provides students with medical research experience, hospital experience, physician shadowing, and MCAT and medical school application preparation. The program has a 90% success rate of its graduates getting accepted into medical school in their first attempt in applying. Tom’s only concern is that the program is in a different state. Mr. Lee is willing to help Tom with completing and submitting his application if he is interested in applying. Mr. Lee explained that although the program is in a different state, students accepted into the program receive a full-ride scholarship with monthly stipends. The purpose of the program is to financially support deserving students with financial need. In this way the program allows students to focus on and commit to their academic studies. The program is designed to expand access to students who might not otherwise be able to afford experiences to get them into medical school. Hence, participants in this program do not have to worry about additional financial burdens while completing the program.

Although the program seems promising and will definitely help Tom achieve his goal of becoming a medical doctor, he is concerned about personal support as he has no family members who live in the state where the premed program is located. Although Tom is motivated to pursue a career in medicine, his personal situation may prevent him from reaching his goal. He is an important financial provider for his family and since there is no medical school in the area, moving away from his family will bring unexpected financial challenges. In addition, Tom does not get financial support from his family for his schooling as he relies on supported based on his FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) award. The money that Tom and his family make is for housing and living expenses. In short, Tom spends his money on his needs and not his wants. While the financial aspects of the program described above will be covered, the stipend does not provide Tom with the funds he has earned in the past that have helped him support his family as well as covering his own expenses.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the academic advisor’s role in this advising session? How could Mr. Lee address Tom’s needs?
2. What are Tom’s options for his situation?
3. While time and money are central to this case, what other issues or considerations does Tom need to take into account? What other factors should Mr. Lee raise and help Tom address?
4. What other staff, offices, or resources might help Tom navigate his situation?

Author Bio

Ryu Espinosa (He/His/Him) is a graduate student in the master’s program in academic advising at Kansas State University.

Abstract

Educators and student affairs professionals are instrumental in shaping the lived experiences of college students. The increasingly diverse student population served on college campuses means there is always room for improvement in how they are served because they have varied needs, experiences, and cultures. This case study explores the struggles of an international graduate student of color, Frank, at a predominantly white institution (PWI) trying to navigate his way through cultural differences and stereotypes in the classroom. The lack of cultural awareness and implicit bias demonstrated by both his classmates and professors compound his struggles. Feeling alienated and unwelcome, Frank is contemplating transferring to a different school to make his experience easier and more rewarding. His potential transfer has gotten the attention of the staff of International Student Services, and they are now trying to resolve his concerns.

Key words: international student challenges, cross-cultural navigation, implicit bias in education, predominantly white institution dynamics, identity-based support

Main Characters

Frank (He/him) is a first-generation college and graduate student from Ghana in West Africa pursuing his master’s degree in aerospace engineering at Gliding University (GU). He is in his second year and the only student of color and only international student in his cohort.

Dr. Oliver (He/him) is a professor in the Aerospace Engineering program at GU, a globally renowned university that trains top notch pilots and astronauts. He is also the advisor for the Aerospace Engineering Club (AEC), the only student organization in the department. He has been teaching for the past eight years.

Liam (He/him) is a graduate student in the second year of the aerospace engineering program. He is also the president of AEC.

Brianna (She/her) is among the very few employees who identify as a person of color and the only Black individual serving as an International Student Service Advisor at GU. She has served in this position for two years.

Context

Gliding University (GU) is a mid-sized private institution which is consistently ranked in the top 15% of colleges and universities among all the major university ranking agencies. It is a private, four-year institution in the southern part of the United States and is a predominantly white institution (PWI) with enrollment of approximately 9,000 students (6,300 undergraduates and 2,700 graduate students). The demographic breakdown is as follows: Caucasian/white – 63.3%, Hispanic/Latinx – 8.67%, Asian American or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander – 5.12%, Black/African American – 7.77%, American Indian/Alaska Native – 0.123%, and 2 or more races – 4.35%.  Black students make up only about 3% of engineering students. This demographic mirrors that of the employees in engineering fields as well.

Case

Gliding University, though a prestigious university, has come under intense public scrutiny in recent years for its lack of diversity and is labelled ‘the white university’ by critics in the region. Furthermore, these critics claim GU is not living by its own values and mission statement: Empowering minds, celebrating differences, and achieving greatness together.  The criticism has become a major concern for the leadership of GU.

As part of a conscious effort by GU’s administration to increase diversity of their student population, a scholarship program aptly named Multicultural Excellence Scholarship was created and piloted to attract talented students from all over the world. Frank is a beneficiary of the Multicultural Excellence Scholarship, and a member of its first cohort. He completed his undergraduate studies in his home country of Ghana in Africa ranked number one in his class.

As both an international student and a first-generation college student, transitioning to his new environment in the master’s program has been a challenge for the past year. Frank has struggled with cultural differences in food, social interactions, teaching and learning style, and language barriers, among other things. He is nonetheless determined to excel in his academics and has invested quality time into this goal, as evidenced by his contribution to class discussions. His classmates affirmed his academic talents.

At first, he felt complimented. With time, he became uncomfortable as he sensed something was off and awkward. To make matters worse, his professor joined in to shower him with praise. The tone from others shifted from complimentary to Frank feeling he was being patronized or that his peers and faculty were genuinely surprised as his academic abilities. Although he knew there was no malicious intent, these experiences really bothered him.

Recently, Liam, an outgoing peer and the president of the Aerospace Engineering Club (AEC) said to Frank “You speak very well – your English is excellent. That is amazing! Were you taught English in your home country?” This and other similar comments make Frank feel uneasy.

To find a community where he could connect and feel more of a sense of belonging, Frank decided to join the AEC. Unbeknown to him, Liam was the organization’s president, and his “pleasantly unwelcoming remarks” (as Frank had come to think of them) continued. Additionally, Frank’s professor, Dr. Oliver, continued to make similar comments in class such as, “See Frank? A young and brilliant mind from Africa has grasped this concept, despite the lack of resources where you come from. Frank, you are a rare breed. Would you be kind enough to explain this concept to your classmates?” At this point, Frank felt he had nowhere to turn to and started contemplating transferring to a different school.

A week later, the Office of International Student Services sent an email about a program entitled “You are Not Alone on this Journey: Help is Here” – for all international graduate students. The program title resonated with Frank, and he decided to attend. Brianna happened to be the main speaker for the event. Frank was so excited to see her, given she was the only Black person he had seen in a staff position in the college of Engineering. Even though she was American and not international, Brianna seemed to deeply understand the challenges related to transition to the campus and the country. Brianna spoke about the transition to a different culture, how international students can navigate challenges on campus, and how to find support. She also shared strategies for developing healthy coping mechanisms academically and personally.

Frank talked to Brianna after the event and told her how glad he was to see her. He shared his classroom struggles and said the session was really helpful. Brianna thanked him for sharing. She said doing sessions like this helped her realize the amount of work needed across the campus in the areas of support, cultural sensitivity, and awareness when working with international students. She validated Frank’s concerns and assured him they would be taken seriously, and she would continue to work on these and other issues.

Discussion Questions

1. How can Brianna support Frank to deal with his challenges in the classroom? How might she prioritize his concerns and what first steps might she take in helping him?
2. How can Brianna encourage Frank to advocate for himself when situations arise with Dr. Oliver, Liam, and others? What might the implications be – positive and negative – for Frank if he begins to speak up?
3. What other campus resources can Frank take advantage of or should Brianna recommend to him to help him as he moves forward in his studies?
4. What responsibility to GU as an institution have to Frank and other students? What strategies can GU implement to help Frank, other students of color, and other international students feel a greater sense of belonging in and out of the classroom?

Author’s Biography

Henry Dawson-Amoah (He/him) is an international graduate student from Ghana and in the second year of the Higher Education and Student Affairs (HESA) program at Northern Illinois University. He is also a graduate assistant at the Department of Student Life, Waubonsee Community College.

Abstract

The case of Kenyatta, an international student at Chelsea University from Kenya, studying and working as an Assistant Hall Director. Kenyatta goes through a major cultural misinterpretation due to using the social application called Tinder to seek friendship. Back in his country of Kenya, Tinder has a dual use; it is used not only for dating but also to make friends and keep in touch with people. Knowing this, first-year graduate student Kenyatta uses the app and connects with a resident assistant from another residence hall, Gabby. The two get along fine, but Gabby thinks that because of Kenyatta’s position, Kenyatta might report her first and decides to strike first by reporting him to his supervisor.

Keywords:

Ethical boundaries, culture, student-staff relationships, social apps, fairness

Character Descriptions

Kenyatta (Him/He/His) is a 24-year-old Kenya graduate student at Chelsea University reading a master’s in College Student Personnel Administration. Kenyatta works as an Assistant Hall Director overseeing Resident Assistants in one of the residence halls. He is lonely and has been using the dating app Tinder to find friends; he does not know that this app is generally used in this country to find casual sex partners.

Gabby (She/Her) is a 21-year-old undergraduate student who works as a Resident Assistant in a different residence hall at Chelsea University. After she matched up with Kenyatta on Tinder, she started to feel concerned that he might be able to turn her in. She felt that for this reason a

complaint against his supervisor would be warranted, as she judged his behavior harassing based on the circumstances surrounding the situation.

Mr. Duncan (Him/He/His) is a Hall Director at Chelsea University and Kenyatta’s direct supervisor.

Context

Chelsea University is situated in the Midwest region of the United States, and it has about 12,000 undergraduate and 4,000 graduate students. This university is famous for its policies of educational diversity and work toward creating a safe space for students of color.

As part of this commitment, Chelsea University has a growing international student population, with students from over 80 countries. The university, therefore, has available a variety of services designed to assist international students; these include international student orientation and an international student center that offers events that bring together students from different cultures.

However, as Lee and Rice (2007) note, international students can often experience cultural misunderstandings and subtle forms of discrimination, which may affect their sense of belonging.

Case Study

According to Brown and Holloway (2008), international students often experience a complex adjustment journey, where even seemingly routine interactions can become significant sources of stress. This process is further complicated by the lack of familiarity with certain social norms, which can lead to misunderstandings.

Kenyatta arrived in the US three months ago to study for a master’s in college student personnel administration and holds an assistantship in Chelsea University’s Housing and Dining as an Assistant Hall Director and oversees 20 resident assistants in his hall. Although Kenyatta feels grateful for this opportunity, he often felt disassociated from people at the start because he had to be away from his family and friends. With his longing for friendship and companionship, Kenyatta downloads Tinder, which is popular among Kenyan teenagers and youths, to make friends and find companions in the US.

His profile says, “Just looking to make some friends and explore the area!” suggesting a desire to meet others who share his interest in getting to know America. He does not know that most American university students use Tinder as a hook-up app. He is open to casual conversation when matched with Gabby, a resident assistant from another hall. Kenyatta assumes Gabby, like himself, is also interested in finding friends. With over 150 Resident Assistants at Chelsea University, it is unlikely that Kenyatta, would know all of them, even after housing training.

Their conversation is informal, and the topic of their interaction centers around campus responsibilities and everyday scenarios. An excerpt of the interaction they had is presented below:

Kenyatta: Hello! New in the States, just looking for new friends. How is your day?

Gabby: Hey! Not bad, just finished a shift. I am an RA, so I’m on call most days; what about you?

Kenyatta: Great! I am an Assistant Hall Director for the hall down the hill. Coming here has been a big change; I just hope that I will make some friends while I’m here. Do you on campus live too?

Gabby: Yeah, I do. It’s busy being an RA, but I like it. It’s nice helping people adjust to college life.

After several other exchanges about campus life and the weather, they parted ways on good terms. Kenyatta felt accomplished that he had broken the ice and been able to communicate successfully with another person on campus. A week later, he is shocked to find himself called into his supervisor’s office, Mr. Duncan, who explains that Gabby has filed a report because she was uncomfortable due to their interaction on Tinder. In Kenya, Kenyatta is used to addressing supervisors formally with titles like “Mr.” or “Ms.,” reflecting common professional norms in many African workplaces.

Mr. Duncan said, “Kenyatta, I want to bring something up with you that was just brought to my attention. Gabby, an RA from the other hall said she matched with you on Tinder. She is concerned this could lead to a conflict of interest and breaking boundaries. Kenyatta: “I’m surprised since I never thought that something was wrong. We use Tinder to meet people, hang around, and make friends in Kenya. And I mentioned that on my profile and wasn’t seeking more than friendship.

Mr. Duncan replied, “I know, but here in the US, it has a reputation as a hookup app; only a few people use it to find friends.

She matched with me too, and we agreed to chat,” Kenyatta said. “And then, if she felt uneasy about it, she could have unmatched me, I don’t see why there should need to be some sort of report type thingy.

Mr. Duncan elaborated, “Gabby felt that you would be personally calling her out yourself, since you are in a position of authority, and the whole thing was best coming from her first. So, positionality does need to be factored in while considering the context of the situation.”

Kenyatta said, “I know, but I mainly wanted to find friends somehow to lessen my loneliness here. It is not at all fair that I am judged because of cultural differences.”

Mr. Duncan hears Kenyatta out and knows there could be a cultural misunderstanding in the way Tinder is used in this country.

Mr. Duncan reminds Kenyatta that his role calls for more discretion in interactions with student staff. “Kenyatta, I can only imagine how challenging this must have been for you. It is an opportunity for us to learn how we can support our international students in navigating the campus cultural expectations. Let’s work together to find ways to help you feel connected while establishing professional boundaries.”.

Kenyatta leaves this interaction feeling misunderstood and disconnected. He questions whether Gabby’s reaction had to do with her assumptions about who he was as an international student and his unfamiliarity with social norms in the United States. He feels that his cultural background was not considered within this interaction and that he has been discriminated against based on what was, relatively speaking, a harmless conversation.

This incident has raised several questions in Kenyatta’s mind about how inclusive his new environment is and how well Chelsea University supports international students in their social and cultural adjustment.

Kenyatta’s misunderstanding of Tinder’s purpose highlights how cultural differences can complicate social interactions. According to Bosch (2022), in many African countries, Tinder serves not only as a dating app but also as a platform for making friends or casual acquaintances. In South Africa, for example, 12% of Tinder users surveyed reported using the app for networking or finding friends, and many view it as a form of entertainment rather than strictly for romantic purposes. This contrasts sharply with its predominant use in the U.S. for casual dating and physical attraction.

According to Lee and Rice (2007), international students frequently experience subtle discrimination when their behaviors are interpreted through a culturally specific lens, which may not consider their backgrounds.

Discussion Questions

What ethical issues should Kenyatta be concerned about as an Assistant Hall Director in using social applications that may provide opportunities to interact with student staff?

Should Chelsea University establish guidelines specific to social media interactions among student staff, and how can these guidelines balance personal freedom with professional boundaries, particularly in culturally diverse settings?

If Gabby’s complaint against Kenyatta was based on her perception and fear rather than any wrongdoing, how would the campus authorities address such an issue to be certain that they were being fair?

How might these circumstances affect Kenyatta’s experiences as an international student, including his interactions with others on campus?

Author

Benjamin Dadzie (he/him): Benjamin is a graduate student in the Master of Education in Student Affairs program at Clemson University. Originally from Ghana, he is passionate about exploring the challenges faced by international students and advocates for creating supportive, culturally inclusive environments in higher education.

References

Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The adjustment journey of international postgraduate students at an English university: An ethnographic study. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(2), 232-249.

Bosch, T. (2022). The dating game: Survey shows how and why South Africans use Tinder. The Conversation.

Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409.

Introduction: This case involves Jimmie, a first-year college student whose roommate, Jack, is caught with alcohol in their residence hall room for the second time. The incident sparks discussions on ethics, conflict management, and self-advocacy, all within the intricate web of roommate dynamics, shedding light on the complexities of university campus conduct hearings.

Keywords: Ethics, Conflict Resolution, Student Advocacy, Student Safety

Background: Jimmie, an 18-year-old Material Science Engineering major, is roommates with Jack, a 19-year-old first-year Criminal Justice student known for his love of partying. Jack has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including one earlier in the same semester where he was caught with friends drinking in the room he and Jimmie share. That incident led to Jack completing an online alcohol education course and his parents being notified. Despite the sanctions, Jack continues his behavior, often dismissing Jimmie’s concerns about the noise and partying in their room.

While Jimmie and Jack are roommates, they are not particularly close. Jimmie is more academically focused and often finds himself frustrated by Jack’s disregard for a quiet and respectful living environment. Jimmie has avoided directly confrontating Jack, fearing it might lead to increased tension or further issues.

Incident Description: One evening, while Jimmie is studying at the library, Michael and Annie, the Resident Assistants, respond to multiple noise complaints about loud music and shouting coming from Jimmie and Jack’s room. Upon arrival, they find a large crowd in the room, with several students who appear to be intoxicated. Due to the size of the gathering (about 15 students) and the uncooperative behavior of some attendees, the RAs decide to involve campus police, which is standard protocol for situations with potential safety risks.

When Jimmie returns later that night, he finds his room in disarray. Jack is visibly intoxicated, and the police have already dispersed the crowd. Jimmie, though compliant with the RAs, expresses his growing discomfort with Jack’s influence and starts to consider requesting a room change.

Conduct Hearing Process:

1. Report and Investigation: The incident is officially reported, and Jack is identified as the primary person responsible for the alcohol and the gathering. The investigation reveals that Jack had ignored previous warnings and continued to host parties in the room.
2. Meeting with University Officials: Jack meets with Malik, a Graduate Resident Director, who is known for his ability to advocate for students while holding them accountable. During the meeting, Jack downplays the situation, but Malik presses him on the repeated violations. Jimmie is also called in to discuss his perspective on the incident, where he expresses concerns about Jack’s behavior and its impact on his living situation.
3. Conduct Hearing: During the hearing, Jack is confronted with the evidence and asked to explain his actions. Jimmie is asked to share how Jack’s behavior has made him feel his room. Jimmie says he feels unsafe and uncomfortable and also mentions his reluctance to report Jack earlier due to fear of retaliation or worsening their relationship.
4. Decision and Sanctions: The hearing concludes with Jack being put on probation for a year, a referral to mandatory alcohol counseling, and Jack is prohibited from hosting gatherings in the residence hall. Additionally, both Jimmie and Jack are referred for roommate mediation to address their ongoing issues. Jack, frustrated by the outcome, becomes increasingly dismissive of Jimmie, further straining their relationship. Jimmie is also frustrated that he is obligated to put time into mediation that he doesn’t think will help and that further interferes with his studying.

This case raises key questions about creating a well-structured conduct hearing process that considers not only the violation but also the broader roommate dynamics. Important areas for reflection include:

• Fostering Confidence: What strategies can empower students like Jimmie to raise concerns early without fearing retaliation?
• Promoting Self-Advocacy: How can conduct hearings be transformed into opportunities for students to sharpen their self-advocacy skills?
• Implementing Ethics Education: How can ethics education be woven into campus life to shape more thoughtful decision-making?
• Maintaining Safe Spaces: What role should staff like Malik play in making conduct hearings supportive while fostering a safer community?

Discussion Questions:

1. How can universities empower students to confidently communicate with roommates about concerns, including substances in the room?
2. How might the situation have been different if Jimmie had been present during the incidents that took place in the room?
3. What strategies can staff employ to foster an environment conducive to open, honest, proactive, and ethical discussions?
4. In what ways can university staff, like Malik, ensure a safe environment for students to openly discuss challenging situations like the one described in this case?

Author Biography

Kaleb Scott (He/Him) is a recent graduate of the Master’s in Student Affairs program at Clemson University. He currently holds the role of Resident Director at Northwestern University, where he works with a diverse student population including athletes, first-generation/low-income (FGLI) students, and international students, among many others.

Abstract

This case study explores the legal and ethical issues surrounding the reporting of a sexual assault on the campus of a religious university with a rigid code of conduct. Student affairs professionals at religious institutions may encounter difficulty in following university protocol in situations where the student accused of an infraction has also been victimized in the same situation. Other factors that may complicate a conduct situation include scholarship requirements, athletic eligibility, social repercussions, and ability to remain in student leadership positions. Institutions must carefully navigate both the unintended and inconsistent consequences that an unflinching commitment to disciplinary protocol may introduce.

Primary Characters

Elizabeth (she, her, hers) – Elizabeth is an Assistant Director working in a student conduct office at a religious institution. In her position, she is responsible for providing recommendations on appropriate disciplinary action for students found responsible for violating policy. Although the code of conduct is strictly enforced, her supervisors are supportive and occasionally provide her with creative freedom in determining appropriate disciplinary procedures.

Lindsey (she, her, hers) – Lindsey works in the university Title IX office. She is responsible for helping to investigate sexual abuse allegations and collecting testimonies from both parties. She works closely with Elizabeth in the student conduct office when sexual harassment and assault allegations arise.

Isabel (she, her, hers) – Isabel is a junior marketing major. She is the oldest of seven children and can afford to attend university by means of a large academic scholarship. Isabel has a 4.0 GPA, is the president of the university’s Women in Business student organization and is highly involved in Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA). She has recently gone through a difficult breakup.

Brian (he, him, his) – Brian is a senior political science major and is Isabel’s former boyfriend. He is an only child from an affluent background and his parents are alumni of the university he attends. Brian is well-known and well-liked on campus, participating in several student organizations, including FCA.

Keywords: student conduct, alcohol, Title IX, religious institutions

Institutional Context

Mountain Top University (MTU) is a private, religious institution in the Midwestern region of the United States with Division 1 athletics. A medium-sized school with approximately 15,000 students, Mountain Top has a rigid code of conduct, and rules are strictly enforced. Students holding leadership positions on campus, athletes, and institutional scholarship recipients must maintain a clean conduct record to retain these titles and benefits. Most students on campus are devoutly religious and are encouraged to report conduct and honor code violations as a matter of spiritual concern.

Case

Elizabeth enjoys her job working in student conduct at MTU. While she identifies closely with her faith, she sometimes struggles with the severity of the code of conduct and occasionally questions what the learning outcomes are of punitive consequences. Elizabeth hopes that she can make a difference at her institution by advocating for grace and understanding in situations that may warrant leniency.

Recently, as she has been investigating a case involving students Isabel and Brian. Elizabeth has been working closely with her colleague, Lindsey, who works in the Title IX office. Lindsey recounts to Elizabeth that the Title IX office received information from a close friend of Isabel’s that Isabel had been sexually assaulted by her ex-boyfriend, Brian, at a party off campus. The friend stated that Isabel had become withdrawn and eventually told the friend what had happened roughly one week after the incident took place.

When Lindsey began investigating the situation and collecting information from Isabel, she learned that Isabel did not seek medical care after the assault or report the incident to school officials as she had consumed alcohol at the party. Partaking in the consumption of alcohol, regardless of age, is against MTU’s honor code and Isabel was fearful that reporting her assault would lead to disciplinary action against her.

After Lindsey’s team reported the incident to local police, an investigation took place, but no charges were filed as both Isabel and Brian were 21 and there was no physical evidence to prove that the alleged assault had occurred. Because both students ultimately admitted to having been drinking at the party, Lindsey is referring both Isabel and Brian to MTU’s student conduct office.

Elizabeth has now met with both Isabel and Brian. Isabel has been compliant with all aspects of the conduct investigation but remains extremely fearful. Reeling from the investigation and perceived betrayal committed by her friend in reporting the incident, Isabel is already struggling in her courses and has been receiving counseling after her alleged assault. However, if MTU proceeds with disciplinary action against her, she fears being ostracized from her student groups, having to step down from her leadership position, and losing the academic scholarship without which she would not be able to attend MTU. At the very least, losing her scholarship would force her to disclose her assault to her parents, regardless of whether she feels ready to discuss it with them.

While Isabel has faced her circumstances alone, Brian has received unwavering support from his parents (well-known alumni of and major MTU donors), his friends, and a legal team. Because Brian does not have an academic scholarship, nor does he hold any positions of leadership, his consequences for violating the same alcohol consumption rule as Isabel is far less severe. If MTU shows leniency to Isabel and allows her to keep her scholarship and leadership positions, Brian’s legal team has threatened to sue the university.

Elizabeth is burdened by the situation and is nervous for what repercussions may lie ahead based on her disciplinary recommendation for the students.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are Elizabeth’s options for disciplinary recommendations in both Brian and Isabel’s conduct cases? How might she think outside the box to allow leniency for Isabel without legal repercussions for MTU?
2. How might MTU’s code of conduct discourage victims from being able to seek justice after a crime has been committed?
3. What additional resources can MTU offer Isabel that may help her cope with financial distress, post-traumatic stress, and potential loss of community support on campus?
4. What campus resources might be appropriate to recommend to Brian and Isabel’s roommates?
5. While concern for students’ spiritual well-being is important at MTU, how can conduct staff members encourage a campus culture that values personal responsibility and prohibits retaliatory reporting?
6. How does MTU’s code of conduct impact students disproportionately even when the consequence for each infraction is consistent?

Author Biography:

Rachel Mustin (she, her, hers) is an Assistant Director of Student Services in the College of Arts and Humanities at Clemson University. She is also a second-year student in Clemson University’s Master of Student Affairs program. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Human Services Psychology and has over 10 years of experience in higher education in university admissions and academic advising.

Abstract

 In Oct. of 2023, Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization, launches an assault on Israel, killing over 1,000 Israelis, including several civilians. In response to these attacks, Israel begins strikes on the Gaza Strip, leading to a continued and extremely violent physical conflict. News of the violent escalation has reached the United States, and several institutions are seeing increased campus protests and encampments. Central Boston University is not immune to this increase and finds groups of their students organizing to demonstrate on campus. The university struggles to find ways to support its entire student body and staff as they have a high number of Jewish students and a commitment to inclusivity and civic engagement. This case study examines the competing needs of various student groups and an institution’s responsibility to support their students during a crisis, on or off campus.

Keywords: student organizations, international politics and conflict, advocacy, identity-based discrimination

Primary Characters

 Carlon (he/him/his) – Carlon is a senior International Business Relations major who identifies as Jewish. He grew up in the nearby state of New York but has relatives living in Israel. While previously being an active member of Central Boston University’s Hillel organization, he now no longer supports the student organization as he stated he overheard ‘Zionists’ downplaying the devastation in Gaza and supporting Israel’s approach to “taking back and occupying their rightful land” while waiting for a Hillel meeting to begin a couple of weeks ago.

Naomi (she/her/hers) – Naomi is a junior Philosophy major who identifies as a Christian. She was born and raised in southern Georgia but came to school in Massachusetts to “get away from” her conservative family members. She is passionate about creating “safe spaces” on campus.

Veronica (she/her/hers/Ella) – Veronica is a young and new full-time Admissions Counselor at Central Boston University. She grew up just outside of Boston but attended the University of California for her undergraduate studies. Veronica is excited about her new position at the university but is nervous about how to support different student demographics than what she experienced at her undergraduate institution.

Samuel (he/him/his) – Samuel is a mid-level professional in the university’s First Year Experience office. He proudly identifies as Jewish and has partnered with the university’s Hillel student organization for orientation and other FYE programming.

Institutional context

Central Boston University is a small, highly selective, private liberal arts university with approximately 7,000 undergraduate students in the heart of Boston, Massachusetts. Central Boston University has a prominent Jewish student population, accounting for roughly 22% of its student body. However, only 10% of their faculty and staff identify as Jewish. They have many vibrant student organizations, including Hillel, the largest Jewish campus organization in the world. Administration has worked hard to communicate the campus’ diversity and commitment to inclusive excellence.

Case

As things start to heat up online about the Israel-Palestine/Gaza discourse, many students at Central Boston University are troubled by the situation. Some students feel torn between their faith/identity, supporting the civilian people of Israel and supporting the civilian Palestinians of Gaza. Support staff have been actively working to keep the peace between student organizations, with many stating their support for or condemnation of one another based on their stance on the conflict. However, students and staff members have been disappointed in the administration’s lack of support or response. Some faculty members have tried to avoid debates in class, while others have encouraged the discourse between their students. Tensions across campus have only escalated over this past week as reports of the targeted attacks on the Al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip by Israel flood in. (Al-Shifa was Gaza’s largest medical facility, which Israeli authorities have argued was a base for the Hamas foreign military terrorist organization).

Pro-Palestinian students have begun exercising their free speech on campus with signs and chants near an academic building and a busy street running through the campus, which is designated as a free speech zone on campus. The group was organized by Carlon, a Jewish student, and Naomi, a Christian student at Central Boston University. Most recently, the group made shirts they handed out to passing students while using a megaphone to project their message. The megaphone is beginning to disrupt classes in the nearby academic building. Administration so far has not addressed the conflict or made a public statement on the demonstrations. Faculty teaching in the nearby building are frustrated and start complaining about the loud chanting and want answers from the administration on how they plan to mitigate the disruptions to their ongoing classes. Carlon and Naomi stand firm on their convictions and state they have a right to express their opinions.

The university also has a very active Hillel organization on campus, comprised of over 1,000 Jewish students. They have reported an increase in targeted verbal and physical attacks based on students’ Jewish identities in the past week since the latest medical facility devastation reported from Gaza. Hillel is now demanding answers from faculty, staff, and administration on how they plan to stop the hate and retaliation against their organization’s members in the wake of the war overseas.

The students gathered for the next day’s demonstration were taken aside one by one for questioning by city police to get to the bottom of who had been targeting Jewish students on campus. One student, Jackson Gabbret, was arrested for “interfering with an official investigation” after refusing to meet with the police and proceeding to yell over officers when attempting to question other students. However, after interviewing each student, the city police still are unsure of who is responsible for the attacks and state that they will continue investigating the matter in the coming days. Students participating in the demonstration were very rattled from the interaction with the officers and blame Hillel students for assuming they were the ones responsible for the hate incidents, stating that they have been “nothing but peaceful.”

Veronica, an Admissions Counselor, meets with Samuel, a First Year Experience Coordinator. Veronica asks to discuss Samuel’s experience as a Jewish person and his thoughts on the campus uproar. She is concerned that prospective students will start asking her questions in her admissions meetings and wants to know what she should tell them about the conflict on campus. Samuel appreciates Veronica’s attempt to seek out information and perspective but is already exhausted from acting as a resource for his students and other coworkers.

Discussion Questions:

1. Should Central Boston University administration intervene in student protests when they disrupt classes? Remember, the students are demonstrating in designated “free speech” zones on campus. How would your response differ if the students were not demonstrating in designated “free speech” zones?
2. If the university does intervene, how should they approach the situation while respecting students’ right to free speech?
3. What is the university’s responsibility in balancing the protection of free speech with the safety and well-being of students, especially those targeted by hate incidents like the members of Hillel?
4. How can Samuel, as a staff member who identifies as Jewish, provide support to students like Carlon and coworkers like Veronica while also managing his own emotional exhaustion?
5. What challenges does Veronica face as a new Admissions Counselor trying to navigate this conflict, and how might she address concerns from prospective students about the tensions on campus?
6. What strategies can be used to ensure that student organizations advocating for different sides of the conflict can coexist and engage in constructive dialogue?

Author’s Bio

Kaylanii Mertin (she/her/hers) – Kaylanii is a second-year student in Clemson University’s Master of Student Affairs program and proudly serves as a Graduate Community Director in a multi-year community. Kaylanii also serves as the Director of External Affairs for the Beta Chapter of Chi Sigma Alpha honors society and as the Vice President and Media Communications Officer of the Lavender Graduate Association. She is passionate about student experience and inclusive excellence.

References

Council on Foreign Relations. (2024, October 3). Israeli-Palestinian conflict timeline. https://education.cfr.org/learn/timeline/israeli-palestinian-conflict-timeline

Kopelman, A. (2023, December 13). POV: the price of silence: how BU is failing its Jewish students. BU Today. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/pov-the-price-of-silence-how-bu-failed-its-jewish-students/

Plante, T. G. (2024, August 5). Ethical considerations regarding the Israeli-Gaza conflict campus protests: Santa Clara’s three C’s can help. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics-spotlight/ethics-and-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-here-and-in-the-middle-east/ethical-considerations-regarding-the-israeli-gaza-conflict-campus-protests/

Abstract

Lucas, a Residence Hall Director for Woodforest Cane University, has a history of trouble with setting and maintaining boundaries with his student staff. An example of the challenges he has faced emerges in an out-of-office, leisurely meeting with Zariah, a Residential Assistant (RA) he supervises. Zariah makes Lucas promise not to tell anyone her secret and proceeds to share that she was sexually assaulted off campus and that it is now affecting her work, schooling, and mental health. Lucas understands that he needs to do something as he is a mandatory reporter, but he is unsure how to move forward without compromising trust with this student staff member.

Keywords: supervision, housing, boundaries, Title IX, sexual assault

Primary Characters

Lucas (he, him, his) – Lucas is a Residence Hall Director in his fourth (4^th) year at Woodforest Cane University. This is his first full-time role out of his master’s program, and he has thoroughly enjoyed the position. Every day is filled with new learning opportunities. Lucas has historically had issues establishing and maintaining boundaries with the residential assistants he supervises. He recently had a conversation with his supervisor, and they told him that his hall director hat never comes off, so he must act accordingly.

Zariah (she, her, hers) – Zariah is a junior Political Science major at Woodforest Cane University. A first-generation Black student, Zariah obtained a job as a Residential Assistant (RA) to help pay for her tuition and housing. She works for Lucas and has always been eager to learn more about supervision and the “real world” from her boss. Zariah is a more reserved student who prefers staying in and spending time with a few close friends. She does not bring drama to staff meetings and does not enjoy making a scene. It has always been difficult for her to establish trust with people due to past personal experiences, and she does not like to share her emotions with anyone.

Context

Woodforest Cane University (WCU) is a small private institution with an enrollment of about 3,500 students. There are only three residence halls on campus that house mainly first-year students. About 80% of continuing students move off-campus after the first year. Because the institution is smaller, many staff members are expected to wear multiple hats/fill various roles within the Division of Student Affairs, which includes housing.

WCU has a history of sexual assault on campus. While the university has and abides by a sexual misconduct policy, students rarely report sexual assaults to university personnel. Anecdotally, there have been at least five sexual assaults on campus each semester that Lucas has worked at WCU. Students have shared with him and other staff that they and their friends do not report issues because of significant faculty and staff gossip at the institution. Because staff work across functional areas, students have heard stories that it is common for employees to share information, which compromises student privacy.

Case

It is 11:45 am on a Saturday, and Lucas is sitting in a local, off-campus coffee shop waiting for one of the student staff members he works with, Zariah. Zariah has been a Residential Assistant (RA) for three years – ever since her first year at WCU. She has worked for Lucas as an RA the entire time, and they have established a solid supervisor/supervisee relationship. As Zariah is moving forward in her academic career, Lucas has been helping her apply for graduate programs. This is the reason for their meeting today.

Lucas and Zariah drink coffee and discuss programs to which Zariah has already applied. After Zariah finishes speaking, Lucas shares insights about each program and campus and offers to connect her to others who may have helpful information.

Lucas then pivots the conversation, asking Zariah how she has been. She responds, “Fine,” but Lucas probes a bit more. Lucas mentions that Zariah’s work ethic is not what it has been in the past and that he has seen a shift in the quality of the work she has been putting into the RA role. “You just don’t seem to be enjoying the work as much recently,” he adds. Lucas reassures her that if she does not feel comfortable sharing with him, there are many resources on and off campus that could be helpful.

Zariah immediately responds that she does not want to talk to any of the campus resources. She tells Lucas that she is willing to share why she has been so distant from her job and school recently if he promises not to tell anyone. Lucas pauses and then reminds Zariah that he is not a confidential resource. “I will do everything to protect your privacy, but I may need to share information through the proper channels of communication depending on what you share with me.”

Zariah was not happy with this answer and reminds Lucas that they are not on campus, “We are meeting outside of supervision, Lucas. Neither of us is wearing our professional hats right now.” Though Lucas was still hesitant, he thought that she was right. They were not operating within their official roles at the time, so maybe this conversation would be okay, and he wouldn’t be obliged to share anything.

After he agreed to keep the conversation between the two of them, Zariah shares that a few weeks ago, she had gone to pick up one of her good friends from a party. While she was looking for her friend, she had what she thought was a non-alcoholic drink and asked a few people if they had seen her friend. One guy volunteered to help her look upstairs for her friend, but once they reached the top of the stairs, Zariah felt weak and lightheaded before passing out. When she woke up, she realized that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted. Though she is currently going through the legal process and has filed a police report to press charges against the person who assaulted her, Zariah is still being affected by the aftermath of the situation, and it is beginning to reflect in her school and work life. “I’m in therapy, and my counselor says that I’m making progress, but she keeps reminding me this work is slow and can take a long time.”

Lucas is shocked that this happened to Zariah, and he is upset that she has not taken any time to recover. Lucas reiterates that he still feels like he is obligated to share this information with someone who is more equipped to handle the situation, but Zariah reminds him that he promised he would not say anything since this isn’t a supervision meeting, it isn’t on campus, and the assault did not happen on campus.

Zariah pauses for a moment. Seeing that Lucas is still unsure, she adds, “You know WCU’s reputation related to gossip among professional staff. You told me this could stay between us. If you tell anyone, you’re doing exactly what others have done that keeps us as students from reporting things on campus. I am trusting you will do what you said, Lucas.”

At that moment, Zariah gets a call from her mother and has to leave. Lucas sits at the coffee shop with conflicting feelings. He wants to ensure that Zariah receives the proper help and attention that she needs, but he also wants to maintain the trust and friendship that he has established with her.

The next day, Lucas is still thinking about the situation at the coffee shop. He reaches out to his boss for advice. Lucas shares that he is concerned about a student who has had an unpleasant experience. He tells his boss that he wants to report the situation to another, more confidential resource, but he does not want to break the trust established between him and the student. “She has another year at WCU, and I don’t want to share information and contribute to the gossip culture on campus. I’m not sure what to do next.”

Questions

1. How would you respond as Lucas’ boss? What would you advise Lucas to do now? How might you advise him to do things differently in the future?
2. How might Lucas be able to provide Zariah with the campus resources without compromising her privacy or their rapport? How might he find resources both on and off campus for Zariah?
3. What legal obligations does Lucas have in this situation? What ethical obligations does Lucas have?

Author Bio

Kamariah (Kai) Hammonds (she, her, hers) is a second-year student in Clemson University’s Master of Education in Student Affairs program. She is a first-generation African American/Black college student passionate about working with underrepresented student populations and creating safe spaces for LGBTQIA+ and allied students.

Abstract

Academic misconduct/dishonesty is not a new problem for student conduct officers. What is (relatively) new, is the role that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now playing, or overtaking, in a student’s learning experience. Traditional first-year students entering college all spent a portion of their K-12 experience in a global pandemic. Some students utilized AI to get through middle and high school, which has left them ill-prepared for the academic rigor of college courses. Students still have much to learn about how to appropriately use this technology in the context of obtaining a college degree. This scenario examines the role that a student conduct officer plays in support and accountability for students relying on and potentially misusing AI to complete coursework.

Characters

Maria (she, her, ella) – The Director of student conduct. Responsible for overseeing academic misconduct.

Matt (he, him) – First year student. Utilizes AI for most assignments. Matt’s high school years were interrupted by the pandemic, as toward the end of ninth grade the pandemic began, and the world shut down. For the next year and a half, he relied on AI to complete assignments for him on time. Matt would often procrastinate his assignments since there was no structure to facilitate staying on track with completion of assignments. Matt assumed that using AI was acceptable, as AI policy had not been enforced at his high school.  This developed into the norm for him, as he then put off assignments until the last minute and then would use AI to do his assignments for him.

 Institutional Context

 This case is set at Rainy State University (RSU), a regional, public four-year institution located in the northwest region of the United States with an enrollment of 4500 students. Over 45% of students at RSU are first-generation college students. At RSU, academic misconduct rates have steadily risen over the last three years. More specifically, plagiarism using AI has gone from virtually no cases three years ago, to about half of all academic integrity cases involving AI in the past year.

Case Study

As the Director of Student Conduct at RSU, Maria receives all reports related to student misconduct, including academic misconduct cases. She is currently reviewing an academic integrity report from a faculty member in the English department. The report explains that a first-year student, Matt, has been documented for plagiarism. Matt’s professor explains that she runs all student papers through a plagiarism detector. When she ran Matt’s assignment through, the detector identified that his paper was reported to be 72% plagiarized.

Maria starts a formal academic misconduct case for this incident involving Matt. In the days leading up to their meeting, Maria reviews the university policy for plagiarism, the class policy for plagiarism, recommended sanctions for students who are found responsible for plagiarism, and reviews similar cases to ensure she is following policy while centering equity within the student conduct process.

Matt meets with Maria and openly admits that he utilized ChatGPT for his assignment. He further explains that he’s used AI for the majority of his assignments over the previous three years, including high school assignments. Matt states that he even used AI on his admissions application. Considering that he’s never been in trouble for using AI before, Matt is confused as to why this is a violation.

Maria explains that ignorance is not an excuse to avoid accountability, and shares that the process is meant to be a learning one. She says that he will be found responsible for violating the academic integrity policy. Matt is at first frustrated that he’s being found responsible and then becomes extremely anxious as he is concerned that he won’t be able to be a successful college student without the help of AI.

Discussion Questions

1. How does Matt’s experience before college with AI and his misunderstandings of its appropriate use enter this scenario or is that context irrelevant and why?
2. What are educational and equitable solutions and sanctions to this case?
3. What follow up (if any) should there be with Matt? Who should be involved?
4. What resources might Maria connect Matt with to support his transition to college and help build his belief in himself as a student?

Author Bio 

Carlos Fonseca Jr (he/him) is a master’s student in the Higher Education Student Affairs program at Northern Illinois University (NIU) and serves as a Graduate Hall Director. Prior to attending NIU, Carlos graduated from Western Oregon University where he worked as a Resident Director. As a practitioner, Carlos aims to integrate the practices and philosophies of restorative justice and transformative justice into student conduct offices.

Abstract 

This case study examines and explores the challenges of maintaining honesty, openness, and transparency during the Resident Assistant application selection process. It focuses on a current Resident Assistant who is reapplying for this position and has provided false information in her application. As a supervisor, this case study explores how to go about approaching supervisees and how to effectively have a conversation addressing dishonesty in a constructive conversation. The situation becomes more complex when the supervisor was not given the application to review, but just stumbled upon it while seeing who on staff submitted applications.

Keywords: Resident Assistant, Application, Accountability, Dishonestly Misrepresentation

Primary Characters 

Lucy (she/her): A professional Community Director, who has been in her position for three-plus years. Lucy directly supervises Zoey and has a strong relationship and bond with Zoey and the rest of her Resident Assistant staff.

Zoey: (she/her): A sophomore majoring in Psychology, she is a first year Resident Assistant, who is passionate about inclusivity and leadership. She has a strong connection and community of residents on her floor and is highly ambitious when it comes to both working on a team and completing her responsibilities within the Resident Assistant (RA) job. Zoey wants to reapply for the RA position because it is a huge financial relief for her and is something she truly is passionate about.

Context and Case Study 

Zoey has had ongoing conversations with her supervisor Lucy this month about reapplying for the Resident Assistant position. Zoey has stressed how she enjoys the work, feels she makes a difference, and has grown in the role. She has also been transparent with Lucy about how big of a financial impact this job is for her. Zoey is a strong, passionate, ambitious Resident Assistant on the RA staff for this building. Lucy approves of Zoey reapplying and believes she will be a great asset to the returning RA staff as well as a genuine support for new RAs for the upcoming academic year.

While Zoey is in the process of working on the RA application, she notices that it asks a lot of crisis management questions. This is something Zoey has not yet experienced in the RA job. Crisis response is something she has talked to Lucy about. Zoey has said more than once in a supervision meeting, “I want to continue working on my emergency response skills. It always seems to be someone else who is on call when a crisis comes up. I have a lot to learn, but I also feel like I have a lot of strengths in this area.” Zoey shared she wants to gain more confidence in this area.

Because of her strong relational skills, Zoey is hoping to be placed in the first-year residence building next year. She feels her skills will be helpful as students transition to college, learn from making mistakes, and as they navigate roommate conflicts which tend to be a common issue in the first-year student community.

Zoey has not only talked with Lucy but has also had countless conversations with senior RAs about her application. They have suggested that the crisis response section is the most important part of the application for returning staff. One RA Zoey particularly looks up to even said, “I don’t know that anything else really matters other than administration skills on the application. They really want people who can train new RAs on emergencies. That’s what matters the most.” Zoey respects this person, and it makes her even more nervous about her chance of being re-hired.

Around the same time, Zoey gets a call from home. Her mom tells Zoey that Zoey’s father has been injured at work. Zoey’s mom says, “I don’t want you to worry too much. Things will be fine. I just wanted to let you know about your dad’s fall in case you want to come home and see him in the next few weeks. Money is going to be a bit tight for a while as he works through this recovery, but we will be fine in the long run. Of course, your dad doesn’t want everyone knowing about this, so if you could not say anything to anyone for the time being.”

Zoey doesn’t share this with anyone, including Lucy, fellow RAs, and friends at school.

With a lot of things weighing on her mind, Zoey puts off filling out the application until the day before it is due. While Zoey is completing her application section on crisis management, she doesn’t have any examples to share. Due to her stress and anxiety she decides to make up something for this part of her application. She begins making up situations related to conflict and crisis management issues. She says that these fabricated situations have been ongoing on her floor all semester. She describes her responses to these situations in ways she thinks align with what full-time staff would want to have happen. She builds a complex story of lies about her approach, communication, and conflict style.

She shares some minor crises but focuses primarily on an in-depth story line about roommate conflicts. She writes at length about how she has managed to solve these roommate issues, has redesigned roommate agreements with tremendous success, and how she has continued keeping a positive environment on her floor for all the residents.

During her interview, Zoey talks about how much she enjoys this work and hopes to continue to be a part of an RA staff. She shares that based on her experiences; she thinks she would be a good fit in a first-year community. When the interviewers ask specifically about her conflict style, Zoey doesn’t say much, simply stating, “I meet students where they are and help them find good solutions to their situations.”

During the interviews, Lucy does not interview Zoey as the department tries to have staff who don’t know candidates interview them. Between her own interviews Lucy is thumbing through files to see who on her staff has reapplied. She pulls three files of potential returners and skims them. When she reads Zoey’s file, she is surprised and confused about what Zoey has shared. Lucy doesn’t know if Zoey has handled these things and not communicated with her or if Zoey is making these issues up. Either way, Lucy has concerns about this application.

The evening after Zoey’s interview, she can’t sleep. She feels guilty about lying, worried about her father, worried about finances, and is not sure what to do. She doesn’t want to let anyone down but feels she has gotten herself into a corner.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the ethical implications for Lucy in terms of reporting Zoey even though she wasn’t evaluating the application or the candidate?
2. With whom should Zoey consult about this situation?
3. What conversation should Lucy have with Zoey?
4. What should Zoey do?
5. Should Zoey still be considered for a position? Why or why not?

Author Bio

Sarah Berchtold (she/her) is a second-year graduate student in Clemson’s Master of Student Affairs program. Sarah’s assistantship is with Clemson Home as a Graduate Community Director. Prior to attending Clemson, Sarah graduated from Florida Gulf Coast University in Spring of 2023 where she worked for three years in the Housing and Residence Life department. She is passionate about working with Resident Assistants and supporting students through the on-campus living experience.

Abstract

This case study examines the challenges academic advisors face when supporting their students’ personal and professional development, particularly looking at first-generation transfer students, who often face extraordinary pressures and challenges. While first-generation college students bring a number of strengths and talents with them to higher education, they often enter colleges and universities that are not fully prepared to meet their needs. For example, these students frequently navigate higher education with added strain from financial concerns, familial aspirations, and uncertainty of what career path they will take, all while adjusting to the rigorous demand of the university experience. Academic advisors play a critical role in supporting these students by fostering a trusting and supportive relationship, supporting students as they explore various career paths, and providing resources that help students make informed decisions that honor both their internal desires and family and other external expectations. Practicing a holistic approach to academic advising can be essential for promoting the well-being and long-term success of first-generation transfer students.

Keywords: Academic Advising, First-Generation, Holistic Support, Parental Expectations

Primary Characters

Jasmine (she/her/ella) is a first-generation college student who has been at Lakewood State University for a semester after transferring from her local community college. She excelled in her general education courses at community college, but once transferred and taking courses for her major, she is realizing her current career path is not for her. However, her parents expect her to stick with Business Administration due to their belief in the stability of that career choice and likelihood she will get a job that pays well. 

Sarah (she/her) is an academic advisor in the Office of Student Academic Support Services and has been at the institution for six months, and she has an interest in supporting first-generation and underrepresented students, as she is first-generation herself. She holds a master’s degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs (HESA). Sarah’s approach to advising is a student-centered, holistic support that incorporates both academic and personal development.

Context

Lakewood State University (LSU) is a mid-sized public institution located in a suburban community outside of a major metropolitan area in the Midwest. With approximately 12,000 students, LSU is known for its strong academic programs, including its highly regarded College of Business. LSU has developed a centralized framework for advising students in a holistic manner, which includes a strong academic advising team who follow the framework that emphasizes personalized, student-centered guidance that helps students navigate the complexities of college life. With nearly 30% of LSU’s students identifying as first-generation, academic advisors are equipped with information and resources such as mentorship programs, financial aid counseling, and student organizations dedicated to advocating for first-generation students.

Case

Sarah is a relatively new professional working as an academic advisor with the Office of Student Academic Support Services at LSU. She is focused on working with first-generation college students and other students who have not historically had access to higher education. Following LSU’s holistic approach to advising, Sarah hopes to build a reputation of being empathetic and highly focused on her students’ personal, academic, and professional development.

One afternoon she meets with Jasmine, a junior who identifies as first-generation, majoring in Business Administration. During their meeting, Jasmine shares that she has growing doubts about her major and is uncertain of whether or not this current career path is for her. Jasmine tells Sarah about how her parents heavily influenced by selection of her current major. “They want me to make sure I have a financially stable future in the career I choose,” she shares. Jasmine then goes on to tell Sarah that she has an increasing interest in non-profit work and social justice, interests that have grown through her volunteer work on campus.

“I’m struggling in my business classes, but this means so much to my parents,” Jasmine confides in Sarah. To deal with her struggles in some business classes, she attends study groups and her TA’s office hours. Jasmine shares with Sarah that her family looks forward to her visits home and hearing about what she is learning in her classes. “My parents didn’t have the opportunity to go to college,” Jasmine says, “So they like hearing about my experiences in and out of classes on campus.” Jasmine hesitates to share the difficulties she is having with her family, so she tends to only tell them about the positive things that occur.

As an advisor who specializes in working with first-generation students, Sarah recognizes and empathizes with Jasmine’s complex situation. She understands that these students often experience emotional and familial pressures that weigh on them. This is because first-generation students are not only navigating their academic journey, but also work to meet the expectations of being the first in their family to attend college. 

Discussion Questions:

1. What are potential long-term consequences for students such as Jasmine, who prioritize their family’s expectations over their desires and wishes?
2. What are some strategies Sarah can share with Jasmine when it comes to advocating for herself?
3. What institutional resources could be beneficial in helping first-generation students manage the emotional and academic stresses they feel from their families?

Author Bio

Monica Tomarchio (she/her) is a current second year graduate student at Northern Illinois University in the Higher Education & Student Affairs program. In the future, Monica is interested in working in areas such as Student Involvement, Academic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and Academic Advising.

Abstract

This case study closely examines the real-world struggles that Supplemental Instruction (SI) leaders and their graduate assistant supervisors at Saints University face when trying to tackle a common problem on campuses. Students are not showing up for academic support sessions like they did earlier in the semester. Jackson Manuel, a graduate assistant who cares deeply about helping students succeed, teams up with SI Leader Emily White who shares his passion for making a difference. Together, they set out to figure out why attendance at SI sessions is dwindling and what they can do to change that. This study tells the story of two people who refuse to give up in the face of challenges and offers a glimpse into the human side of tackling institutional issues, all in the name of helping students succeed.

Keywords: Supplemental Instruction, Student Engagement, Academic Support, Institutional Barriers, Student Success

Characters

Emily White (she/her): A dedicated SI leader and Mechanical Engineering student, Emily cares deeply about helping her peers succeed. However, she feels discouraged when she sees only a few students showing up, even after preparing detailed and engaging sessions.

Dr. Taylor Davies (they/them): The SI program coordinator at Saints University focuses on providing guidance to the SI leaders. Dr. Taylor recognizes the broader systemic issues that affect student participation and strives to advocate for more support for the program.

Alex Kean (he/him): A second-year student who initially attends SI sessions but gradually stops coming. He’s balancing a busy schedule and believes SI sessions are primarily for struggling students, discouraging him from attending regularly.

Context and Case

It is early afternoon on a warm fall day. Jackson Manuel is sitting in his office at Saints University, scrolling through the attendance reports for the Supplemental Instruction (SI) sessions he oversees. The student participation numbers are not promising. Similar to the previous two semesters, the data shows that attendance is dropping, especially among the students who could benefit the most. As a graduate assistant in the Supplemental Instruction program, Jackson has invested much of his time supporting SI and working closely with the leaders to enhance their sessions, but despite their efforts, fewer students are coming than did in the first weeks of the term. As for the students who do attend the sessions, it is the same familiar faces each time.

Across campus, Emily, one of Jackson’s SI leaders, feels a similar frustration. She spent hours preparing for her SI session last night, crafting interactive activities to help students grasp difficult concepts from their mathematics class. When only three out of 75 students showed up, students already performing well, she could not help but feel disheartened. “Why aren’t the students who need help coming? What is preventing these students from taking advantage of entirely free sessions?” she wondered.

In addition, because of her frustration, Emily has considered leaving her SI position after this term. She loves the work but feels like she might make more of an impact in a different role supporting students in the future. She does not want to leave this job, but the disappointment is starting to weigh on her and she is not sure what to do.

At about the same time, Dr. Taylor met and talked with Alex, a second-year student, one day after class about the SI program and its benefits to students. Alex admitted attending a few SI sessions early in the semester but said he started feeling like he did not belong there. “I’m not failing,” he said, “so I don’t need extra help, right?” Before Dr. Taylor can respond, Alex says he has to run to a meeting about a group project for another class.

Later that week, Jackson meets with Dr. Taylor who is the SI program director and Jackson’s supervisor. They discuss the program’s challenges: students do not seem to understand the purpose of SI, some think it is remedial, and others, like Alex,  just cannot fit SI into their busy schedules.

Jackson feels the weight of the problem and reflects on what Dr. Taylor mentioned about students’ perceptions about supplemental instruction; their attachment to seeking help affects their participation. It is not just about making sure SI sessions are well-run. It is about shifting student perceptions and tearing down the barriers preventing students like Alex from accessing help. The problem runs deeper than attendance numbers. It is about creating a culture of academic support where students of all performance levels feel comfortable attending SI sessions. But how? Jackson knows it will not be easy with limited resources and institutional constraints. Still, he is determined to make a difference.

Later that evening, Jackson reaches out to Emily. They brainstorm ways to promote the program and make it more accessible. Emily suggests tweaking the messaging in their communications to students. “We have to emphasize that SI is for everyone, not just those struggling. Maybe we can get some of the top-performing students to speak out about how it helped them, too,” she says.

Jackson suggests seeking faculty buy-in by engaging professors about the SI program. “If we can get more professors to speak highly of the program, students may feel comfortable attending sessions and contributing excellent ideas to benefit their colleagues,” Jackson states.

As they talk, they form a vision. What if SI was not just an academic safety net but a community of learners supporting one another at all stages of their educational journey?

Discussion Questions

1. How can Jackson and Emily reshape students’ perceptions of SI as a resource for all, not just for struggling students?
2. What strategies can Jackson implement to increase attendance while balancing limited institutional resources?
3. How can Dr. Taylor advocate for additional institutional support or flexibility in scheduling to accommodate more students?
4. What role does peer influence play in overcoming the stigma attached to academic support programs like SI, and how can this be leveraged to encourage participation?
5. How can SI leaders like Emily assess the effectiveness of their new approaches in engaging more students and improving academic outcomes?
6. How can Jackson and Emily convince faculty to show interest in the SI program?

Author Bio

Richard Manu (He/Him/His) – Is passionate about diversity and inclusion in higher education, focusing on enhancing support for international students in the United States. Richard is a graduate student at Clemson University’s Master of Student Affairs Program and an administrative assistant for the Supplemental Instruction (SI) Program at Clemson University. In addition to scholarly pursuits, Richard Manu actively serves as the Welfare Officer for the Ghanaian Students in Clemson organization, providing resources and support to ensure a smooth transition and positive experience for Ghanaian students.

References and Resources

Supplemental Instruction Program Manual, Clemson University 2023

Arendale, D. R. (2022). Understanding the impact of Supplemental Instruction on student outcomes. Journal of Academic Support Services.

McGuire, S. Y. (2015). Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation. Stylus Publishing.