This case study explores the experiences of a graduate student, their supervisor, an assistant director, and a group of undergraduate students during an immersive service-learning experience. Community engagement activities often take place off campus, involving interactions with various external factors. These particular opportunities extend over a longer period which can impact group dynamics and the policies governing student conduct. Being equipped to manage unpredictable situations is crucial for professionals working in this functional area.

Keywords: community engagement, service-learning, immersive, volunteering, civic engagement

Characters

Hannah (she/her) serves as the Graduate Assistant for Community Engagement. Part of her responsibilities includes the planning, and sometimes execution, of immersive service trips. Hannah is in her second year in this role and has gone on several similar experiences during her time in undergrad and one of these trips in her tenure as a graduate assistant. She moved to her current institution with the hopes of growing her graduate institution’s service programs.

Sam (she/her) is an Assistant Director in the Volunteer Center. She has been in her role for the past three years and oversees all community and civic engagement programs and supervises Hannah. Sam serves as the emergency on-call contact for immersive service trips. Sam and Hannah have a good relationship with open communication.

Lewis (he/him) is an undergraduate student serving in the capacity of a Student Site Leader for the immersive service trip. He is a junior in college and has attended two previous trips as a participant. His other involvements include a pre-med student org, his fraternity, and club soccer.

Undergraduate students Kim (she/her), Josh (he/him), and Rome (they/them) are all part of a larger group of participants who are on the trip with Hannah and Lewis. Kim is a junior. Josh and Rome are both sophomores.

Context

Midwest State University is a medium-sized public institution in Wisconsin. MSU is located close to Lake Michigan and is growing in enrollment from 8,300 students to 9,000 students in the past two years. Despite the increasing student population, students are not participating in service programming. MSU has both undergraduate and graduate students who can attend any service experience. Midwest State’s immersive service trips include a learning partner, student site leader, and participants. The learning partner is present in case of emergency and functions as a resource for the student site leader while on the trip. The student site leader is in charge of leading their peers in education, reflection, and helps with logistics and group dynamics during the trip. They are trained before the trip on how to handle conflict and crisis situations and how they are to conduct themselves as site leaders. The immersive service trips include a day of community immersion, where participants can explore local culture, businesses, and food. The immersive service trips are also drug and alcohol free, regardless of participants’ ages per university policy. If this policy is violated, participants are sent home at their own expense.

This case focuses on Midwest State University sending out this service trip during the first week of their Winter Break.

Case

It is day five of a seven-day immersive service experience in Nashville, TN. The group of 12 is participating in their third of four days of service with a community partner just outside of downtown. Their scheduled community immersion day happened the day prior.

Hannah, the sole learning partner on the trip, is noticing some dissonance between three of the participants. She pulls her site leader, Lewis, aside to see if he has noticed the change in dynamic. Lewis responds that he did notice the three had been giving each other the silent treatment, but he has already taken care of it. Hannah returns to completing her service at the community partner site, satisfied that Lewis had already taken the initiative to remedy the situation.

When Hannah pulls her phone out at lunch, she sees that she has received a text from Sam. Sam is following up with Hannah about a situation that Lewis contacted her about for advice. According to the text, one of the three participants is considering leaving the trip over a comment made to them by one of their peers. The comment referenced the participant’s dominant identity in a negative light. When Hannah reads the text, she is alarmed that Lewis did not consult her for advice, but rather her supervisor who is states away and who lacks a direct relationship with the participants on this trip.

After reflecting that evening, Hannah decides to have a conversation with Lewis. She wants more information on the situation that unfolded during their community immersion day, and to clarify that she serves as the direct liaison for the trip, as Sam is only called in a crisis. Upon bringing Lewis aside, Hannah approaches the conversation with open communication, reiterating that she believes he is competent, but was concerned by the text she had received from Sam.

Lewis tries to deny he ever sent a text to Sam but eventually admits that he did reach out but only because he could not contact Hannah. When Hannah asked why he did not come to her at the end of the community immersion day, Lewis becomes visibly defensive. He tells Hannah that at that point, he had “handled it.” As he begins to walk away, Hannah hears him mutter under his breath, “I didn’t think you’d be much help anyways.”

Recalling previous conversations, Hannah realizes that the participant who had made the harmful comments, Kim, is in the same major as Lewis. Kim shares many of the same classes as Lewis on her course schedule and are good friends.

As the group is entering their final day of service before they must travel more than nine hours back to Wisconsin in their 15-passenger van, Hannah decides to ignore the comment Lewis made; however, she does pull aside the student, Josh, who was on the receiving end of the harmful comment to check in on him.

When Hannah goes to check on the Josh, he appears to be on edge about more than just Kim’s comment. Hannah gently presses for more information, and Josh begins to share with her the events that transpired during the community immersion day. When the group was split up, Lewis and the group of three participants—Kim, Josh, and Rome—had gone off to explore a shop in downtown Nashville, utilizing the buddy system. Kim suggested that the group go to visit a karaoke bar and have a “quick drink.” Lewis, despite his site leader training, agreed. When Josh tried to offer a different activity, Kim shut it down, making a joke about how she thought he would love to go to a karaoke bar, considering his “lifestyle.” Josh looked to Rome for help, but they were unwilling to jump in and stayed quiet.

Josh explained that he did not come to Hannah with his concerns because Lewis had made it abundantly clear that participants were to contact him directly with any issues on the trip. Josh also discloses that neither he nor Rome drank, but Kim did buy herself and Lewis a beverage, as Lewis is not yet 21.

Hannah must now decide what steps to take, seeing as her site leader has violated both university policy and the law. Kim has also violated both university policy by consuming alcohol on a service trip and the law by illegally buying a minor a drink. Hannah assumes the situation regarding the comment Kim made to Josh has not been properly addressed either. Additionally, they only have a half-day left of service before they start their journey home the next morning. What should Hannah do?

Discussion Questions

1. How communicative/what level of disclosure should Hannah exercise in regard to the rest of the group? How should group dynamics be handled in the car ride home?

4. What is Sam’s role in this situation prior to the group arriving back at MSU?
5. What formal or informal policies are helpful in this situation? What offices at Midwest State University need to be contacted regarding the policy violations?
6. What are next steps when arriving back to MSU, as students are now technically on Winter Break?
7. What conversations would be most beneficial to Hannah’s learning as a graduate student after the situation is dealt with?
8. How involved should Hannah be as a graduate student? In the conduct process? In incorporating the affected participants in the reorganization process?

Author Biographies

Piper Carroll (she/her/hers) is a second-year student in Clemson University’s Master of Education in Student Affairs program and holds an assistantship as an academic advisor for Clemson’s College of Business. Piper is passionate about leadership engagement and cultivating student sense of belonging inside and outside of the classroom.

Molly Yonker (she/her/hers) is a second-year student in Clemson University’s Master of Education in Student Affairs program and works as the Graduate Assistant for Community Engagement. Molly has worked with several nonprofits and led over 20 service initiatives in her undergraduate and graduate experience. She enjoys sharing her passion for ethical service and showing students the ways they can create positive, sustainable change in their communities.

This case follows students at Red Mountain State University (RMSU), located in rural Colorado. RMSU is known for its College of Arts, with a well-known network of alumni artists. A few years ago they accepted the largest donation in the university’s history to update their studios, supplies, and course offerings. Currently, RMSU serves 15,000 undergraduate students, one-fourth of whom enroll in the College of Arts. In this scenario a graduate student must navigate complexities when the relationship status between students changes with implications for a student organization and their residence hall.

Keywords: Conflict Mediation and Resolution, Organizational Ethics/Values, Residence Life, Student Organizations

Characters

Vanessa (she/her): 3rd year Ceramics Student, Ceramics Club President, out of state student, came to RMSU for arts program

Riley (he/him): 3rd year Ceramics Student, Resident Advisor, out of state student, came to RMSU for arts program

Cameron (they/them): 1st year Student Affairs Graduate Student, Graduate Hall Director

The Case: Conflict Arises

Vanessa is a few weeks into the start of her third year at Red Mountain State University. Her major is Ceramics, and she has been a member of the RMSU Ceramics Club since her first semester. Vanessa is a high achieving, well known, very involved student. She is in the Ceramics Club, Undergraduate Student Government, and RMSU’s Art’s Honors Society. While Vanessa maintains a busy schedule, her main priority this semester is taking on the role of Ceramics Club President.

Shortly after joining Ceramics Club, Vanessa met Riley, another Ceramics first year student. Vanessa. Riley and Vanessa started dating in their first semester. Ever since, Riley and Vanessa have been active members of the Ceramics Club, scheduled their classes together, and plan to open a pottery studio together after graduation.

Riley is also a Resident Advisor (RA) in Clay Hall, the building he and Vanessa live in. Riley attends Ceramics Club meetings as a general member, but that and being an RA are the extent of his involvement on campus. After a busy week and still not totally rested up from staff training and the residence halls opening, Riley skips the first Ceramics Club meeting of the semester. Coming off of a rough summer with inconsistent communication with Riley, Vanessa is devastated that her own partner would miss her first meeting as president.

Cameron is a first-year graduate student and a Graduate Hall Director. While on duty, an RA contacts Cameron saying that Riley is in a verbal altercation outside of his room. The argument is intense, so the RA asks Cameron to come assess the situation. Upon arrival, Cameron sees that the verbal altercation is between their supervisee Riley, and Riley’s long term partner, Vanessa.

Vanessa is yelling, “I don’t care. You know how important this was to me. I can’t believe you let me down again! Do you even care about me?!”

“It’s ONE MEETING,” Riley responds. “ONE MEETING! Who cares? People miss those meetings all the time. I needed an evening without a bunch of stuff to do. What do you want from me?!”

“I expect you to BE. THERE. FOR. ME!” Vanessa nearly screams.

A loud, verbal altercation is out of character for both students. Both Riley and Vanessa are visibly emotional. Cameron decides to respond by separating Riley and Vanessa to hear both of their perspectives in an attempt to resolve the conflict. They ask the students to go to their rooms.

Cameron goes to Vanessa’s room first to chat with her. Vanessa tells Cameron “I just don’t want him at club meetings anymore. It’s going to be so awkward now. It’s not like he contributes anything to the club anyways. The exec board agrees with me, he’s lazy. We don’t want him there.” Vanessa is clearly still upset as she is sobbing while telling Cameron her side of the story.  When she calms down a bit, Cameron thanks her for sharing her perspective and leaves to see Riley.

Riley is teary eyed when he answers the door after Cameron knocks. They both take seats in Riley’s room and Riley shares his worries. “None of my friends are going to talk to me after this. They’ve always been Vanessa’s friends and I’m just there. My profs already like her better than me. They aren’t going to want to work with me anymore. AND to make this situation even worse, I know everyone in the club is taking Vanessa’s side. I can’t show my face at those meetings again. I’m about to lose all my friends. I don’t even want to go to class tomorrow. All my friends are in this club, I don’t know what to do.”

Discussion Questions: Conflict

1. What are some initial questions Cameron should ask the students to assess their current emotional/mental states? How can Cameron support both Riley and Vanessa through this conflict? What services could Cameron refer them to on campus?
2. How can Cameron ensure neutrality in resolving this conflict, even though they know Riley better?
3. What conflict resolution strategies could Cameron utilize?
4. How might this situation inform supervisory meetings between Cameron and Riley (if at all)?

The Case: Ceramics Club Implications

RMSU has two student organization coordinators within their student engagement office. Cameron understands their main role is to support organizations in their success as groups. Cameron has not had the chance to interact with these two coordinators yet. The Office of Student Engagement minimally collaborates with the Office of Residence Life due to RMSU’s organizational structure. Cameron is unsure if this conflict is something they are supposed to diffuse individually, or if this incident is supposed to be reported to the student organization coordinators to address.

Cameron knows from these conversations that Ceramics Club is both students’ primary place of belonging on campus and needs to think about what to do next.

Discussion Questions: Ceramics Club Implications

1. Is it appropriate for Cameron to reach out to these professionals? Why or why not?
2. If appropriate, how might Cameron connect and collaborate with the student organization coordinators around this situation?
3. What types of educational materials and leadership resources would benefit Vanessa and the executive team of Ceramics Club in interpersonal conflict mediation, leadership development, campus policies relating to club membership, and organizational ethics?
4. What are further considerations for housing and the student organization related to the situation between Vanessa and Riley? How might the dynamics across campus be impacted if Vanessa and Riley end their relationship?

Author Biographies 

Audrey Costanzo (she/her) – Audrey is a second-year graduate student in the College Student Personnel program at Bowling Green State University. She is currently a graduate assistant in the Office of Student Engagement and Residence Life for student organizations.

Faith Vermilyea (she/her) – Faith is a second-year graduate student in the College Student Personnel program at Bowling Green State University. She is currently working in the Office of the Dean of Students as a graduate assistant.

In a Peer Mentoring Program designed to help students build community and create a sense of belonging. A First-Year Mentee Casually Discloses a crush on the Program’s graduate assistant to her Mentor. Her mentor reports the disclosure to the program coordinator, who has to schedule a meeting with the mentee to address the issue. Based on the way the discussion played out, the mentee ultimately found the exchange shaming and discriminatory, she threatened to withdraw and the Program Director had to intervene. The case tests policy-neutral communication, employee religious expression limitations and potential discrimination risks while maintaining trust, belonging and clear student-staff boundaries.

Keywords:

Religious Expression, Student-Staff Boundaries, Discrimination, LGBTQIA+

Characters

Aaliyah Morgan (She/Her) – First year mentee, first generation, scholarship recipient, questioning sexuality.

Taylor Johnson (She/Her) – Junior mentor, signed a privacy-with-referral agreement, protective of program norms and integrity.

Kayla Williams (She/Her) – Graduate Assistant coordinating logistics, has grading authority over Aaliyah, concerned about rumor optics.

Sara Whitfield (She/Her) – Program Coordinator, devout Christian, intends to prevent boundary issues but blends policy with personal religious advice.

Dr Jordan Ellis (they/them) – Program Director, trained in restorative facilitation.

Institutional Context

Mighty University (MU) is a large public research institution located in the southeastern United States, enrolling approximately 25,000 undergraduate and 7,000 graduate students. MU serves a student population that is socioeconomically, culturally, and racially diverse with approximately 58% White, 20% Black/African American, 10% Latinx, 6% Asian/Asian American, and a growing international population representing more than 50 countries.

The University is committed to Inclusive excellence, student success, and belonging. Particularly for first-generation and marginalized students. The student success center, where this case unfolds, houses several initiatives including peer mentoring, academic coaching and first-year transition programs.

Case

The check-in was on the calendar – 30 minutes, every other Monday. Taylor Johnson keeps these meetings predictable. She makes sure to discuss the highs/lows of the week, classes, campus navigation, then anything ‘awkward or sticky’ her mentee feels might need staff support.

Halfway in, Aaliyah Morgan hesitates, runs her hand through her hair and says quietly, “This is embarrassing but I have a crush on Kayla the graduate assistant, I know because I get butterflies when she sends me emails.”

Taylor nods, thanks Aaliyah for trusting her with that information. She then clarifies the ground rules they both signed: mentor conversations are private with referral-not secret. “If something could blur roles or put you at risk, I have to loop in a staff member for guidance so we keep you safe,” Taylor explains. Aaliyah agrees she doesn’t want drama, just clarity.

That afternoon, Taylor meets privately with Sara Whitfield, the program coordinator, and shares the essential information needed for staff intervention: that Aaliyah disclosed having a crush on the graduate assistant, that the feelings are not being acted upon, and that Aaliyah simply wanted clarity and support navigating the situation. Taylor wants to protect everyone and follow the student-employee boundaries policy, which warns against (but does not explicitly prohibit) relationships where a power imbalance exists or could be reasonably perceived.

Sara invites Aaliyah to a meeting next Thursday to discuss the situation. The tone initially is neutral: Sara points to the one-page Consensual Relationship / Student employee Boundaries summary. Sara reminds Aaliyah that GAs must maintain distance to avoid the appearance of influence and offer support pathways if feelings get complicated. Aaliyah listens, cheeks flushed, but she is calm and composed.

Then Sara adds, “As a Christian, I also advise you against same-sex relationships. They complicate things.” The sentence lands like a verdict. Aaliyah’s composure slips. She hears judgement about who she might be, not just what the policy requires. She mumbles thanks and leaves the meeting earlier than planned. Later that evening she emails Sara stating that she felt humiliated and intimidated. She’s considering withdrawing from the program.

By midday Friday, Sara has shared information with Dr. Jordan Ellis, the program director. Dr. Ellis has Aaliyah’s email, Taylor’s notes, and Sara’s account. Jordan schedules separate check-ins: a listening session with Aaliyah. Coaching with Sara on role neutral language and religion in the workplace limits. They also meet with Kayla Williams to brief her on the situation and offer guidance for her concerns about rumors that may begin about this situation.

Discussion Questions

1. In a public university setting, where is the boundary between an employee’s religious freedom and the duty to deliver non-discriminatory, role-neutral services to students?
2. If the Graduate Assistant’s responsibilities are adjusted, or the mentoring structure is altered as a result of this scenario. Identify and explain
   1. Why these changes may Harm or disadvantage the mentee, even if the intention is protective
   2. What alternative approaches the program could use
3. If concerns or rumors begin circulating among students about staff pushing religious beliefs or mishandling boundaries, develop a brief public-facing statement the program can use to address the situation while protecting privacy.
4. Should there be a separate discrimination review of the meeting between Sara and Aaliyah? Should the case be escalated to the Title IX office? Why or why not?

Author Biography

Uwem Antia (He/Him/His) – I am a second-year Master’s student in Counselor Education at Clemson University and a native of Nigeria. I work as the Graduate Assistant for Recruitment and Retention in the College of Science, where I support programming, mentoring, and inclusive student engagement. My professional interests in student affairs include program development, retention initiatives, leadership development, and creating environments that foster belonging and student success

The director of Career Services is faced with an ethical question on collaboration with a third party. She is approached with a deal to promote a product in exchange for funding for the center. Her team presents her with the pros and cons of accepting the deal.

Keywords: career center, alumnus, campus partnerships

Character Descriptions

Luke Calloway (He/Him): Prominent donor who is starting a coffee company. He is an alumnus of the elite business school at Harmony University.

Donna Apple (She/Her): Director of the Career Center at Harmony University. She has worked at the university for 15 years and has won many awards for the career center.

Tom Glass (He/Him): Director of Employer Relations at Harmony University for 3 years. He is pro collaborating with Luke Calloway.

Lucy Feathers (She/Her): Director of Career Development at Harmony University for 9 years. She is wary about collaborating with Luke Calloway.

Institutional Context

Harmony University is a large 4-year public institution in the southeast. It serves approximately 40,000 students, of which 70% are White, 16% are Black, 6% are Latino, 4% are bi- or multi-racial, 3% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% are Native American/Alaska Native. There are 8,763 international students. Harmony is in a low socioeconomic area of the state, and around 25% of Harmony students are Pell Grant recipients. The school’s relationship with the community is strained, as Harmony requires many resources to stay running (financial, support of facilities and utilities, etc.), and many of the city’s longtime citizens believe those resources should be going to the community. Harmony University is the 2nd-ranked university in the state (although their Career Center is ranked #1) and is constantly competing with the other large public institution in the state. The college is known for its strong alumni network, and students from across the country apply to and attend Harmony University for a chance to find internships and jobs with past graduates.

Context and Case

Donna Apple arrives at the office at 8:00 am on Monday morning. Upon logging into her computer, she pulls up her notes to prepare for her 10:00 am meeting with Luke Calloway. She recognized the name when she was asked to meet with this donor a week ago and she knows he is a businessman in the area. His businesses include an ice cream company and a 4-star hotel. Students work at these businesses on the corporate and retail side. She also knows he has been highly successful and often visits the business college as an esteemed alumnus.

Upon arriving at the meeting in the career center’s conference room, she is surprised to see he has a presentation he wants to show her about his new product and how the career center can be involved in promoting it. Luke Calloway explains that he is creating a coffee company and wants to launch both the brand and product on campus and in the town. He is offering the career center $10,000 for career center events that serve his coffee and cover all expenses to install a coffee bar in the center. All coffee and products would be covered. In exchange, promotion of the product and signs will be around the coffee bar; no other coffee can be bought by the center. Donna Apple knows that $10,000 will be an immense help with a lot of events she wants to put on such as a networking night, resume building, and outreach projects to all the colleges at the university. She also sampled some of Luke’s coffee and liked the flavors and the quality. Donna and Luke Calloway come to a tentative agreement to meet again in a week after Donna has time to check with other constituents.

Donna Apple talks to her team of directors before meeting with her supervisor to pitch the idea. During the presentation to her team, she is met with two different perspectives. Some are excited about the collaboration because of the event money and see the free coffee as a bonus. Tom Glass reminds the team that the career center has a tight budget, and this would allow for more events than in the past. Funding also allows for more freedom and creativity with the events put on, which would hopefully raise engagement with the career center. Tom knows that is a goal of the career center, and he also wants to make an employer connection as the employer relations director. Tom thinks that Luke Calloway can also provide internships and jobs for students because of his many businesses. In building a relationship with Luke, he could also serve as a guest at career center events to offer job search and career advice.

However, Lucy Feathers is worried about the career center’s esteemed brand and image being affected by associating with another company. The image of the career center right now is the best it has been, much to the work of the center staff as a whole. The team has cultivated this image by slowly building connections with the community and connecting with students’ needs. Lucy also raises the concern of promoting and marketing the products to students. She states that the career center should remain an unsponsored entity. Donna knows that there is no official rule at University Harmony against 3rd party collaborations. Donna also knows that supporting one alumnus over others could be met with poor reception from their current employer network and the students. Donna sees both sides that Lucy and Tom are making and is torn about what to do. Donna Apples has a week before her next meeting with Luke.

Discussion Questions

1. If Donna accepted Luke’s deal and something went wrong with the company, what implications could that have for the career center and Harmony University?
2. Are there other ways of partnering that Donna could propose to Luke at their next meeting?
3. Is it ethical for the career center to promote and market for an outside company? Is it ethical to promote and support a specific alum?
4. What might collaboration between the Career Center and a third party look like? What limitations should be in place for such partnerships (if any)?
5. Tom and Lucy raised several benefits and concerns about a sponsorship from Luke. What are additional pros or cons to this sponsorship partnership?
6. How does the institutional context of Harmony University affect the case?

Author Biographies

Marion Andrews (She/Her) – Marion is a graduate assistant at Clemson’s Career Center. She is a 2nd-year graduate student in Clemson’s Student Affairs master’s program. She co-writes the Graduate College of Education Newsletter.

Celeste Kapalin (She/Her) – Celeste is a 2nd-year graduate student in Clemson’s Student Affairs master’s program and the graduate assistant for the College of Business Academic Advising Center. She is the VP of Socials for Clemson’s Student Personnel Association and a member of the Chi Sigma Alpha Beta Chapter honorary on campus.

This case study describes a dilemma faced by Abigail, who is a coordinator in the Office of Student Engagement at Williamson State University. Jacob, who directly supervises Abigail, misappropriates resources due to lack of funds caused by an institutional fiscal halt that ceased all spending deemed nonessential. When a student organization is in need of ingredients for an annual campus event, Jacob approves the use of the resources within the campus food pantry. This causes dissonance for Abigail, who recently implemented a needs assessment that revealed approximately one in five students at the university experiences food insecurity. Abigail is hesitant to report Jacob’s behavior despite her discomfort, as the event fosters alumni and donor relationships and provides networking opportunities for forthcoming graduates at Williamson.

Keywords: supervisor dynamics, campus culture, budget reduction, fundraising, resource allocation

Character Descriptions

Office of Student Engagement Assistant Director, Jacob (he/him): Jacob has served as the assistant director of the Office of Student Engagement for three years. This position holds special meaning to Jacob, as Williamson is his alma mater. After gaining five years of experience at a small liberal arts college, Jacob returned to Williamson to oversee operations of the Office of Student Engagement and provide leadership to professional staff. Jacob is also the primary liaison with senior administration and has formed deep bonds with these stakeholders, as well as strong relationships with campus and community partners.

Office of Student Engagement Coordinator, Abigail (they/theirs): After completing their master’s degree at a different institution, Abigail joined the Office of Student Engagement as the coordinator. During Abigail’s 18 month tenure at Williamson, they have developed strong relationships with students in the organizations they advise. These relationships have further fostered a deep sense of empathy within Abigail, who is committed to serving the needs of students. Abigail has similarly developed a passion for advocating, as they oversee the daily operations of campus food pantry and interact with students who depend on the service.

Student, Carla (she/her): Carla is a senior at Williamson studying secondary education with a concentration in mathematics. Due to the requirements of her student teaching internship, Carla had to significantly reduce her hours at her job. While Carla shares expenses with her three roommates in an off campus apartment, she is barely making ends meet with her reduced pay. Although Carla learned about the food pantry from a friend who is a student leader on campus several weeks ago, she has been hesitant to utilize the resource due to feelings of shame surrounding not being able to provide for herself.

Context and Case

Williamson State University is a midsized public institution located in the Midwest, serving a diverse student population of approximately 14,000. The university has recently secured R2 Carnegie status. However, this year the state legislature has announced major reductions in its annual appropriations to public institutions of higher learning. As a result, Williamson’s leadership has adopted a conservative fiscal posture by limiting expenditures solely to those deemed essential to the university’s operation and success. All expenditures must be reviewed and approved by a panel of senior administrators, which includes the Provost and the Chief Financial Officer. Food insecurity has become a growing concern among students, with recent surveys indicating that nearly 20% of undergraduates report skipping meals due to financial constraints. The campus food pantry was established three years ago to address this issue, offering free basic groceries to any student in need. The pantry has seen modest success since its launch. However, the pantry is not widely known amongst the student body, despite several feature stories published by the campus newspaper, The Williamson Wire.

The Office of Student Engagement, responsible for managing student organizations, has been significantly impacted. No student organization has received funding approval since the budget changes two months ago. As a result, many student groups have had to reduce their activities, with some even pausing operations entirely. This lack of funding has curtailed traditional events and programs that foster community spirit and provide leadership experiences for students. The impact on student life has been noticeable, as opportunities for involvement, networking, and skill development have decreased, affecting both the social atmosphere on campus and the personal growth of students.

Abigail, a coordinator in the Office of Student Engagement, has been at Williamson for 18 months and is in their first position after completing their master’s degree. In their position, they advise student organizations and oversee the daily operation of the campus food pantry. The pantry, which is run by student volunteers, accepts donations to support members of the campus community in need. The pantry is regularly inventoried and restocked by these student volunteers and serves an opportunity for impactful service.

Recently, the pantry has faced challenges such as increased demand and occasional shortages of essential staples. These issues have been compounded by logistical hurdles, including limited storage capacity and irregular delivery schedules. Abigail has been working to address these concerns since they started to ensure that the pantry continues to meet the growing needs of the campus community.

One Thursday afternoon, a student named Carla visits Abigail’s office, looking worried. She quietly shares that she has been skipping some meals lately because her grocery budget just isn’t enough. Abigail offers to check the pantry with Carla and discuss additional support options.

Together, Abigail and Carla walk to the pantry to review what is available. While checking the shelves, Abigail notices that all the staple items, such as rice, canned beans, and pasta, are missing. Abigail apologizes for the shortages and explains that recent supply issues and budget restrictions have made it harder to keep the pantry fully stocked. Abigail reviews the inventory log and notices that the pantry was fully stocked with these items just yesterday. This discovery prompts Abigail to document the missing items and report the issue to her supervisor, Jacob.

Jacob, an assistant director in the Office of Student Engagement directly supervises Abigail. He oversees broader office operations, provides guidance to professional staff, and acts as the primary liaison with senior administration on student organization funding and support. Jacob’s role includes oversight and coordination of support services like the food pantry, ensuring compliance with university policies and community stakeholder relations.

When Abigail reports the missing pantry items, Jacob listens carefully and affirms Abigail’s concerns regarding the unanticipated shortages. After discussing potential community partners that Jacob may be able to reach out to that would be willing to fill the gap before the next scheduled restocking, Jacob mentions that he recently discussed the pantry with a student group and approved the use of its items to supplement the items needed for an upcoming event.

When Abigail asks Jacob about what event the items are needed for, Jacob reminds Abigail of the upcoming homecoming football game and the annual tailgate and luncheon the student group hosts for alumni. Abigail is aware that it is a beloved tradition for alumni to return to campus for this event and interact with upper-division student leaders. While serving as a networking opportunity for students soon to graduate and seek employment, there is additionally a silent auction fundraising component that supports institutional missions.

As the conversation turns to the event, Jacob expresses excitement. He reveals that the event’s new marketing strategy has been particularly well received by alumni. Although the event is traditionally catered, the students have approached the event with a fresh idea. Instead of upscale refreshments, the students will prepare and serve a buffet style spread themselves with the help of the Culinary Arts Department. Because the event was advertised as a student-led service project in collaboration with an academic department, the number of alumni that have already confirmed their anticipated attendance is historically high.

Although Abigail understands the significance of this event to alumni, students, and stakeholders, Jacob’s enthusiasm does not resonate with them. As Abigail returns to their office, their mind returns to Carla, who had left the pantry earlier without what she needed for dinner that night.

Abigail is unsure of what to do next. Her feelings do not improve two days later when Jacob is able to restock the pantry earlier than anticipated through a well established community partnership. As the event approaches and the office buzzes with eagerness since the anticipated attendance will be the highest of the last decade, Abigail cannot shake the look on Carla’s face when she left the pantry without a plan for the night.

Discussion Questions

• How might Abigail respond or act in this scenario?
• How could the supervisor and supervisee dynamic between Jacob and Abigail influence what Abigail may do?
• How could the relationships Jacob has fostered with senior administrators impact how Abigail may choose to respond or act?
• How might Abigail feel if the items were used for something other than alumni relations and fundraising?
• What offices or officials on campus could provide guidance to Abigail? Who else might Abigail turn to for help?
• What follow-up or additional support could be offered to Carla?
• How might Abigail respond if she were to receive a request for comment from The Williamson Wire about recent complaints/tips, they received from students?

Author Bios

Matthew Inman (he/him) and Jayme Snider (she/hers) are both students in the Master of Education program at Clemson University concentrating in Student Affairs.

Matthew is a student affairs educator who specializes in guiding student learning within residential life through a curricular approach and has a deep passion for educational philosophy.

Jayme is a K-20 educator, research-practitioner, leader, and lifelong learner with a passion for improving interdisciplinary curriculum design, experiential and contextual learning approaches, and rural education.

This case study explores a student staff housing community team’s lack of engagement with a focus on the impact of student staff buy-in on team dynamics. The case discusses employee accountability juxtaposed to the supervisors’ goals for building staff rapport and supporting student staff holistic development. The discussion questions explore options for staff motivation, input, and the balance of empathy with accountability.

Keywords: Housing, student supervision, living-learning community, burnout, new housing professional

Character Descriptions

Joseph – Hall Director (HD) | He/Him/His

Joseph has worked at Pearson University for five years as a Hall Director. Joseph is passionate about housing, and his entire career has been in housing roles at various southeastern universities, from serving as a Resident Assistant (RA) as an undergraduate, a Graduate Hall Director (GHD) while pursuing a master’s degree, and now Hall Director.

Sophia – Graduate Hall Director | She/Her/Hers

Sophia does not have prior experience working in housing and was not an RA at the small, southern liberal arts college she attended as an undergraduate. Sophia is a full-time student pursuing a Student Affairs graduate degree alongside her assistantship in housing.

Aria – Senior Resident Assistant (Senior RA) | She/Her/Hers

Aria is a senior who has lived in the Honors Living-Learning Community (LLC) since her first year and began working as an RA in her sophomore year.

Context and Case

Sophia has just begun her first year as a Graduate Hall Director at Pearson University. Pearson University is a large, public, R1, land-grant institution in the southeastern United States. Pearson University is well-known for their student research in STEM fields.

The Pearson Honors LLC housing leadership team is composed of Sophia, Joseph (Hall Director), and Aria (Senior RA). Sophia and Joseph co-supervise a staff of 15 RAs. The resident population is composed of first-year honors students. These residents are high-achieving academically and highly involved on campus. Nevertheless, the housing leadership team for the Honors LLC has historically faced difficulty engaging their residents within the hall. A significant majority of the students are pursuing STEM degrees, and it is not uncommon to encounter both residents and RAs who are taking heavy courseloads.

The 15 RAs who make up the Honors LLC housing student staff are a tight-knit group. Ten of the student staff are returning RAs to the same community. Most of the student staff consider each other friends. Of the RAs, seven are seniors, four are juniors, and four are sophomores. Since Joseph is familiar with the majority of the RAs and their historically strong work ethic, Joseph centered trust and individual accountability for the student staff this year.

Aria is passionate about advocating for the experience of her fellow RAs. She pursued the role of Senior RA to build upon foundations set by a previous Honors LLC Senior RA that she is friends with. She enjoys building relationships with the staff and serves as a confidant and liaison for the staff to voice their concerns.

Repeated Behavior: Burnout and Buy-In

While the staff is tight-knit and Aria plans frequent movie nights and study sessions for the student staff, Sophia and Joseph have noticed that their rapport as a leadership team with the staff feels strained. In 1:1s, most staff members are quiet. When asked about the RA role responsibilities and goals, most staff focus on deadlines and describe their work duties as a checklist.

Joseph and Sophia learn through Aria that multiple staff members are disinterested in the leadership team’s approach to staff development and community-building. When Joseph and Sophia propose opportunities and ideas for staff bonding either outside of or built into work meetings, staff turnout and engagement is low. Sophia and Joseph are passionate about engaging the staff holistically and have collaborated with Aria to build monthly boundary-setting, self-care, and time management professional development sessions into staff meetings. During training, these are the topics staff expressed interest in. Some staff have told Aria they dislike the leadership team’s bonding and professional development sessions. Staff members have described these efforts as “fluff” and would rather have time back for studying or for themselves.

By October, Joseph and Sophia notice that between one-third to one-half of the staff are neither reading nor responding to emails and staff group chat messages in a timely manner, if at all. This behavior conflicts with expectations outlined during training and weekly reminders.

As a result, several student staff members are not completing time-sensitive tasks. Additionally, multiple staff members are missing checkpoint deadlines for intentional educational conversations with residents. Staff members tell Sophia and Joseph in their weekly 1:1 meetings that they are busy or burnt out with academics. They insist that they will not miss future deadlines. However, staff continue to request last-minute extensions for deadlines, miss deadlines, or show up late to 1:1 and staff meetings.

Rumors and Feedback Loops

To create a responsive work environment, Joseph and Sophia have collected staff feedback through all-staff meeting conversations, Senior RA-led group check-in conversations without the HD and GHD present, and an anonymous form about staff experience. Joseph and Sophia notice that staff provide conflicting feedback about what they prefer or expect from staff meetings. Some feel short staff meetings should be cancelled; others state that meetings that take the full time are draining and should be shortened. Further, several staff members have compared their work and meeting load to other staffs. They assert that other staffs do not have as many deadlines or staff meetings as the Honors LLC staff do. While some community leadership teams opt to cancel multiple meetings in the same month and do not enforce strict deadlines, these decisions contradict departmental standards. Joseph and Sophia schedule meetings and deadlines based upon departmental expectations despite other leadership teams’ failure to adhere to expectations and policies.

When Joseph and Sophia do opt for emailed “paper” staff meetings, they find that consistently more than half the staff do not read, retain, or respond by deadlines. Based on 1:1 meetings, Joseph and Sophia believe that many staff are “checked out,” have “senioritis,” and experience burnout from academics, campus involvements, research, and RA responsibilities. Joseph believes some staff members have become complacent in their RA responsibilities, as this is their second or third year working in the same residential community. What’s more, Joseph recently learned from a former staff RA that Aria is feeding into negativity about deadlines and the work environment during informal conversations and gatherings with other Honors LLC RAs.

The staff community events committee has not been meeting their expectations for event planning and execution. Despite 1:1 and staff meeting check-ins about events, Sophia found herself working a 12-hour day to finalize event logistics and secure supplies for their community Fall Festival. Most of this work was the committee’s responsibility. Joseph, Sophia, and Aria discuss the concern; Sophia develops an event planning worksheet to support committee planning and delegation which is approved by the housing department. Sophia introduces the worksheet at the next staff meeting.

At the next leadership team meeting, however, Aria tells Sophia and Joseph that the staff are very upset and frustrated about the worksheet and feel micro-managed. When Sophia asks committee about the worksheet during 1:1s, some staff share they think the worksheet will be helpful and others do not have much to say. Nevertheless, Aria continues to report that staff are upset about this worksheet based on both informal conversations and the feedback loops she has conducted when the HD/GHD step out of staff meetings.

It is difficult for Joseph and Sophia to get the staff on the same page and to improve morale, while ensuring accountability for meeting deadlines.

Discussion Questions

1. What role might the Honors LLC affiliation play in the experience of the student staff in this residential community? How can Joseph and Sophia respond to the unique needs of their staff?
2. What supervisory and ethical considerations should Joseph attend to rumors of Aria contributing to the negative staff dynamic?
3. How could Sophia have held the community events committee accountable while maintaining a growth mindset for the committee?
4. What could Joseph, Sophia, and Aria do to address staff issues related to timely responses and completion of action items when reminders have not worked?
5. What approaches could the leadership team implement to address staff morale?
6. How can Joseph and Sophia address “senioritis” and burnout on staff?
7. How should Joseph and Sophia respond to conflicting feedback from staff considering the different means of collecting feedback (1:1s, staff meetings, staff meeting conversations when Joseph and Sophia are not present)?

Author Biography

Savanna Vest (she/her/hers) is a second-year graduate student in Clemson University’s Master of Education in Student Affairs program. Prior to pursuing a graduate degree, Savanna worked as an Evaluation Program Coordinator for a college- and career-readiness program serving a west coast public school system.

In education, field experiences are important ways to discover what one is and is not interested in within the field. Graduate students try various field experiences to determine where to search for positions and what types of roles or institutions would best suit them. As student affairs professionals, we must ensure that graduate students are set up for success in their field experience. While an experience can shift in a positive or negative way depending on personal life, supervisor, events on campus or in the community, and other factors, giving students the tools they need to succeed in the beginning allows them to both challenge themselves and navigate external challenges. Student affairs professionals must give graduate students the proper tools to complete their tasks, but also to be available or have contingency plans for when things go awry. This case study examines an issue in which a graduate student is left to fend for themself when they are not set up for success and are unsure where to turn.

Key Words: Supervision, Communication, Field Experience, Feeling of Isolation

Functional Area: Career Services

Broader Issues: Communication, Supervision, Course Requirements, Professionalism

Characters and Descriptions:

Lexie (she, her, hers) – Lexie is a first-year graduate student at Stanley University receiving her master’s degree in Student Affairs. She is currently completing her 125-hour internship at the Career Center on campus. She is an out-of-state student and the first in her immediate family to go to graduate school. She is one of very few graduate students in her program with a 12-month assistantship and does not have a lot of friends currently on campus in the summer. The only class she is currently taking this summer is her internship course.

Dr. Christopher (he, him, his) – Dr. Christopher is Lexie’s internship supervisor at the Career Center at Stanley University, and an alumnus of Lexie’s program. He is a highly recognized and accomplished member of the field and has been in his role as Director of Career Development for the past 10 years. He is often being pulled for conferences, presentations, and important meetings due to his extensive experience and knowledge.

Adjunct Professor (they, them) – Lexie’s internship professor had to take an unexpected medical leave, leaving Lexie and her classmates in the hands of the adjunct professor. The adjunct professor had to add this course on to an already packed schedule, as they are not typically a professor for this program and are teaching other courses in the department.

Context

Stanley University is a large public university on the outskirts of a major city in the northeastern portion of the United States. Due to its distance to the city being about a 35-minute drive, many students live on campus or in nearby surrounding neighborhoods. There are bus routes that take students into the city and back, but most students choose to bring their cars to campus. Most events and experiences tend to happen on-campus as a result, which allows for a thriving and connected campus culture. The next nearest university or community college is a 45 minute drive either direction.

Out of a student population of 62,311 students, only 8,023 are graduate students. Within Lexie’s Master of Student Affairs Program, there are about 48 students total, split evenly between two cohorts. All 48 of these graduate students hold assistantships or full-time roles, though very few are 12-month positions. Out of the 24 students in Lexie’s cohort, only eight have 12-month positions and they are required to complete a 125 hour internship over the summer in addition to their assistantship hours and additional volunteer opportunities (other students complete both of their internships during the academic year). This program prides itself on service, both in and around the student affairs field, and therefore requires two, 125-hour field experiences in addition to 50 service hours per year. To track their internship requirement, they must attend a course during the semester they are completing the internship and complete a detailed tracking form on their hours. To track community service, students must submit their hours through a form at the end of the year that is signed off from the supervisor in charge of the volunteer sites they worked in.

Case

Lexie is required to complete a 125 hour internship over the summer during her time in her graduate program at Stanley University. She met Dr. Christopher when he came to give a presentation entitled Career Services: Improving One’s Resume to her academic program of which he is an alumnus. Interested in the work that Dr. Christopher does at the Career Center, Lexie connected with Dr. Christopher and asked if she could complete her internship through the Career Center with him as her supervisor. He agreed, and they began working together at the beginning of the summer in late May. The internship requirement goes along with a course she takes over the summer, where she is required to submit a detailed account of her hours to the professor. The professor is currently on medical leave, being temporarily replaced by an adjunct professor who is not as familiar with the program and its requirements.

It is now early July, and Lexie is struggling with her internship. The experience started off great. She was given training in late May on how to complete appointment types such as resume/CV and cover letter reviews and was given her own appointment block for one of the two days where she spends 10 hours a week at the Career Center over the summer. She does all of this in addition to her graduate assistantship (for 28 hours a week). The other day she spends in the Career Center is left open to be used for various tasks that may need completing at the Center. Throughout June, Lexie used time on her additional day in the office to shadow a few of Dr. Christopher’s resume/CV and cover letter appointments until she felt comfortable on her own. She also shadowed him with other appointments and meetings so that she could learn about the other services that Career Center offers. In addition to her time with Dr. Christopher, Lexie also used some of her time getting to know other members of the Career Center staff.

However, it is now early July and student appointments on solely resumes/CVs and cover letters have begun to slow as summer courses take a break. Additionally, Dr. Christopher has been called upon what seems like every other day to attend conferences, give presentations, and do additional networking for the Career Center. As he is out of town more often than not, he is difficult to get a hold of, and Lexie only feels comfortable using his email to contact him because she feels it is unprofessional to text him. Dr. Christopher told her in June that he would come up with more tasks for her and would help officially train her on more types of student meetings and appointments, but due to Dr. Christopher’s schedule, this never happened.

Lexie has tried to connect with the adjunct professor via email but has not succeeded so far. The class only meets in person once at the beginning of the summer semester, and once at the end. The faculty members that Lexie is closest to are 9-month faculty who are not on contract over the summer. She is hesitant to contact them as she is unsure that they will answer. She also feels guilty for asking them to work outside their contracted hours. Additionally, Lexie has struggled with making friends within her cohort and program. Being one of the only students in her program who is a first-generation master’s student and being an out of state student has her feeling different from those around her. Lexie is at a loss for what to do and is anxious she will not have enough productive hours completed by the time they are due in early August and will therefore fail the class.

Discussion questions:

1. Should Lexie contact a 9-month faculty member? If so, what should she say and why?
2. What are Lexie’s next steps to ensure that she is able to complete enough productive hours for her internship?
3. How should communication between Lexie, Dr. Christopher, and the adjunct professor be addressed?
4. What are some ways that Lexie can reach out to her classmates to determine if anyone else is having similar issues?
5. What are ways that can help prevent or provide clarification if a situation such as this arises again, whether that be for Lexie or another future member of this program?

Author Biography

Ashley Sanfacon (she, her, hers) is a second-year graduate student at Clemson University earning her Masters of Education in Student Affairs. She serves as the Graduate Assistant for the Employer Relations and Events team at the Center for Career and Professional Development, as well as the Presidential Scholar Intern for the Southern Association for College Student Affairs (SACSA).

This case study explores the experience of a first-generation Latinx student navigating international study abroad opportunities within an academic institution. Carlos, a second-year undergraduate student, engages with a study abroad advisor revealing gaps in institutional systems not aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion. The narrative highlights the limitations of a new walk-in advising system and the lack of cultural responsiveness Carlos experiences from his professor and study abroad advisor. Guadalupe, a department leader, recognizes the systemic issues that hinder equitable access and support for students like Carlos who share a similar background. This case highlights the importance of proactive communication, culturally responsive advising, and institutional accountability in supporting first-generation, low-income students in their study abroad opportunities.

Keywords

 First-generation students, Latinx students, Study Abroad, Cultural Barriers

Characters

Guadalupe (she/her) serves as the Director for the Study Abroad & Global Engagement Department. Guadalupe, a Latinx, previously low-income, cisgender woman, joined the institution six months ago after serving for 10 years as a Study Abroad Counselor. She currently oversees the Study Abroad advisors including helping them to effectively navigate student concerns while simultaneously upholding the University’s policies.

Carlos (he/him) is a Latinx, first-generation student who is the oldest of three siblings and lives in

off-campus housing. Occasionally, Carlos supports his father’s small family-owned restaurant by picking up shifts due to understaffing. He is an undergraduate student majoring in Linguistics and is currently in his second year. Despite living in off-campus housing, Carlos has actively sought and found ways to be involved on campus and recently became a board member of the Associated Student Initiative, a student organization that advocates for on-campus engagement through programs, services, and opportunities that aims to close the equity gap and ensure student succeed.

Dr. Chen (he/him) is a multi-racial, tenured, full professor with experience in his field. He holds a Ph.D. in Anthropology, specializing in Communications. Throughout his tenure, Dr. Chen has led numerous study abroad programs. This summer, he is coordinating a faculty-led study abroad course titled “Languages of the World.” This exciting opportunity invites students to explore the rich tapestry of global languages and cultures. Currently, he is recruiting students from his lecture classes interested in learning about historical languages in Madrid, Spain.

Taylor (she/her) is a socially and politically conservative, white, cisgender woman who has worked at the Study Abroad Office for over 10 years as a Senior Counselor. She advises students daily on creating their study abroad packages to help prepare them for their travels. Historically, Taylor has been selective when working with her students. However, due to a shortage of counselors, she has recently been assisting with drop-in appointments, a new system that MFU has been piloting.

Context

This case is set at Misty Falls University (MFU), a regional, public four-year institution located in the Northwest region of the United States. MFU is a predominantly white institution that enrolls around 25,000 students (20,000 undergraduates and 5,000 graduates). MFU receives generous donations from alumni to provide equitable resources to students. While MFU collects basic demographic data during enrollment, there is a significant lack of in-depth understanding of the diverse experiences within its student body. The institution focuses primarily on broad enrollment numbers and compliance with state mandates, rather than actively seeking to understand the specific needs, challenges, and aspirations of its various student populations regarding student success. While some individuals at MFU may have good intentions, there is a general lack of cultural competency among staff and faculty. As a result, many faculty and staff may not be adequately equipped to understand the unique challenges faced by marginalized students.

Case Study

At 7:00 p.m., students sat down for Dr. Chen’s lecture, but he was late. He had been at the printing center working on flyers. After 15 minutes of waiting, the students began to pack up and leave. Just then, Dr. Chen rushed into the classroom, apologized for his tardiness, and took his seat. The class then resumed.

An hour later, with the lesson wrapping up, Dr. Chen’s excitement was sparked as he stood at the front of the classroom. “I have an important announcement,” he declared, while handing out the flyers. He shared details about the annual faculty-led study abroad course, emphasizing that this year was special: students would have a chance to help develop the curriculum, which will be embedded in future required courses. “This will not only look great on your resume, but I promise to write letters of recommendation for those who participate,” he added, generating interest among the students.

Carlos approached Dr. Chen at the end of class with a mix of excitement and concern on his face. “I’m interested in studying abroad, but I’m worried about the logistics as I have never left the state.”

Dr. Chen nodded understandingly. “I know it can be tough but think about it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. As a sophomore, this could be your chance to shine and make the most of your college experience. Stop by the Study Abroad Office; they can help answer your questions.”

The next day, Carlos visited the Study Abroad office and asked to see a counselor. The front desk told him about a new drop-in system for 15-minute meetings. After five minutes, Taylor called him, reminding him it was a quick drop-in for brief questions.

Feeling awkward after her comment, Carlos sat down. Taylor asked, “How can I help you today?” Carlos shared his interest in a summer study abroad program in Madrid but had some concerns. He shared his guilt of being the oldest in the family, leaving his family behind to handle their restaurant business independently. He also shared concerns about the unknown; he had never traveled before and read somewhere that he would need a visa to travel and was worried about the costs.

Taylor, having only worked with her select group of students, had never met someone with a cultural barrier of having at-home responsibilities and needing help financially for visa costs. Hesitating with what to say, Taylor reminded Carlos, “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I’m sure your parents will understand. As for the visa costs, ask your friends and family if they can help pitch in.” As time wrapped up, Taylor ended by reminding Carlos to complete a survey via email regarding their pilot model of taking in walk-in appointments. Shortly after, Carlos submitted the feedback and shared the following:

My experience with Taylor was disappointing. The appointment was only 15 minutes, which felt was too rushed to fully express my concerns about studying abroad in Madrid, Spain. I wanted to ask more questions about visas, financial costs, and balancing family responsibilities. However, I felt like my worries were brushed aside, leaving me feeling unseen and unheard. Taylor’s comments, like suggesting I ask friends or family for financial help, didn’t really address the complexities of my situation, such as acknowledging the cultural and financial barriers I face. From my interaction with Taylor, I am unsure if I would ever ask for help again.

All feedback went to Guadalupe, the Director for the Study Abroad & Global Engagement Department. A few days later, Guadalupe contacted him to come in for a meeting to discuss his experience further.

Guadalupe and Carlos met in person and she shared with him that this new system of walk-in appointments is something she developed during her six months in her role. She values input from students and opens the floor for Carlos to share what is happening. Carlos says, “I feel that 15 minutes to

meet with a counselor is not enough time. I have so many questions regarding study abroad; for example, I do not even know what a visa is, but I know it is required. I also feel guilty for not telling my parents, especially since they count on me to work at their restaurant during the summer. It seems like everyone is brushing off my concerns, insisting that this is a ‘once-in-a-lifetime opportunity’.” At that moment, Guadalupe realized the cultural disconnect within the institution and how it impacts students from marginalized communities. While Carlos talked about cultural and financial and other personal barriers, there were institutional barriers at work, as well.

After presenting Carlos with a plan, she recognized that the issue stems from institutional factors. The predominately white student population may contribute to the lack of resources tailored to meet diverse cultural needs, resulting in their limited accessibility for all students.

Discussion Questions

1. What resources related to ethics of care, empathy, and responsiveness might Guadalupe refer to in helping Taylor and the rest of the office team support students?
2. What ethical responsibilities do institutions have to adapt their support systems to students’ lived realities?
3. How do the positionalities of Taylor and Chen influence their interactions with students? In what ways can higher education professionals critically reflect on their own identities to better support students and dismantle systemic barriers?
4. How might Carlos have had a different experience if faculty and staff had consistently validated him? What practices can institutions implement to ensure students from marginalized backgrounds feel seen, heard, and supported throughout their educational journeys?

Author Bios

Alejandra Aguilar (she/her) serves as the Titan Hub Scholarship Counselor at California State University, Fullerton, where she is also pursuing a Master of Science in Higher Education. With over four years of experience working in Financial Aid within the CSU and UC systems, Alejandra is deeply committed to empowering marginalized students, especially first-generation, low-income, and underserved communities.

Yuliza Navarro (she/her) serves as Administrative Assistant at Long Beach City College and is pursuing a Master of Science in Higher Education at Fullerton. Before this, she worked as a High School Counselor Assistant at a charter school in Northeast Los Angeles. Yuliza was inspired to pursue academic advising after being mentored by an advisor with a similar background. She aims to support marginalized students in reaching higher education.

This case study examines how advisors might best prepare their students for post-college experiences in a changing landscape, when factors like the economy or political environment can affect their students’ chosen careers. This issue can be particularly difficult when helping students strategize how they can present themselves authentically while demonstrating that they are the best fit for an opportunity.

Keywords: fellowships, advising, politics, authenticity

Institutional Context

Fitzgerald University is a large, R1 public institution in the Southeast with a heavy STEM emphasis. Fitzgerald University has an Office of Nationally Competitive Awards which prepares students to apply for both federally funded and private fellowships to fund opportunities like STEM research, graduate school, and learning abroad. This office is less than ten years old and has a director and assistant director. Last year they hired a graduate student to help with advising.

Primary Characters

Alina (she/her) is a second-year graduate student completing her assistantship as a fellowship advisor. In this role, Alina works alongside the assistant director to advise students for international awards and opportunities. She taught English abroad through a Fulbright grant to South Korea before attending graduate school.

Theo (they/them) is a senior physics major. They have been heavily involved throughout their undergraduate career with a student affinity organization for LGBTQ+ STEM majors. Additionally, Theo currently serves on a College of Science advisory board to help faculty understand the unique challenges of LGBTQ+ students in the college.

Kena (she/her) is a senior education and women’s leadership double major. Her academic experiences have only fueled her passion for global gender equality. Most of her campus and community involvement has been teaching English to speakers of other languages, as she has seen how English fluency has helped many female refugees achieve economic independence upon resettling in the US.

Case

In her graduate assistantship Alina advises and supports students applying for international fellowship opportunities. As the fall semester begins, the Office of Nationally Competitive Awards has been extremely busy with preparing students for the upcoming deadlines of multiple fellowships, one of which is the U.S. Fulbright Program. This fellowship is sponsored by the U.S Department of State, and students can apply for awards to either teach English, complete research, or earn a graduate degree abroad.

The Fulbright Program has a long history built on cultural exchange, bringing the best and brightest abroad to complete research in the United States while sending Americans abroad to teach English or conduct research. Most Fulbright grants are jointly funded by the U.S and the host country. The program is governed by a nonpartisan Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board that establishes policies and procedures.

With the recent national election and changes in leadership, the Department of State deprioritized many initiatives promoting cultural exchange. After a long delay in award announcements, several countries were notified that the U.S. government would not be funding proposals that did not align with executive orders. There is no precedent for the executive branch denying students after they had been selected. 11 out of 12 members of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board resigned over this political interference.

When the Fulbright cycle opened in the spring, Fitzgerald University’s Office of Nationally Competitive Awards began recruiting students to apply. Due to the rigor of the application, students are expected to work with the Office throughout the summer.

Theo’s Graduate Application

Theo met with the Office of Nationally Competitive Awards shortly after the cycle opened to apply for a Fulbright grant to fund a graduate degree in Medical Physics. They found a program at a university in Finland that offers a unique degree; the coursework focuses on applying physics to medical technology, whereas most physics programs in the U.S. and abroad are more theoretical. Theo believes this degree program will be the best fit for their career.

Part of the Fulbright application requires applicants to share feasible strategies for engaging with their host community to build meaningful relationships. This section of the application justifies how grantees will fulfill the State Department’s public diplomacy arm. In this section of their application, Theo wrote about how their involvement in the LGBTQ+ affinity organization and on the advisory board helped them build meaningful relationships during their undergraduate career. They hope to join the LGBTQ+ student organization at the Finnish university to connect with queer students within their host community.

In the final week of the application, the assistant director advised Theo that they should find a different opportunity for host country engagement that is not connected to their LGBTQ+ identity. There are rumors that federal agencies are going to put in searches for key words related to topics that the current administration does not agree with and disqualify Fulbright applications that contain these words. Though these are rumors, the assistant director nudged Theo towards deleting this section. Theo booked a last-minute advising appointment with Alina, sharing the advice from the assistant director. They want Alina’s opinion on if they should change this proposed involvement; and if so, how they should change it.

Kena’s English Teaching Application

Kena is applying for a Fulbright English Teaching grant in Jordan. She chose this country as Jordan requires its Fulbrighters not only to teach English in the classroom but also complete a supplemental project. Many current Fulbrighters in Jordan volunteer with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to teach English to refugees. Kena is extremely passionate about helping refugee women learn English as a tool to gain financial security for their families. Her justification in her application for ‘why Jordan?’ included the supplemental work she hopes to do.

Typically, her career ambitions would make her a strong Fulbright candidate. However, the assistant director advised Kena to remove any mention of the word ‘refugees’, as that might be a word screened for in applications. Kena sent an email to Alina about this feedback from the assistant director, as she felt that her application was lackluster and incomplete without explaining her passion for English language learning as a tool for global gender equality. Since the Jordan grant would allow her to teach to refugees, she felt that removing this reasoning would not explain why she chose Jordan’s program over another country.

The Fulbright Program releases a list after each cycle of “Top Producing Institutions” broken down by Carnegie designation. For an R1 institution, Fitzgerald University needs to have at least 10 students win the fellowship to become a Top Producer. The director of the Office of Nationally Competitive Awards has expressed that Fitzgerald University’s Board of Regents would like to earn the Top Producing Institution designation. If these students’ applications are thrown out or are otherwise not selected, this would hurt the office’s ability to receive this recognition.

Discussion questions

1. How should Alina advise Theo? How should Alina advise Kena? Is there a difference in how Alina should approach advising these students? Why?
2. To what extent should Alina allow these rumors of federal interference to affect her advising? How might her advising change if these rumors were substantiated?
3. How should Alina address students asking for a different opinion on their applications with her supervisor?

Author bio

Elise Blackburn (she/they) is a second-year student in Clemson University’s Master of Education in Student Affairs program and works as a graduate assistant for the Office of Major Fellowships. Elise studied abroad in Seville, Spain as an undergraduate and won a Fulbright fellowship to teach English at a university in Madrid. She is passionate about helping students tell their story and access funding for transformative opportunities like study abroad.

One morning at Kyah State University, Alexia, the Student Life Coordinator, reviews campus event proposals and uncovers a troubling submission from a student organization seeking to raise funds for scholarships for Indigenous students. The event’s promotional materials perpetuate harmful cultural stereotypes, catching the attention of Xochitl, an Indigenous student who expresses alarm and disapproval. Although Brian, an Indigenous student leading the initiative, believes he represents the community well, Xochitl is doubtful. Now, Alexia must address these concerns and uphold the campus’s commitment to cultural respect.

Keywords/Phrases: Campus Events, Indigenous Students, and Cultural Appropriation

Characters

Alexia Ramirez (she/her) is the Student Life Coordinator at Kyah State University, having been in her position for 15 months. In her role, she oversees the implementation and processes involving campus clubs and organizations. As a practitioner in academic affairs, she practices a “by the book” leadership style but is learning to adopt an open-minded approach and is known for being a team player. While passionate about promoting student engagement, she has had few experiences handling conflict within major situations. She identifies as Latinx.

Brian Benally (he/him) is a fourth-year undergraduate student majoring in International Studies, and the current President of Global Neighbors, a community service organization centered on promoting peace and prosperity to cultures worldwide through acts of service on and off campus. He has held onto his current role for the past two years, demonstrating his reliability in advancing his organization’s agendas through persistence and passion. His leadership style has significantly influenced his organization’s members and fellow officers. Yet, he is recognized for his ambitious demeanor and controversial decision-making. He often makes these decisions without fully consulting others in the organization. He holds Indigenous ancestry but lives a more Eurocentric lifestyle.

Xochitl Mejia-Palacios (they/them) is a third-year undergraduate student majoring in Psychology. They frequently visit the Native American and Indigenous Center, which provides a comforting environment that feels like a home away from home. Raised in their native culture, Xochitl strives to incorporate cultural elements into every aspect of their college experience.

Xochitl is actively engaged in activism, knowledgeable about their roots, and protective of their cultural heritage. They have friends involved in the Global Neighbors organization and are considering joining for their final year on campus.

Context and Case

Kyah State University (KSU), a public four-year institution in the U.S. Southwest. According to its mission statement, KSU is committed to serving a diverse population of first-generation students of color through community engagement and service. The student body is predominantly Latinx and White, with other minority populations also represented in significant numbers. Many students at KSU are actively engaged in student life, with approximately 70% participating in at least one club or campus-affiliated organization.

One popular student organization is Global Neighbors; a community service organization whose mission is to advance cultural wellness and prosperity through events and activities on and off campus. As one of the longest-running organizations at KSU, the group has considerable influence on student life. Global Neighbors excels at fundraising and event planning, furthering their popularity among other clubs and organizations who regularly collaborate with them.

It is an early Monday morning, and Alexia steps into the office, fueled by a sense of purpose and readiness to tackle the day’s assignments. Among her key responsibilities is reviewing proposals for various campus events submitted by student clubs and organizations, each with the potential to enrich the campus community.

As she sifts through a stack of proposals, one catches her eye: it is from Brian, a member of the Global Neighbors organization. His team has crafted an engaging flyer and a detailed outline for an event titled “Walk with the Warriors.” This event is envisioned as a fundraising initiative to

support scholarship opportunities for Indigenous high school students, aiming to empower the next generation.

With Halloween fast approaching, the Global Neighbors team has created an event where the students’ festive spirits could contribute to a meaningful cause. However, as Alexia examines the promotional materials, her concern grows. The flyer is overloaded with various stereotypes, not just in its visuals but also in its language. It encourages attendees to wear stereotypical clothing, to foster a fun and create an inviting atmosphere for participants.

Just as she begins to finalize her thoughts on the proposal, an email from Xochitl, a dedicated student who often visits the Native American and Indigenous Center on campus, lands in her inbox. Xochitl expresses deep concern over the rumors circulating about approving the Global Neighbors event. They fear that the proposal, rather than celebrating Native culture, could be exploitative and disrespectful, commodifying their heritage for profit.

In the email, Xochitl shares a recent conversation with Brian, where he reassured them, “The organization is relying on me to make this happen. As a Native American, I know how to represent our community properly.” However, Xochitl feels that Brian’s confidence may prevent him from noticing the potential disrespect embedded in such a portrayal, especially if the event is indeed framed as a tribute.

Understanding the gravity of Xochitl’s concerns, Alexia realizes she must engage Brian in discussing the implications of the Global Neighbors event. However, she is concerned, knowing that this student organization has a history of resisting constructive criticism from other students and staff on campus. Brian, who identifies as Indigenous, believes he is serving in the campus community’s best interest, and will likely dismiss attempts from Alexia to reconsider having the event. Additionally, Alexia wants to craft a considerate response to Xochitl’s email, offering support and acknowledging their worries about the event taking place.

With a blend of concern for cultural sensitivity and the challenges of navigating student dynamics, Alexia prepares for pivotal conversations that could influence the event’s outcome and its impact on the campus community.

Discussion Questions:

1. How can Alexia discuss cultural appropriation concerns with Brian in a way that acknowledges his cultural roots and promotes reflection instead of defensiveness?
2. What can Brian and Xochitl learn from each other’s perspectives? How can this help them agree on deciding what to do about this event?
3. What other resources, offices, or staff on campus need to be aware of the situation and/or who might help Alexia as she moves forward?
4. What can Alexia do to prevent this kind of situation in the future?

Author Biographies

Lazaro “Laz” Cardenas (He/Him) is a graduate student in the M.S. in Higher Education program at CSU Fullerton and works full-time as an Academic Success Coach at Cal Poly Pomona. His work focuses on supporting underrepresented students in navigating traditional spaces in higher education.

Jasmine Santos-Orozco (She/Her/Ella) is a graduate peer educator for TitanHEALTH at CSU Fullerton, a role she pursued through her M.S. in Higher Education (MSHE) program. She holds a B.A. in Communication emphasis on Organizational Leadership from CSU Channel Islands, where she developed a passion for Student Affairs, particularly in Orientation, the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), and Housing and Residential Life.

This case study examines an issue that DEI-centered programs may face in the current political climate. Higher education institutions that once offered resources tailored to underrepresented student populations, such as students of color and first-generation students, are navigating unexplored territory. Institutions are requiring such programs to rebrand and rethink their program functions and student population focus. Navigating these changes may lead professionals overseeing these functional areas to experience burnout while working under a cloud of uncertainty and navigating reduced resources and staffing.

Key Words: Student Programs, Minority Students, Student Engagement, Student Retention, Sense of Belonging, Underrepresented Student Populations

Institutional Context

Channel Islands University (CIU) is a public land-grant institution located on the coast of the state of Washington. The medium-sized university enrolls approximately 50% of students from out of state. The main attractions of this university are its excellent marine biology, architecture, and humanities programs. In addition, CIU has strong men’s and women’s soccer teams that have each gained national attention for their excellent performance. The Office of Student Engagement is home to the program United in Affinity, which has historically supported students of color, low-income students, and first-generation students. An assistant director and a graduate student run United in Affinity.

Character Descriptions

Elena (she/her) is a second-year graduate student who has served as the graduate assistant for a retention and belonging program for over a year. In this role, Elena aids the program’s assistant director with supervising students, overseeing a mentoring program, hosting events, and teaching a seminar for first-year students in the program. Her goal is to promote students’ success and a sense of belonging through the program.

Sara (she/her) is a higher education professional with seven years of experience, working in various functional areas, including advising for two years and orientation for two years at other public four-year institutions on the west coast. She has been in the role of assistant director for a program tailored for students of color for the past three years. Her goal through the program is to uplift and provide tailored resources to support students of color.

Case

The United in Affinity (UA) program was founded in 1988 to serve first generation, low-income, and students of color at Channel Islands University, aiming to increase the diversity of the student population on campus. The mission of UA is to promote student excellence by cultivating an inclusive, diverse, and supportive community that uplifts and advocates for resources and mentorship that underrepresented students need to thrive in a new and complex social environment. The primary function of the program is to promote student retention, academic success, and professional development for participants through a mentoring program, tailored courses from first to fourth year focused on professional development and academic success, and events focused on social justice, social identities, and multicultural aspects of campus, community, and life beyond higher education.

Assistant director Sara and graduate assistant Elena oversees the program and collaborate on projects throughout the year. Elena and Sara hold similar views regarding UA’s mission and how to support UA students. They hold weekly 1-1 meetings to discuss the program and collaborate on new initiatives. Given their similar dynamics and work structure, their work tends to flow steadily, and they consistently lean on each other for support when needed. As a graduate student, Elena has gained a holistic perspective of the qualities of a good supervisor by working with Sara, who embodies those traits with ease and intentionality.

For the past year, concerning rumors about the future of multicultural programs like UA were heard throughout public institutions across the nation. The concerns involved different views. Some people supported such programs and understood their importance, while other groups deemed them an unnecessary use of federal funds given their possible relationship or lack of to such programs, grants, and fellowships that exist within higher education. Elena and Sara were adamant to stay up to date on such discussions that frequently caused commotion nationwide, and absorbed the whispers, and conversations about the different views were discussed from time to time. Up to that point, no changes had been made to the program, and they continued their work as usual.

The Announcement

This past week, the recently re-elected president announced that many new changes were being made that would affect public higher education institutions, one of them being the end of DEI-centered programs, which would be effective within a short time frame. When Elena arrived at work, her supervisor, Sara, mentioned they must emphasize quick, concise, and diligent work to address the issue at hand that would soon directly affect UA. They were both aware that, given the tense and polarizing political climate, a decision like this was bound to come into fruition. However, they were both a bit taken aback and startled by the sudden news.

Elena questioned how they would continue supporting their program and how their current student population would react to the change. Suddenly, some of the pillars of their program, such as Celebrating Diversity, and specifically targeting and supporting first generation, low-income, and students of color were off the table. Sara replied that they would need to make replacements to the language of their mission, events, and pillars to accommodate the new rules and regulations, ensuring the program continues to exist. At that moment, there were about 100 students in the program, with about 70 being first year students.

“This is an opportunity for us to get creative,” said Sara. “We have the chance to be intentional and experiment with new themes and ideas we have yet to implement into our program,” she said with hope. Hearing her supervisor’s approach come from a place of belief that there is still work to be done and that the two of them were in a great position to do that work made Elena feel at ease. They hoped that things would change in the future, but for now, they would pivot and improvise with what was within their reach. Later, news that their program budget would decrease by 20% and there would not be a graduate assistant the following year made Sara and Elena aware that the resources to support this student population would look different now, and even more so this next academic year.

The main verdict given by the institution to suffice the government requests, The mission of the program had to be explicitly expanded so that United in Affinity must be open to every student at Channel Islands University, regardless of their identity, thereby significantly shifting the student population towards the beginning of their fall semester. Although the program was now open to all students regardless of their demographic, the start of the Fall semester showcased the new strategy did not attract students outside of the underrepresented demographic. During the welcome social for new and returning members of the program, a majority of new students who do not fall into the POC demographic decided to leave the event and withdraw their involvement with the UA program. This posed a new issue; how would the program retain this new student population?

Former and returning UA students who fell into the underrepresented student population noticed changes in the program’s student population, language, mission, and events. They began questioning why specific identities, such as diversity, gender, sexuality, and race were no longer highlighting topics amongst the programs, given they were frequently incorporated in activities and discussions in the past. One student even expressed the thought of how underrepresented students’ resources are being stripped, making it seem as if there is nothing left to specifically aid them. The students who were accustomed to these aspects of the program are now second, third-, and fourth-year students. On the other hand, the first-year student population does not know this past version of UA that holds diversity, equity, and inclusion themes.

Despite these changes, Sara and Elena continued to adjust content as needed but persisted in supporting students and helping them build a sense of belonging on campus. Now, the discussions about changes and all the work the two of them did to adapt to new requirements have settled ever so slightly. Still, the opportunity to get creative and change things in ways that were not considered before helped build a stronger foundation for the program itself and allow for more current focuses to be incorporated.

Discussion Questions

1. Sara views these changes as an opportunity for innovation. What creative strategies could be introduced to sustain support for students who need it most?
2. What risks and opportunities emerge when a long-standing DEI-centered program is required to rebrand or broaden its mission?
3. How can programs adapt to their learning outcomes when identity-specific content is suddenly restricted?
4. Which program components would you preserve, modify, or eliminate under the new constraints, and why?

Author Bio

Rebecca Lara (she/her/hers) is an Iowa native. She attended the University of Iowa for her Bachelor of Arts degree and is currently in the Student Affairs Master’s program at Clemson University.