This case study examines racialized and gendered bias in higher education leadership at Excellence State University (ESU), a mid-sized public research institution. It focuses on Dr. Elizabeth Harper, the Provost, whose stated commitment to diversity contrasts with her actions. Through microaggressions and institutional rhetoric, she undermines Dr. Kathleen Carr, a Black female Assistant Vice Provost known for her equity-driven leadership and focus of being student-centered. The case highlights how student activists, administrators, and DEI professionals confront the gap between performative inclusion and transformational institutional change. It offers a lens to explore systemic inequities, microaggressions, and the influence of power and positionality on campus climate and policy.

Keywords: Biases, Exclusion Decision-Making, Institutional Structure, Microaggressions

Character Descriptions

Dr. Kathleen Carr (she/her) – The only Black woman on the cabinet at ESU, Dr. Carr serves as the Assistant Vice Provost. She has spent three years working to improve academic outcomes for marginalized students. She champions direct engagement, dialogue, and solutions that address student concerns. Her unique positionality along with racial and gender identities adds complexity, as she navigates institutional power structures while personally connecting with NSBE student leaders’ grievances.

Dr. Elizabeth Harper (she/her) – The Provost of ESU, who identifies as a white woman and presents herself as a seasoned expert in higher education administration. She often speaks with confidence and authority, leveraging her years of experience to position herself as a progressive and inclusive leader. Despite her public commitment to diversity and inclusion, Dr. Harper embodies a complex dynamic of performative allyship while claiming to champion inclusive excellence, she simultaneously upholds systems and behaviors that perpetuate inequality within the institution. 

Dr. Randy Lee (he/him) – The Vice President of Student Affairs at ESU for eight years, who identifies as an Asian man. Given that Athletics reports directly to Dr. Lee, he knows firsthand that any time that area raises concerns he receives Dr. Harper’s support in his decision-making without fail. Dr. Lee witnesses Dr. Harper minimizing the concern that Dr. Carr raises in their cabinet meeting and tries to call out Dr. Harper’s inconsistency in support to light during their meeting.

Jordan Ellis (he/him) – A queer Black student and senior majoring in Mechanical Engineering, leads the student group, National Society for Black Engineers (NSBE). NSBE submits the reform proposal regarding institutional practices on student academic accommodations.

A strong communicator and well-organized, Jordan is passionate about institutional accountability and student voice. Jordan often feels frustrated by the university’s performative diversity efforts and sees the provost’s rhetoric as symbolic of a deeper unwillingness to shift power dynamics. Jordan collaborates closely with Dr. Carr and sees her as one of the few administrators who truly listens.

Dr. Carmen Soto (she/they) – A Vice President of Student Affairs at Resilient State University (RSU), a neighboring, mid-size, public, Minority Serving Institution (MSI), in the same city as ESU. Dr. Soto is an Afro-Latinx individual, and the only administrator of color at RSU. She has held various leadership roles over her 12-year tenure at RSU thus, Dr. Soto has learned to navigate challenging situations, especially in terms of being respected by other senior leaders at her institution. Dr. Soto is a dear friend and colleague of Dr. Carr and gives her advice about how to navigate her experience at ESU with Dr. Harper.

Context

While research highlights the importance of increasing the representation of women in higher education administration (American Council on Education [ACE], 2017), there remains a significant gap in understanding how racial trauma specifically impacts Black women in leadership roles. The causes of racial trauma among Black female leaders in higher education are multifaceted (Bell, 2004; Dumas, 2016; Henry, 2017). Racial trauma can form when microaggressions and implicit biases frequently undermine their authority and professional capabilities, forcing them to navigate a workplace that often questions their competence (Patitu & Hinton, 2003; Smith et al., 2011). Additionally, Black women in leadership positions frequently experience an emotional burden as they navigate predominantly white institutional cultures, balancing expectations of conformity while striving to maintain their authenticity.

This case study explores experiences of racial trauma, highlighting both the challenges Black female administrators face and the resilience strategies they employ to thrive in their roles. These challenges are rooted in historical racial discrimination, gendered racism, and institutional biases that persist at predominantly white institutions (PWIs) and minority-serving institutions (MSIs) alike. Addressing racial trauma in higher education leadership requires intentional institutional change. Higher education institutions must commit to developing policies and support systems that promote the success and well-being of Black women leaders.

Case

Jordan Ellis, a dedicated member of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), faced a disheartening experience when a professor refused to excuse NSBE students from class to attend their national leadership conference, warning that absences would result in grade penalties.

Weeks prior, this same professor excused student-athletes for an out-of-town competition without hesitation or academic consequence. The double standard was clear—and painful.

While the university proudly supported athletic commitments, even rearranging schedules and offering tailored flexibility, student organizations rooted in academic excellence and identity- based leadership—especially those centering Black students—received no such recognition or accommodation. This signaled to Jordan that certain forms of student engagement were worthy of institutional support, while others were not.

Jordan brought the incident to Dr. Kathleen Carr, Assistant Vice Provost, tenured faculty member and a long-time advocate for equity and racial justice. Dr. Carr was deeply disturbed by the professor’s inconsistent treatment, and also by what it revealed about whose leadership the institution valued. She raised the issue in a cabinet meeting, emphasizing NSBE’s critical role in

cultivating Black student leadership in STEM and framing the disparity as a systemic issue; not an isolated event. However, when Dr. Carr finished sharing the student concern, Provost Harper leaned back in her chair and gave a tight smile. “We have to be careful,” she said. “If we start making exceptions for every student organization, it sets a dangerous precedent.”

To Dr. Carr, this was more than a bureaucratic dismissal—it was a microaggression filled with racialized undertones. She sat in stunned silence for a moment; the familiar weight of institutional gaslighting pressing down. What she heard in Provost Harper’s words was a coded message – Black students seeking visibility and professional growth were asking for too much. That their advancement was optional. That their presence—her presence—was conditional.

Dr. Carr felt her chest tighten. The double standard wasn’t just policy—it was personal. She remembered that a few weeks earlier, Dr. Lee had raised a similar concern on behalf of student-athletes. Provost Harper had responded with urgency and deference then, praising the university’s commitment to student success. Now, faced with a request that centered Black academic excellence, Dr. Harper’s tone shifted to caution and resistance.

After the meeting, Dr. Carr confided in Dr. Soto, a senior colleague and trusted mentor. “I’m trying to do what’s right,” Dr. Carr said. Her voice low with frustration, “But it’s like they don’t even hear me unless I’m talking about someone else’s students.”

Dr. Soto listened carefully and offered strategic advice. “You have to reframe this, Kathleen,” she said. “Not as a favor, but as an equity obligation. They’re treating this like an exception, when it should be a standard. The message isn’t just about NSBE. It’s about what you all say that matters to the university. And right now, they’re saying Black brilliance doesn’t matter.”

Dr. Soto urged Dr. Carr to shift the conversation and name the racialized harm directly and gather collective support, so the burden didn’t fall solely on her. “Don’t let them isolate you. Bring in Dr. Lee. Bring in students. Make them see this isn’t a personal plea—it’s a systemic failure.”

Empowered by that guidance, Dr. Carr drafted a proposal for a formal meeting between university leadership and representatives from identity-based academic organizations. She collaborated with Dr. Lee and student leaders framing the issue not as a scheduling conflict, but as a question of institutional values and racial equity. Her language was precise and unapologetic as she noted- denying accommodations for NSBE sent a harmful message about who belonged— and who didn’t.

Faced with growing faculty and student pressure, the cabinet reluctantly agreed to the meeting. Though Dr. Harper remained wary, the administration committed to reviewing policies around academic accommodations and engaging in an equity audit of student engagement practices.

For Dr. Carr, the decision was not a resolution, but a start. It affirmed that advocacy mattered, and silence would not protect anyone. More importantly, it carved out space for

underrepresented students to be seen; not as exceptions or burdens, but as leaders worthy of support.

Discussion Questions

1. How do Harper’s identity, positionality, and actions as a white woman in senior leadership shape her approach to diversity and inclusion?
2. Identify specific examples of microaggressions in the What impact might these microaggressions have on institutional culture and on Dr. Carr personally and professionally?
3. What does Harper’s call for a “holistic lens” reveal about institutional responses to marginalized students like Jordan’s concerns?
4. Are there differences in the strategies that Dr. Soto and Dr. Lee employed in their support for Carr? In what ways can their allyship support institutional changes?
5. How does this case highlight the tension between performative and transformational approaches to equality in higher education?
6. Have you witnessed or experienced similar dynamics in your professional or academic settings? How were they addressed or not?

References 

Bell, E.L. (2004). Myths, Stereotypes, and Realities of Black Women: A Personal Reflection.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2): 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304263852

Dumas, M. J., and K. M. Ross (2016). Be Real Black for Me: Imagining Blackcrit in Education.

Urban Education, 51(4), 415–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916628611

Henry, W. J. (2017). African American women in student affairs: Best practices for winning the game. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 30(24). https://doi.org/10.21423/awlj-v30.a306

Patitu, C. L., and K. G. Hinton (2003). The Experiences of African American Women Faculty and Administrators in Higher Education: Has Anything Changed? New Directions for Student Services, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.109

Smith, W. A., Yosso, T.J. & Solórzano, D.G. (2011). Challenging Racial Battle Fatigue on Historically White Campuses: A Critical Race Examination of Race-Related Stress. Covert Racism, 1(32). 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004203655.i-461.82

Author Biographies

Portia Anderson, M.Ed. (She/Her/Hers) is the Assistant Dean for Student Belonging & Career Services in the College of Architecture + Planning at the University of Utah. She brings over 12 years of experience in higher education and is currently pursuing a doctorate in Higher Education Administration and Leadership in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy at the University of Utah. In her current role, Portia leads initiatives focused on student success and belonging, while also creating opportunities for career exploration in architecture, games, planning, and multi- disciplinary design. She is also a co-founder of the University of Utah’s Black Cultural Center and has extensive experience across various functional areas, including residence life, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), academic advising, and student conduct. Portia’s research interests center on institutionalizing student-centered approaches/practices from DEI spaces across the institution to enhance the student experience and approaches to expand access to higher education.

Anastasia Fynn, MBA (She/Her/Hers) serves as the Director of International Student and Scholar Services at the University of Utah, where she brings strategic leadership and scholarly insight to advancing international education and global engagement in higher education. In this role, she oversees international student engagement, immigration compliance, global partnerships, and institutional strategies for internationalization. As an international educator, Anastasia’s areas of interest focus on the transitional experiences of international students in U.S. higher education, with particular emphasis on cultural humility, cross-cultural competence, and the role of institutional support systems in fostering student success. Her research also explores Black women’s epistemologies and ways of knowing within the context of higher education leadership and scholarship. Anastasia’s work is rooted in a deep commitment to equity, global inclusion, and transformative practice aimed at elevating underrepresented voices and cultivating a sense of belonging for students across borders.

JaTara Greenidge MPA (She/Her/Hers) is a higher education leader and scholar, currently serving as the Inaugural Program Manager for the University of Utah’s School of Public Affairs, overseeing Master of Public Administration programs, evaluation, accreditation, and institutional strategy. As a first- year doctoral student Leadership in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy in Higher Education Administration and Leadership at the University of Utah, her research focuses on staff governance and addressing barriers to professional growth within institutions. Committed to equity and inclusion, she strives to drive transformative change in higher education and beyond.

The interaction between students and student affairs professionals is at the center of student affairs practice. This case study centers the unique experiences student leaders have on campus. More specifically the case focuses on a student who has excelled in their involvements while holding a minoritized identity. The topic of tokenism in the context of this case stems from a single minority student being expected to speak for everyone in that minority group. The underlying pressure that these students feel has been shown to impact their overall college experience. Sara, a senior at Burg University has been a student leader almost her entire college career. Being at a smaller institution, she has been able to be part of many different parts of campus life and is looked upon as an excellent student leader and role model for the incoming students. This scenario will give readers the opportunity to explore how they would support a student who has held roles and frequently been referred to as the “face of the university”.

Characters

• Sara (she/her) is a senior undergraduate student majoring in political science and is a very active campus leader. While at Burg University, she has worked in new student and family programs, orientation, campus recreation, first-year experience, student union, athletics, residence life, and has worked closely with the University President with her involvement as a part of the state system Board of Governors. She is known to be highly visible at her institution, whether at events or working on campus.
• Lorie (she/her) is the Vice President of Student Affairs at Burg University and has been with the university for over 25 years. Unlike other vice presidents, Lorie is often one to be very engaged on campus with students and advocates for both students and her division when she is at the table.
• Jeff (he/him) is the Associate Director of Housing and Residence Life at Burg University. He went through the Student Affairs Master’s program at Burg University and worked at another institution prior to returning to Burg University. Jeff has served as an excellent mentor to Sara since her sophomore year.

Context

Burg University (BU) is a medium sized, public, four-year institution located in the northeast region of the United States. BU is a predominately white institution, with 9,000 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students). BU is part of the state system of higher education and is overseen by a Board of Governors. This board is comprised of 20 appointed members, including higher education leaders in the state, state senators and representatives, other state officials, and three student representatives. The work of the board includes appointing university presidents, developing and implementing system wide policies and procedures, and allocating funds for institutions.

Case Study 

Sara has been not only active on campus at Burg University, but she has expanded her experiences to the state level where she has served on the Board of Governors since her sophomore year. Since BU being is a smaller institution, Sara feels underlying pressure about how she “shows up” on campus. This pressure is constantly in her head when she is around professional staff members, other student leaders, and the University President. Sara has been recognized for her accomplishments but is never the first to celebrate them.

VPSA Lorie has been a mentor to Sara since the beginning of her college career and finds ways to advise and support her beyond her positions as a student leader on campus. The housing AD Jeff often challenges Sara to be patient with herself and practice self-love.  Sara is very critical of herself. A few examples include always assuming that she is in trouble or made a mistake when an advisor bring her into a conversation or puts others needs first before her own. Sara rarely celebrates her accomplishments and when she has to acknowledge them, she is timid in how she responds. To her peers, they joke on how many university affiliated marketing materials she is constantly on, and though it has never phased Sara, the feeling of being blindsided has. Sara often brushes off when she is on a promotion flyer without her knowledge, there has never been the one to call out her experiences.

Sara has been appreciative of the opportunities she has had, but she has begun to dive deep into the pressures that come with being the “face of the university” among student leaders. She is navigating these pressures as she explores the possibility of working in student affairs. Sara was first made aware that student affairs as a job exists when Lorie shared her experiences coming into the role she is in now. Sara’s interest continued when she met with other folks within student affairs. Since then she has talked with others about this possible career path. Lorie has encouraged her to expand her experiences beyond Burg University as Lorie has seen Sara go above in her experiences while at BU. Staying would just keep Sara stagnant. Similarly, Jeff has expressed to Sara that no matter what school she chooses to attend, they will all provide a foundation to find their why in the work they do.

With these experiences in mind, Sara is applying for graduate schools with the aspiration to pursue student affairs. She has already decided that she wants to leave Burg University to get a new campus and community experience and Lorie, Jeff and many others have supported her in this decision. At this point of the semester, Sara has been stepping away from high leadership positions and has been focusing on transition of leadership as graduation is approaching. Though she has made this clear, she is still relied upon by student organizations, and more so university staff and administration that has continued to put Sara in an awkward position to say “no” to them.

Sara is feeling lots of different emotions, between her senior year quickly coming to an end and figuring out what her future looks like. She has leaned on Lorie and Jeff and others to help navigate her emotions and learn from the experiences and use them to set herself up for future success Lorie and Jeff have  seen the pressures put on Sara and are trying to help her find ways to mitigate them.

Sara is now a first year student in her graduate program. Through her classes, she is beginning to unfold what her experiences were and how her identity was connected to more than just how she represented herself. Sara saw the decisions that are made that influences the brand of a college or university. Whether or not it was their intention, Sara saw how institutions (even her undergrad) would use students from marginalized populations in promotion of diversity. Though Sara wrestles with confronting the idea that her undergrad used her based sole on her marginalized identity, it still is a thought in the back of her head when speaking upon her experiences.

Discussion Questions

1. What additional support could Lorie offer to Sara?
2. What additional support could Jeff offer to Sara as one of her supervisors?
3. What questions should Lorie and Jeff raise to help ease the pressure off of Sara as graduation is approaching?
4. Should other university personnel get involved to mitigate the student tokenism?

Author Bio

Skylar Walder (she/her) is a current second year student at Clemson University in the M.Ed. Counselor Education, Student Affairs program. At Clemson, Skylar serves as a Graduate Community Director for Housing and Dining. Originally from New Jersey, Skylar attended Shippensburg University where she received a B.S. in Public Service with a minor in Political Science.

After Jacob dies from an accidental overdose, you, Edward, and the rest of the Hightower community are left devastated by the tragedy. As their Community Director, you are left wondering what you and others at the school could have done differently to ensure Jacob’s safety, and to prevent further tragedies like this from taking place.

 Keywords: Overdose, Conduct, Student Life, Housing, Campus Safety

Characters

Jacob (He/Him) is an 18 year-old first-year student, majoring in Biomedical Engineering at Hightower University. Both of his parents as well as his grandfather attended Hightower and are proud alumni donors to the schools’ athletics department. Jacob is a high achieving student who came to Hightower on an academic scholarship. He is very involved outside of the classroom and by most standards would be considered popular. Jacob is a member of various clubs and serves on the schools’ undergraduate student senate.

Edward (He/Him) is an 18 year-old first-year student, majoring in forestry at Hightower University. Edward has no family ties to the institution but fell in love with the school after meeting Jacob during an alternative break trip in high school. After hearing Jacob talk all about how amazing Hightower is and how he intends to go there like many of the rest of his family, Edward became interested in Hightower, as well. Edward is also a high achieving student who came to Hightower on an academic scholarship and is very involved outside of the classroom. He and Jacob stayed in touch after meeting each other and even decided to room together after discovering they both wanted to serve in student government and participate in a lot of the same clubs. Edward plans on rushing a service fraternity this next year and hopes to convince Jacob to do the same.

You are a 27 year-old Community Director at Hightower University and have been in this role for the past three years. Prior to this role, you worked as a Graduate Community Director at Mayberry University. You grew up in South Carolina and have always heard great things about Hightower. You were ecstatic when you received the role and you have found that working at Hightower has rekindled your love for working in higher education and has made you more excited than ever to serve your residents. Edward and Jacob are both residents of yours and you have talked with both of them a great deal during your community events. They always come by your office to say hi and have even asked you questions regarding what it takes to be a Residential Community Mentor. You have never received any conduct cases regarding either of them. In fact, you consider them to be great role models for not only their housing community but the rest of Hightower as well. 

Context

Hightower University is located in the upstate of South Carolina, nestled in the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains, residing in a small rural town by the same name as the institution.

Hightower University has an undergraduate student population of 2,750 students. These students make up the majority of the town’s population. Most students are relatives of past alumni and many of the faculty and staff attended Hightower, as well. Students at Hightower are held to high academic standards but it is still a strong part of the culture to party on the weekends. Drinking is very prevalent at Hightower University and with the town of Hightower being so small and there not being much to do, students often get creative when it comes to having fun. House parties are the main attraction on weekends, and most students go out regardless of class standing, or Greek affiliation. Recently, Hightower University has received reports of increasing drug usage among its student body, but up to this point the University has not taken any formal action based on these reports.

Case

After a busy exam week, Edward and Jacob planned to go to a party with some friends at an off-campus house. While getting ready for the night, Edward offered Jacob MDMA a popular party drug also known as “ecstasy” or “molly”. Jacob accepted the drug from Edward. Edward and Jacob took MDMA only once previously and each had an enjoyable experience. Edward and Jacob arrived at the party at 9:45 pm and soon after took the drug. Afterward, each roommate went their separate ways. Jacob went inside of the house and Edward walked around to the back yard.

Less than five minutes after separating, someone from inside the house ran out to get Edward’s attention. The student said that Jacob was too drunk and that Edward needed to take Jacob home. Edward dismissed the claim, knowing that Jacob did not have anything to drink prior to arriving at the party and that the drug they consumed would not go into effect this quickly. The student then shared that Jacob was passed out inside the house. Alarmed by this information, Edward went inside to check on Jacob.

Once inside, Edward noticed that Jacob was not moving, would not respond to Edward’s voice, and Jacob’s breaths were very shallow. Edward knew this was not the normal reaction to the drug but did not know of anything else Jacob may have consumed. After multiple failed attempts to wake Jacob up to go home, Edward called EMS.

EMS arrived at the party at 10:15pm along with Hightower Police Officers. While EMS prepared to transport Edward as a precautionary measure, Hightower Police took Edward’s statement. Edward was in distress over the situation and did not understand how this could have happened, stating that Jacob was perfectly fine five minutes prior to finding him in the house.

EMS transported Jacob to the local hospital; however, he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The families of each student, Dean of Students, and other relevant officials were notified of the death and of Edward’s precautionary hospitalization.

Monday morning as you arrive to the office, you are called by the Director of Housing who informs you of Jacob’s passing and the need for an emergency meeting. The Director discloses the following during this meeting:

• Jacob’s parents are upset that the university did not do more to ensure the safety of their child.

• Hightower has a medical amnesty policy, which states that “students receiving medical assistance in compliance with this policy shall not be referred for prosecution for any state, local or federal crime solely related to the possession, consumption or supplying of alcohol and/or drugs.” While Edward does not face any legal consequences, he is struggling with feeling responsible for what happened to Jacob. The Director has asked that you equip him with resources that will be helpful and provide additional support within your scope.
• Students across campus are in distress from hearing the news of Jacob’s passing, many of whom reside in your residence hall. The Director has received calls from the parent of a student on your hall. The parent is concerned for the safety of their student and wants their student to be relocated. However, there are limited vacancies on campus and the student would like to stay with their friends on the floor.

Discussion Questions

1. How will you prioritize your response to the crisis and the related issues?
2. How might you plan programming to address student wellness and education in your residence halls?
3. How will you approach your meeting with Edward?
4. What will you do to support the student whose family does not feel comfortable with their student living on the floor?
5. What campus partners would you plan to involve in the follow-up and bring into the residence community during this time?
6. What, if anything, could have been done by you and other professionals on Hightower’s campus to prevent a tragedy like this from occurring?
7. What changes will you plan to implement in future years as a result of this incident to be proactive and ensure the safety of residents?
8. How would your response be impacted if Hightower University was a public school versus a private school?

Author Bios

Ashlyn Ballew (she/her) is a current second-year graduate student in the M.Ed. Counselor Education – Student Affairs program at Clemson University and serves as a Graduate Community Director. She has interests in housing, outreach, access, and retention. She earned a B.S. in Management and Accounting from Clemson University.

Ethan Dent (he/him) is a current second-year graduate student in the M.Ed. Counselor Education – Student Affairs program at Clemson University and serves as a Graduate Assistant for Clemson’s Summer Start program. He earned his B.S. in Financial Management from Clemson University in 2024. He is a proud South Carolinian and a lifelong fan of the Tigers.

When an undergraduate Resident Assistant (RA) receives a mental health disclosure from a resident, they are torn between honoring the student’s trust and following a recently updated campus crisis response policy. Hours later, the Graduate Community Director (GCD) learns of the disclosure through another staff member, prompting a departmental and ethical crisis about communication, accountability, and student well-being. The case explores the intersection of professional ethics, crisis management, and institutional policy compliance in student affairs. Readers are invited to consider how compassion, judgment, and procedural accuracy interact when the stakes involve student safety and trust.

Keywords

Crisis Management: The process of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from unexpected events that threaten the safety or well-being of individuals or the institution. In student affairs, this includes immediate response protocols, communication, and follow-up support for affected students.

Ethics: A framework of moral principles guiding professional behavior. In student affairs, ethics involves balancing care for students with institutional responsibilities and upholding values such as integrity, respect, and justice.

Supervision: A developmental relationship in which a professional oversees and supports staff (e.g., RAs) through feedback, accountability, and growth opportunities. Effective supervision integrates both policy enforcement and personal support.

Mental Health Disclosure: When a student voluntarily shares information about emotional distress, self-harm ideation, or mental illness. Such disclosures require sensitive, ethical handling, and often trigger crisis response policies.

Compliance: Adherence to institutional policies, procedures, and laws. In this case, compliance refers to following required crisis reporting protocols while ensuring ethical and compassionate care.

Character Descriptions

Jordan Geer (he/him/his):  First-year Resident Assistant, double majoring in Psychology and Sociology. Highly empathetic and trusted by peers but often struggles with boundary-setting.

Alex Young (she/her/hers): Second-year Resident Assistant, friend and mentor to Jordan. Confident, policy-driven, and eager to move into a student leadership role.

Casey Benet (she/her/hers): Graduate Community Director (GCD) for Tiger Village. Second-year master’s student balancing supervision, academics, and crisis duty rotations. Known for being calm and student-centered.

Amy Ramirez (she/her/hers): Assistant Director for Residence Life. Oversees student staff training during the summer and academic semesters. Known for valuing procedural accuracy and institutional accountability.

Context and Case

Sanders University

Sanders University is a large, public institution located in the Southeast. There are 24,000 students who attend the university: 20,000 undergraduate students, 3,000 graduate students, and around 1,000 doctoral students. On-campus student population is around 7,100 with about 85% being first-year and the rest continuing. Housing and Residence Life hires the most students and currently employs roughly 275 staff members, with a 30:1 RA to student ratio.

Case

It was 10:45 p.m. on a rainy Tuesday at Sanders University’s Salamander Village. Jordan, a new Resident Assistant, was preparing for bed when he heard a soft knock at their door. Standing outside was Riley, a resident, visibly distressed. Riley hesitated before speaking. “I don’t think I can keep doing this,” they whispered.

Over the next hour, Jordan listened as Riley described deep loneliness, anxiety, and exhaustion. Riley mentioned “sometimes wishing it would all stop” but denied having a plan to harm themselves when Jordan specifically asked. Jordan offered reassurance, validated Riley’s feelings, and promised to check in the next morning. Feeling confident that Riley was okay when she said, “I’ll see you tomorrow,” Jordan decided the disclosure did not meet the threshold for emergency reporting and did not to report the exchange to the on-call professional that night.

The next morning, Jordan casually told Alex what had happened. Alex froze. “You didn’t call the GCD? Jordan, that’s a crisis protocol situation.” Within the hour, Alex reported the conversation to Casey, the Graduate Community Director. Casey immediately scheduled a meeting with Jordan.

“Walk me through what happened,” Casey said.

“They weren’t in danger right then. I didn’t want to make them feel like I broke their trust,” Jordan explained. Casey thanked Jordan but explained that policy required immediate notification of any mention of self-harm, regardless of intent or plan. Jordan’s eyes widened. “So I should’ve called you last night, even if they said they weren’t going to do anything?”

Casey nodded. “Yes. Our job is to err on the side of safety. We can’t take chances when it comes to students’ lives.”

Casey documented the situation, checked in with Riley (who was safe and agreed to visit Counseling and Psychological Services), and notified Dr. Ramirez. Later that afternoon, Dr. Ramirez requested a formal follow-up. In the meeting, Dr. Ramirez maintained a firm tone. “We appreciate your care for the student, Jordan. But our crisis protocol exists for a reason. If something had happened overnight, the university could have been liable.”

Jordan nodded, holding back tears. “I just didn’t want Riley to feel betrayed. They trusted me.” Dr. Ramirez replied, “Trust matters—but so does compliance. In crisis work, feelings can’t override procedures.”

After the meeting, Casey found himself conflicted. On one hand, Jordan clearly cared for their residents and made a judgment call rooted in empathy. On the other hand, protocol was explicit: any mention of self-harm must be reported immediately. The tension rippled through the staff. Some RAs sympathized with Jordan, arguing they’d done what felt “human.” Others sided with policy, emphasizing that inconsistency could endanger lives and reputations alike.

That Friday, Riley emailed Casey: “I just found out Jordan had to tell people what I said. I feel like my privacy was violated. I trusted them.” Now, Casey faced competing ethical demands: support a resident who felt betrayed, defend a student staff member whose intentions were compassionate, and reassure an administrator demanding accountability. Casey began to wonder:

• Should Jordan face formal disciplinary action for not calling?
• Should he advocate for restorative education instead of punitive measures?
• How could he rebuild trust among his team and residents, who now questioned where empathy ended, and policy began?

The crisis wasn’t just about Riley’s disclosure anymore: it had become an issue that is very common in higher education: the struggle between care and compliance.

Discussion Questions

1. What might Jordan and Riley need because of this event?
2. How should Casey balance empathy for Jordan with his responsibility to uphold crisis response policy?
3. In what ways might Amy’s response have been more effective? More empathetic?
4. How can staff training emphasize judgment, not just compliance, in crisis response?
5. How should institutions support staff who experience emotional fallout after a crisis?
6. What does “ethical leadership” look like in moments when the right decision isn’t clear?
7. What can Dr. Ramirez do to ensure situations like these don’t happen again within the department?

 Author Biography

Jake Czaplicki (he/him) is a master’s student in the Higher Education & Student Affairs program at Clemson University. He serves as a Graduate Community Director with Clemson Housing & Dining and is passionate about ethical supervision, crisis response, and student well-being.

The number of college students who serve as caregivers is growing in higher education. One study by Levine et al. (2005) reported that up to 160,000 college students served as caregivers at that time. A 2020 study reported that by 2020, approximately 5 million of the nation’s caregivers were enrolled in higher education in the U.S. (AARP & National Alliance for Caregiving). More recently, Marshall and Naumann (2024) found that 45.5% of students in their study identified as caregivers. Despite these trends, institutions continue to struggle to address the unique needs of these caregivers.

This case study follows Heriberta, a student caregiver striving to balance academics with her responsibilities at home. In order to pass a course, she must conduct fieldwork, a requirement she cannot fulfill due to her responsibilities. Heriberta turns to her professor and academic advisor for support but is met with a lack of understanding. She then turns to the Department Chair for support.

Keywords: Student caregivers, institutional leadership, Educational equity, intersectionality

Primary Characters

Heriberta (She/Her) is a third-year psychology major at Skyline University with a 4.0 GPA. As a first-generation Latina student, Heriberta is committed to her academics, but she also serves as a full-time caregiver for her seven-year-old brother and aging grandmother.

Dr. Jacqueline (She/Her) is a Greek, tenured psychology professor at Skyline University with 35 years of experience. As one of the top professors in the department, she is known for her rigorous standards and challenging coursework. However, Dr. Jacqueline struggles to connect with students on a personal level.

Mr. Charlie (He/Him) is Cherokee and has served as an academic advisor at Skyline University for 15 years. He is known for his energetic personality and unwavering commitment to supporting students. He is well-respected within the psychology department. However, his optimism often leads him to overlook important student issues.

Dr. Julio (He/Him) is a Latino, tenured psychology professor at Skyline University with 10 years of experience. He was recently elected Psychology Department Chair. Although he has not held a major leadership role and lacks strong professional relationships with many of his colleagues, he is committed to the university and its students.

Context

This case study takes place at Skyline University (SU), a public, four-year Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) located in Southern California. SU serves a student population of 40,000, with approximately 31,000 students identifying as Latinx. As an HSI, SU’s mission emphasizes a commitment to fostering an inclusive environment where students, faculty, and staff collaborate to promote equity and address the evolving needs of Latinx and historically marginalized populations.

Despite these efforts, a specific subgroup within the Latinx student population remains underserved: student caregivers. With most student caregivers coming from Latinx backgrounds (Marshall & Naumann, 2024), SU is required to meet this community’s needs. However, the university is often unaware of student caregivers’ perspectives and does not provide adequate resources or support to serve them effectively.

Case

 Monday – 8:30 AM

 After dropping her brother at school, Heriberta rushed to campus for her class. Dr. Jacqueline began with a firm reminder to the class:

“You should all be securing your fieldwork sites by now.”

Fieldwork? Caught off guard, Heriberta checked the syllabus. To her surprise, she found that fieldwork hours are mandatory for passing the course. Heriberta’s mind raced. How am I going to do fieldwork? I have to take care of Abuelita and can’t leave my brother alone. Maybe there’s an alternative. I’ll talk to Dr. Jacqueline after class.

After class, Heriberta spoke with Dr. Jacqueline.

Heriberta: “Great class, Dr. Jacqueline!”

Dr. Jacqueline: “Thank you.”

Heriberta: “Yeah… I’m concerned about the fieldwork requirement. I take care of my grandma and brother, so I don’t have the flexibility to be out of the house for too long.”

Dr. Jacqueline: “Then how are you here?”

Heriberta: “I am only on campus when necessary, and then I head straight home after. I have small windows of time, but extended hours of fieldwork just aren’t feasible for me.”

Dr. Jacqueline: “If school really mattered to you, you’d find a way.”

The words stung. Heriberta was hurt and embarrassed. The rest of the day was a blur. All Heriberta could think about were Dr. Jacqueline’s harsh words and how to complete the fieldwork hours. Suddenly, Heriberta remembered Mr. Charlie! She recalled how kind he was and scheduled a phone appointment with him for the following day.

Tuesday – 12:13 PM 

As Abuelita rested, Heriberta sat by the kitchen clock, waiting for her 12:15 call. Suddenly, the phone rang.

Heriberta: “Hello, Mr. Charlie!”

Mr. Charlie: “Hi Heriberta! How are you?”

Heriberta: “I’m alright, just a bit stressed. I have a class with Dr. Jacqueline, and I just found out we’re required to complete fieldwork. Because of my responsibilities at home, I can’t be away for long. I tried telling Dr. Jacqueline this, but she didn’t really understand or help. I’m worried. I want to pass this class. How can I fulfill the fieldwork requirement without leaving home? Are there alternatives?”

There was a pause.

Mr. Charlie: “Well, the goal of fieldwork is to gain hands-on experience and build professional connections.”

Heriberta: “I understand, and I would love to do that, but I’m needed at home.”

Mr. Charlie: “You’re a caregiver?”

Heriberta: “Yes.”

Mr. Charlie: “Oh, Heriberta, that’s unfortunate. You’re young, you’re not supposed to be doing that. When will it end?”

Heriberta felt a knot in her stomach. End? This wasn’t temporary. This was her life.

Heriberta: “Not anytime soon.”

Mr. Charlie: “Well, you’re going to have to get help, Heriberta, or else you’re going to miss out on the fieldwork opportunity. These opportunities only come once, and you need to take them before it’s too late. Try asking someone else to take on the caregiving.”

Heriberta held back her tears. If there were someone else, I wouldn’t be doing it.

Disappointed in the conversation, Heriberta decided to end it.

Heriberta: “You’re right, Mr. Charlie. Thank you.”

Mr. Charlie: “Anytime! Glad we cleared that up!”

But nothing was resolved. Mr. Charlie’s advice wasn’t feasible. Heriberta did not have the luxury of walking away from her responsibilities or the resources to hire someone to take them on.

That night, Heriberta lay awake, reflecting on how no one had listened or helped. She knew she had to take further action. Determined not to fail her class, she came up with a plan.

Wednesday – 7:50 AM 

Hopeful and determined, Heriberta arrived on campus early and made her way to the top floor of the psychology building. There, she found the Department Chair’s office door open. She took a deep breath and poked her head in.

Heriberta: “Hello, Dr. Julio, may I come in?”

Dr. Julio: “Of course! Please come in. What can I do for you today?”

Heriberta took another deep breath and shared everything–her caregiving duties, the fieldwork requirement, the disheartening response she received from both Dr. Jacqueline and Mr. Charlie. Dr. Julio listened intently.

Dr. Julio: “Thank you for trusting me with this information, Heriberta. I commend your courage and recognize that you’re not trying to avoid this responsibility, but rather, you face barriers beyond your control. I’m going to look into this personally and see what options we can create for you.”

Heriberta smiled from ear to ear.

Heriberta: “Thank you, Dr. Julio!”

Dr. Julio: “Of course, and please don’t hesitate to reach out again if you need anything.”

Heriberta walked out with a new sense of hope, as Dr. Julio sank into his chair. He could not believe how Heriberta had been treated. Even more troubling, he was not sure what to do. He understood the importance of rules and expectations but also recognized that students have unique needs. To make matters worse, the timing was bad. Having just started as Department Chair Dr. Julio was navigating leadership dynamics and had yet to earn his peers’ respect. Now he was in the middle of a delicate situation involving two respected colleagues.

Dr. Julio was uneasy, but he knew he needed to help Heriberta.

Discussion Questions:

1. How can faculty apply equitable practices in their work to support students with caregiving responsibilities while maintaining academic rigor and ensuring fairness?
2. What are the unique responsibilities of faculty at an HSI? How can faculty and staff support Latinx students with intersecting identities, such as those who are disabled, a part of the LGBTQ+ community, or, in this case, caregivers?
3. What actions might you take to address Heriberta’s needs while also honoring Dr. Jacqueline’s academic freedom? How would you address/prevent similar issues in the future?

Author Bio:

Jennifer Cruz (She/Her) is a graduate student in the Master of Science in Higher Education program at California State University, Fullerton. Committed to uplifting marginalized communities, she serves as an ambassador for Millionaire Mind Kids, providing mentorship and resources to empower Black adolescents in STEM fields.

References

AARP & National Alliance for Caregiving (2020). Caregiving in the United States 2020.

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2020/05/full-report-caregiving-in-the-united-states.doi.10.26419-2Fppi.00103.001.pdf

Levine C, Hunt GG, Halper D, Hart AY, Lautz J, Gould DA (2005) Young adult caregivers: a first look at an unstudied population. American Journal of Public Health, 95(11):2071–75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1449485/.

Marshall, S. R., & Naumann, L. P. (2024). “Is it worth it?”: Academic-related guilt among college student caregivers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000605.

This case study examines the role of student affairs professionals in supporting justice-impacted students navigating trauma and institutional harm. It follows Marcel, a student who experiences a mental health crisis after their professor calls campus police on them during class. Sam, a Reentry Coordinator, and Casey, an Academic Advisor with Justice Scholars, grapple with how to best support Marcel while questioning the boundaries of their roles. They are committed to helping Marcel return to class and re-engage with school but worry they are overstepping and being paternalistic. The case highlights the difficulty of offering trauma-informed support without a clear institutional framework to address students’ mental health needs.

Keywords: justice-impacted, formerly incarcerated, mental health

Character Descriptions

Marcel Jacobson (he/they) is a justice-impacted, Black, non-binary, transfer student. He recently started attending Saber University through the Reentry Student Program, Justice Scholars, and was doing very well academically and personally. He maintained regular check-ins with his Reentry Program Coordinator and Academic Advisor.

Sam Rivera, Reentry Program Coordinator (she/her), works for Saber’s Justice Scholars and has served in this role for over 10 years. She works directly with students, managing a

growing caseload of over 120. She is deeply committed but overwhelmed; she struggles with when and how to manage concerns about students’ mental health in order to support and provide resources to them.

Casey Lin, Academic Advisor (she/her), works with Saber’s Justice scholars as an academic advisor, a role she has held for over five years. She works with a smaller caseload of 50 students. She maintains monthly wellness check-ins with her caseload. The purpose of these check-ins is to assess the students’ mental well-being and to monitor their academic progress. Casey becomes concerned when her students’ mental health declines and their academic performance begins to suffer, but she feels uncertain about the extent of her responsibility in addressing their mental health needs.

Context

This case is set at Saber University (SU), a regional, public four-year institution in Southern California. SU is a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and enrolls over 30,000 students (26,000 undergraduates, 4,000 graduates). Justice Scholars is a nonprofit organization that has been operating within the public university system since 2013. Justice Scholars’ mission is to assist justice-impacted students attending college/university. SU uses the term “justice-impacted” in lieu of “formerly incarcerated” or “ex-con” because of the negative and derogatory nature of those labels. The term “justice-impacted” encompasses individuals who have been directly or indirectly affected by the criminal justice system.

The goal of the Justice Scholars program is to support students in all realms of life, including financial, housing, and transportation. Recently, the program has seen an increase in students needing support with their mental health. While staff have noticed and discussed this increase, the program has not developed formalized action steps to assist students. SU does offer counseling through its Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS). 

Case Study

On Thursday, April 25, at 5:00 PM, Marcel sits in his Sociology 100 course. The professor is leading a lecture on criminology and the carceral state. During the discussion, a student says, “Criminals belong behind bars, not back in society.” For Marcel, this is a highly offensive remark which strikes a nerve. As someone who is formerly incarcerated and deals with impostor phenomenon, he feels he doesn’t belong in higher education. Marcel raises his hand and asks, “Why shouldn’t people who are formerly incarcerated get second chances? The student responds, “Because once a criminal, always a criminal!” This has an activating effect on Marcel; he has a flashback to his time in prison. He remembers the way the guards spoke to him, saying comments such as “You’ll never be anything more than a criminal, you’re never getting out of here.” Marcel then says to the student, “What if I were to tell you I am formerly incarcerated?” The student then replies, “You don’t deserve to be here; you need to go.” In response, Marcel threatens to harm the student. Rather than de-escalating the situation, the professor immediately calls campus police and requests that Marcel be removed from the classroom.

As the officer arrives, Marcel tries to explain the situation and asks that they contact Justice Scholars. The officer agrees and calls Sam Rivera, Marcel’s coordinator. The officer informs Sam that Marcel has been detained, but if Sam is available, the officer will release Marcel to her care.

Sam picks up Marcel from Saber’s campus police station and immediately notices how shaken he is. She decides to walk with him to her office. She knows she needs to create a calm environment before asking him questions about what happened in class. She offers to do a grounding/mindfulness exercise with Marcel. He is hesitant at first, but after Sam explains how the exercise will help him calm down and feel more secure, he decides to give it a try. Marcel regains composure after box-breathing for 5 minutes. He then shares what happened in class and the pain he felt from the student’s comments and the professor’s actions. Marcel shares that he’s unsure, after this experience, if he can return to this class at all.

Sam listens actively and empathizes with Marcel’s experience. She offers to meet with Marcel and his professor to discuss a possible path back to class. Sam asks Marcel if he would be comfortable bringing Casey Lin, Marcel’s Academic coordinator, into the loop to assist. Marcel agrees.

Sam contacts Casey, and they organize a meeting with Marcel’s professor on Tuesday. On the day of the meeting, Sam, Casey, and the professor gather in a conference room, but Marcel never shows up. Concerned, Sam and Casey follow up with Marcel through email and phone.

Marcel eventually responds, sharing that he is not doing well mentally. The classroom comments and the professor’s response triggered intense panic attacks and depression. He writes, “I want to come back to school, but I don’t think I can. Not like this.”

Sam and Casey meet to discuss next steps. Both wonder whether encouraging Marcel to connect with campus mental health services (CAPS) would be a supportive action or an overstep of professional boundaries. Casey questions her role and whether crisis support is what she should be doing as an academic advisor. She is unsure if she is equipped to handle this.

They decide to reach out. Sam emails Marcel, explaining the services CAPS provides and offers to accompany him if he feels nervous. Casey invites him to an advising session to explore academic options for the current and upcoming semester. Marcel responds positively: he’s interested in CAPS but is nervous. He agrees to meet with Casey in person.

At this point, both Sam and Casey are committed to supporting Marcel but remain unsure how far their roles allow them to go.

 Discussion Questions

1. What does institutional healing look like, and how might campuses build practices of repair and trust with students who experience harm?
2. When a student is disengaging due to trauma, how do professionals balance persistent outreach with respect for the student’s space and agency?
3. How might professional development or training prepare student affairs staff to better support justice-impacted students or others with marginalized identities?

Author Biographies

Amy Gomez (she/her) is a graduate student in the Master of Science in Higher Education (MSHE) program at California State University, Fullerton. She began her academic journey at MiraCosta College, where she earned an Associate of Arts in Liberal Arts, before transferring to California State University, San Marcos, to complete her Bachelor of Arts in Sociology.

Christy Guadarrama (she/her) works with Project Rebound, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting justice-impacted students in achieving their higher education goals. She is pursuing a Master of Science in Higher Education (MSHE) at California State University, Fullerton, and is expected to graduate in Spring 2026.

As student affairs practitioners, we often emphasize holistic development and identity exploration as central tenets of student success. For student-athletes, whose identities are often deeply tied to their athletic ability or sport and the community that comes with it, a season-ending injury can disrupt aspects of their life beyond just their physical recovery. Challenges to their mental health, sense of identity, and academic engagement can all occur. This case explores how a student affairs professional navigates cross-campus collaboration to support a student-athlete through such an unexpected shift.

Keywords: Mental Health, Identity Beyond Sport, Cross-Campus Collaboration, and Holistic Student Support

Primary Characters

Taylor (she/her)- Assistant Director for Student-Athlete Development at Blue Ridge University. She is a student affairs professional who collaborates with academic services, coaches, and counseling to promote holistic student support.

Maya (she/her) – A junior student-athlete majoring in psychology and a member of Blue Ridge University’s Division 1 rowing team. Known for their leadership and dedication, Maya has built much of her identity and social circle around rowing. Following a major shoulder injury during a spring practice, she is facing at least a year-long recovery process and uncertainty about her athletic future.

Coach Reynolds (he/him) – The head coach of the rowing team. A former collegiate athlete himself, he is supportive but primarily focused on Maya’s injury rehabilitation timeline and maintaining team performance.

Avery (she/her) – A learning specialist in the Student-Athlete Academic Services Office. She notices Maya’s declining academic engagement and missed tutoring sessions.

Context

Being a rower at a Division 1 school is a lifestyle. Student-athletes often get up before sunrise for practice, attend training, workouts, supplemental practices throughout the day, and travel for competitions, all while having to balance their academic schedules. Rowing being a team sport means that teammates often form strong connections with one another and develop a strong sense of collective identity as a team.

At Blue Ridge University, a large, public D1 institution in the south, student-athletes receive academic, athletic, and wellness support through multiple offices, including the Athletic Department, Office of Student-Athlete Development, Student-Athlete Academic Services, and Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS). Collaboration across units often depends on individual relationships rather than formal communication networks and structures. Coaches are encouraged to refer students for support, but sometimes unintentionally overlook personal development challenges athletes face by being so focused on athletic performance.

Case

Maya has been rowing since high school and quickly emerged as a leader on her college team. Her schedule consists of early morning practices, class, afternoon lifts, and academic support sessions coordinated through Student-Athlete Academic Services. Her closest friends are her teammates, and her academic interests center on sport psychology specifically involving team dynamics and performance.

During a spring practice in her junior year, Maya suffers a severe shoulder injury that requires surgery and rehab. Her medical team projects a recovery period of at least nine months, ending her season and most likely her collegiate rowing career.

Initially, Maya tries to stay positive. She continues to attend team meetings and physical therapy sessions and is confident she will be able to get back into competition-ready condition in time to compete before the end of her senior season. But as weeks pass, she begins skipping rehab, stops showing up to academic support appointments, and stops hanging out with friends from her team.

Avery, her learning specialist, notices that Maya has missed two tutoring sessions in a row and had noticed before the missed appointments that Maya seemed disengaged from classes she excelled in before her injury. Avery had been planning to discuss this with Maya, but in addition to the missed appointments, Maya is not responding to Avery’s outreach efforts.

Avery reaches out to Taylor, who then sets up a check-in meeting with Maya in which she admits she is struggling. The injury has changed how she sees herself on campus. Without rowing, Maya feels disconnected and not sure of where she fits in. “My whole life on campus was built around rowing. I don’t know how to structure my time and my life without the team at the center.”  Taylor encourages Maya to seek help from CAPS, but Maya seems uncertain and expresses not wanting to draw extra attention to herself.  “I just want to push through the rest of the semester,” she says.

Taylor asks Maya about her coach and how he has been supporting her. Maya shares that Coach Reynolds initially was consistent about checking in with her, but the focus was mainly on her recovery and discussion about when she might be ready to return to the team. “He always responds when I reach out, but he isn’t really checking in on me like maybe I thought he would. He just seems to want medical and rehab updates from me when I stop by.”

Taylor begins to sense a deeper issue developing. Maya is withdrawing from academic and athletics spaces, is reluctant to access mental health resources and has been transparent with the fact that she’s struggling.

As the semester goes on, Maya’s engagement continued to decline. Her academic performance begins to slip, and she starts expressing uncertainty to Taylor about her future at the university. Maya feels caught between hoping to recover in time to compete and her fear that her connection to rowing might be over. “I feel lost right now,” Maya confesses. “I am not sure who I am if I’m not part of the rowing team anymore.”

Taylor is strategizing on how to best coordinate support for Maya in a way that integrates athletics, academics, and student development. She must consider how to help Maya reframe her sense of identity while maintaining collaboration and communication with the support network surrounding her.

Discussion Questions

1. What student development or identity theories might help explain Maya’s experience and inform Taylor’s approach?
2. How can Taylor collaborate across offices to help support Maya and help her re-engage on campus?
3. What are some possible ways of building a culture of help-seeking within high-performance student communities, such as athletes?
4. How might this case inform strategies for proactive student-athlete support before crises, like injury, occur?
5. In what ways can professional development and cross-campus training help coaches and athletics staff recognize the psychological and identity-related impacts of injury, and how might this knowledge shift the culture of support within athletics departments?

Author Biographies

Bess Prim (she/her) – Bess is a second-year graduate student in the Clemson University Master of Counselor Education, Student Affairs program. She serves as the Tutoring Program Graduate Assistant in the Academic Success Center as well as the Graduate Intern for Student-Athlete Development in the Clemson Athletics Department. Bess was a Division II athlete at Rollins College until she graduated in 2023, and she is passionate about student-athlete development beyond sport.

Caroline Waddell (she/her) – Caroline is a second-year graduate student in the Clemson University Master of Counselor Education, Student Affairs program. She serves as the Graduate Assistant for Bridge to Clemson and Transfer Programs. Prior to attending Clemson, Caroline graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the Summer of 2022 and is passionate about program evaluation and assessment, as well as helping students feel a sense of belonging.

As we get ready to begin a new year, we are excited to share with you a new set of 18 case studies for training, onboarding, staff development, teaching, and reflection. The authors of this set of cases have identified a number of issues from supervision to ethical decision-making across a variety of functional areas. There are a number of cases related to federal policy, graduate student life, supervision, and mental health. The student populations in these cases include student athletes, justice-impacted students, and caregivers.

Most of these cases come out of classroom assignments. If you are interested in designing an assignment or development activity that can lead to a Developments case study publication, contact Editor Michelle Boettcher (mboettc@clemson.edu) for an assignment template. Additionally, feel free to reach out with other ideas for Developments articles based on programs, initiatives, challenges, or personal reflections. We enjoy working with authors to craft manuscripts for publication.

All the best moving forward. Thank you for all the work you do – seen and unseen. It matters very much.

The start of a new academic year always brings fresh energy—and new faces. Every fall, I am excited to meet with master’s students beginning their graduate preparation programs. Their curiosity, questions, and passion remind me why I do this work.

But this year, something stood out. More than ever, students have been asking: How does ACPA advocate for our field in today’s complex political and global climate?

That question inspired this post—to shed light on how ACPA approaches public policy and advocacy, and how each of us can play a role.

Balancing Advocacy and Non-Partisanship
Before diving in, it is essential to understand the unique position of a 501(c)3 nonprofit like ACPA. By law, we must maintain neutrality in partisan politics. Our Communications and Content Position Statement on Non-Partisanship underscores this commitment: “We are dedicated to maintaining a neutral and non-partisan stance in all our activities, including our communications, advocacy, and public policy efforts.”

That advocacy doesn’t mean silence – it means focus. ACPA passionately advocates for our members, for higher education, and for equitable learning environments, all through the lens of our mission statement:
“ACPA transforms higher education by creating and sharing influential scholarship, shaping critically reflective practice, and advocating for equitable and inclusive learning environments.”

Our mission gives us the compass we need to engage with issues thoughtfully, inclusively, and within our legal parameters.

Inside ACPA’s Public Policy & Governmental Affairs Work
Behind the scenes, ACPA’s Public Policy & Governmental Affairs Task Force serves as the heartbeat of our advocacy work. This team of dedicated volunteers tracks political trends, analyzes legislation, and crafts strategies that reflect our collective priorities.

Their work ensures that we stay informed, responsive, and proactive. You can follow their updates and resources on the Task Force website, where our current policy priorities are always outlined.

Collaborating for Greater Impact

No single organization can shift policy alone. That’s why ACPA collaborates closely with other higher education associations through two key networks:

1. The Washington Higher Education Secretariat (WHES) – A powerful forum of more than 50 associations working together on federal issues. Through WHES, ACPA joins in collective letters, policy discussions, and advocacy efforts with agencies like the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security.
2. The Student Affairs in Higher Education Consortium (SAHEC) – A smaller, focused network (including ACHA, ACUHO-I, NACA, and NIRSA) that monitors policy issues directly impacting student affairs professionals. With the support of government relations consultants, this group ensures our student affairs community stays informed and connected.

   These collaborations expand our reach and amplify our impact, helping us bring the voices of ACPA members to the national stage. 

Get Involved: Advocate with ACPA

Advocacy isn’t just for committees—it’s for all of us. Whether you’re a new graduate student or a seasoned professional, ACPA provides multiple entry points to engage:

• Join a Policy Pulse Webinar (free to ACPA members!): Upcoming sessions—January 20, January 21, and February 2026 TBA.
• Attend the “Primer on Higher Education Public Policy and Student Affairs Implications” Pre-Convention Workshop at #ACPA26 in Baltimore, March 29–30.
• Check Weekly Policy Highlights: Every Monday, ACPA members can download a fresh slide deck on emerging higher education policy issues from the ACPA member portal.
• Review ACPA Position Statements: Use these in your proposals, presentations, or advocacy initiatives.
• Apply to Join the Public Policy & Governmental Affairs Task Force: Interest forms open in early 2026—your expertise and passion are welcome!

Preparing for the Future

Policy work is rarely fast—it’s a long game requiring patience, persistence, and partnership. But every effort matters. As ACPA continues to advocate for inclusive, equitable, and transformative higher education, we invite you to stay informed, get involved, and keep your advocacy energy alive—on your campus, in your community, and across the profession.

Thank you for the work you already do—and for what’s yet to come. Together, we are shaping the future of higher education, one policy conversation and activity at a time.

Chris Moody, Ed.D.
ACPA Executive Director

Happy New Year!

January is recognized as National Mentoring Month—a time to reflect on and celebrate the profound impact mentors have throughout our personal and professional journeys. Centering mentorship has been a core focus of my presidency, particularly in how it shapes and strengthens our work with students, faculty, and staff across higher education. At the heart of this commitment is the theme Mentoring with Purpose: Building Networks of Support in Higher Education. Through my own experiences, I have witnessed the transformative power of intentional, relational mentoring. In today’s increasingly complex educational landscape, cultivating strong networks of support is not only meaningful—it is essential for sustaining individuals and advancing our collective work. As we mark National Mentoring Month, I want to highlight several initiatives from this presidency that have elevated scholarship, practice, and service focused on mentoring.

One such initiative in ACPA is the work led by Drs. Cameron Beatty and Criss Salinas, who guided a team of graduate students, faculty, and higher-education administrators in developing resources centered on equity-minded mentoring in student affairs. This task force report offers a comprehensive framework and set of tools to support equity-minded, identity-conscious mentoring practices across the field. Aligned with ACPA’s Strategic Imperative for Racial Justice and Decolonization (SIRJD), the report reimagines mentoring as an intersectional and culturally responsive practice that actively challenges systemic inequities. By centering race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, social class, disability, immigration status, and other social identity experiences, the framework positions mentoring as a powerful vehicle for both professional development and personal growth.

This emphasis on identity-conscious mentoring was also advanced through a special issue of ACPA’s About Campus, guest edited by Drs. Stephanie Hernandez Rivera and Emily Krechel. The issue invites readers to reimagine mentoring by emphasizing the importance of intentional, meaningful relationships. Framed through an identity-conscious lens, it calls attention to the need to acknowledge difference, interrogate power, and center relationality as a site of growth, care, and transformation. In doing so, it urges us to name the realities of oppressive systems and exclusion in our institutions while uplifting the knowledge, practices, and strategies of marginalized communities to imagine and work toward more just possibilities. Each of these publications will be made available to ACPA over the coming months.

These conversations were further amplified at the 2025 ACPA/ASHE Presidential Symposium (26 September 2025), themed Imagining the Path Forward: History, Mentorship, and Critical Hope in Higher Education. I am deeply grateful to Dr. Eboni Zamani-Gallaher, the 2025 ASHE President, for her leadership, collaboration, and wisdom in bringing this vision to life. The symposium created space to examine the complexities of the current higher-education landscape while envisioning new possibilities for the future. A featured panel, Mentoring & Community-Driven Solutions, explored mentoring as both a sustaining force for individuals and a transformative strategy for communities. Drawing on lived experiences, research, and culturally responsive practices, panelists highlighted how community partnerships and coalition-building can expand the reach and impact of mentoring, inviting participants to consider mentoring as both deeply personal and profoundly collective.

That conversation continued beyond the symposium through a forthcoming Student Affairs Now podcast episode titled Mentoring and Community-Driven Solutions. Featuring several of the original panelists—mentors, mentees, scholars, and community builders—the episode explores how identity and positionality shape mentoring relationships, how culturally responsive practices foster inclusivity, and how community partnerships extend mentoring’s impact. The episode will be available in January 2026.

Building on these efforts, I invite those attending the ACPA26 Convention in Baltimore to join us for the culmination of this work through a live podcast taping, Round About Campus Presents: A Live Episode on Equity-Minded Mentoring. Aligned with my presidential address, this live recording extends my call to “mentor with purpose.” Round About Campus co-hosts Alex C. Lange and Z Nicolazzo will be joined by me and additional guests for a dynamic conversation on equity-minded mentoring—one that weaves together student development, practical resources, and a renewed commitment to mentoring with intention.

In addition to these scholarly and practice-based initiatives, I am excited to share that we have officially met—and exceeded—our fundraising goal. This milestone reflects our collective belief in the power of mentorship and our shared commitment to advancing educational equity. Because of this generosity, the initiative will provide critical support for textbooks and academic supplies for Cristo Rey Jesuit High School graduates—many of whom are first-generation college students—as they begin their college journeys in Fall 2026. The scholarship application will open to students at Cristo Rey in January 2026, with recipients selected and recognized at the ACPA26 Annual Convention in Baltimore. I am excited to share more about the remarkable students who will receive these awards in the months ahead.

Finally, the 2026 Anne S. Pruitt Presidential Citation—named in honor of the first Black woman to serve as ACPA President—is awarded by the sitting president to individuals who have played a meaningful and influential role during their presidency. This year, I selected three individuals who represent both the past and present of my journey to and through this presidency. I look forward to celebrating and honoring them at ACPA26 in Baltimore:

• Tracey Cameron, Associate Vice President & Dean of Students, Salve Regina University
• Jon Dooley, Vice President of Student Life and Associate Professor of Education, Elon University

As we move through this month, I invite readers to pause and reflect on the following prompts related to their own mentoring journeys:

• In what ways has mentoring functioned as both a personal source of care and a collective tool for change in your life?
• How does your positionality shape the way you engage in mentoring relationships—as a mentor, mentee, or both?
• What possibilities emerge when mentoring is practiced collectively and grounded in cultural responsiveness, joy, and community partnership?

Thank you, and I look forward to seeing many of you in Baltimore, Maryland, from March 30–April 2, for the ACPA26 Annual Convention.

Jonathan A. McElderry, Ph.D.
2025–2026 President
ACPA–College Student Educators International