Assessing the Impact of Community Standards on Students of Color

1. ACPA 2005 Nashville, Tennessee Assessing the Impact of Community Standards on Students of Color Tracy Bobertz Nancy Lange Eduardo Olivo Michigan State University Department of Residence Life

2. LEARNING OUTCOMES • Understand the impact of community standards on students of color and international students. • Explore cultural assumptions related to the participation of students of color in the community standards process. • Explore and discuss implications for practice

3. TODAY’S AGENDA • The Community Standards Model • Working Assumptions • MSU Experience – Data Sharing • What We Have Learned • Making Meaning

4. THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS MODEL Definition • It is both a task for the community to complete (i.e. create a set of standards) and a framework that provides opportunities for interaction, thus promoting individual development. • Community Standards are shared agreements that define mutual expectations for how the community will function on an interpersonal level, that is, how members will relate to and treat each other.

5. THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS MODEL Structures • Community meetings • Critical Incident Meeting • Accountability Meeting • Consensus on rules for everyone • Posted Standards • Residents hold each other accountable

6. THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS MODEL Key Points • Students are creators and managers of the experience • Students are invited into a partnership with the staff to develop their residential experience • The model is based on the assumption that students are generally moving from a reliance on external authority and a desire for a strong identification with their peer group to a more internalized definition of self i.e." self-authorship”

7. THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS MODEL Key Points (continued) • The model replaces a philosophy of control with a philosophy of group and individual empowerment. • The success of the Community Standards Model depends upon the staff’s ability to adopt a partnership orientation rather than maintain a more traditional authority-oriented approach. • Community Standards do not take the place of a residence hall disciplinary system. • The role of the staff is to assist in facilitating an understanding and implementation of individual and group responsibility based on mutual expectations.

8. THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS MODEL History at MSU • Department of Residence Life first implemented the model in fall 2000 • Aligned with a larger organization change process • Modeled upon UNLV • Size of the on-campus populations (14,000 at MSU, 1500 at UNLV) • Split Housing/Residence Life systems at MSU • Unsure about the future as vision changes

9. WORKING ASSUMPTIONS Communication Styles • African-Americans:animated, truth is established through argument or debate, face to face, frequent and large gestures, collateral identity • Asian-Americans: control of emotions, restrained, group oriented, directness is not appropriate, saving face • Anglo-European Americans:emotionally expressive communication is not preferred, preserve appearance of cordialness and friendliness, speak directly about certain things, presumption of sameness, medium range of gestures, identity orientations Elliott, 1999

10. WORKING ASSUMPTIONS Communication Styles Implications for Community Standards • African-Americans:The idea of community standards seems to be consistent with preferred communication style • Asian-Americans:Community standards are not aligned with indirect approach to debate; community standards align with community identity/group normative thinking • Anglo-European Americans:Community standards could be interpreted as empowering notion of sameness (we are all equal, our voices have the same weight); some pieces of community standards may support directedness in certain issues

11. WORKING ASSUMPTIONS Self-Authorship • Findings suggest high-risk college students often develop self-authoring ways of knowing prior to enrollment in college, especially if the students possess low levels of privilege. Pizzolato, 2003

12. WORKING ASSUMPTIONS Self-Authorship Implications for Community Standards • If high risk students encompass students of color, the assumption could be that they enter the community standards experience at a different level of self-authorship or development

13. WORKING ASSUMPTIONS Millenials • Millenials entered as Community Standards was initiated at MSU • Millenials • Peer oriented • Rule-following • Could the peer-oriented, but authority-following generation have been challenged with Community Standards? • No peer group yet established • “Authorities” appeared to not be providing the rules • WHITE

14. WORKING ASSUMPTIONS Additional Thoughts • In a majority white institution, African American students have developed an ability to stand up for themselves • African-Americans are more likely to confront directly • Democracy is an ethnocentric concept which might support institutional racism – BUT, what are the alternatives? • The numbers of students from majority and minority groups living in a particular floor community may play a role in the individual experience • The race and/or ethnicity of the RA/Mentor may also play a role

15. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING Surveys • 5 years (2000-2004) • Administered to all students in undergraduate residence halls – Oct. or Nov. of each year • Scaled differently in 2004 • 2000 to 2003 - 5 point scale - Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree • 2004 - 5 point scale - All the Time to Never • Became a web survey in 2004 • Minor wording changes from year to year • Significant differences determined using mean scores. Charts reflect % ratings.

16. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING Conversations • Informal conversations with students of color in two different residence halls

17. MSU – A Predominately White Campus

18. Comparison Groups Whites(White) Blacks/African Americans(Black) Asian Americans/ Pacific Islanders(Asian American) All International Students(International) Mostly from Asia MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING

19. Consistent Responses for 5 Years

21. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING My floor has set standards for residents’ behaviors • Whites agreed that their floors had established community standards, more than any other group, except Blacks in 2004. • Each year the gap between groups narrows- except for international students (who had significantly lower responses in 2002 and 2004) • Generally, more residents report setting standards each year

23. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING Residents generally follow the standards we set • Each year the gap is smaller among groups • For the past four years Blacks were the lowest, or tied for lowest (although not statistically significant) • More residents report following standards each year • 2001 was the lowest year for international students (statistically significant)

25. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING Residents show respect for one another • Whites report that residents feel respect for each other higher than other groups • Blacks were the lowest for 4 out of 5 years (though not statistically significant) • Reports of respect among residents have increased each year • 9-11 effect for 2001 for international students

27. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING I feel like a valued member of my floor community • Differences between groups in feeling valued have narrowed • But less than ¾ do feel valued • Residents feel more respected than valued

29. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING The Community Standards Model works on my floor. • Community standards works • Narrowing of differences from 2002 to 2003 • Greater support in 2003

30. Physically Emotionally

31. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING I Feel safe on my residence hall floor. • Students feel very safe • Whites report consistently feeling safer • Blacks feel less safe than Whites • Internationals felt more safe than Asian Americans and Blacks before 9-11 • Though residents feel safe, they feel more physically safe than emotionally safe

33. I have or would be comfortable confronting another person about a violation of standards Blacks are more comfortable talking to another person about a violation of standards Though there are no significant differences between groups each year International students are the least likely Asian Americans and Whites are quite similar in comfort level 9-11 Effect MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING

34. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING Conversations • Holmes Hall • Predominately White Hall • Conversations with mixed group • Hubbard Hall • Predominately Black • Conversations with Black Caucus

35. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING Holmes Hall • My opinion does not matter when developing standards • I feel targeted by noise standards • We are comfortable with directness – BUT not sure when there are only 1-2 students of color • Whites and Asian-American students are not in their comfort zone when confronting others • Whites are scared to confront Blacks • Half of Asian Americans would ask the Mentor for help when confronting someone

36. MSU EXPERIENCE – DATA SHARING Hubbard Hall • My RA is scared (White Mentor, AA floor) • In a discussion the Whites would be disadvantaged (because Blacks outnumber Whites) • Mentors and Aides don’t do anything for us • Floors don’t have community standards. We enforce them ourselves. Self-enforcement is part of our culture. • To feel like you have no rules for first-year students is a recipe for disaster, especially for minority students • We don’t trust surveys. Come talk to us directly.

37. MAKING MEANING From the data • White students seem to be more satisfied than other groups • African American students closer to White students but still generally less satisfied • Most dissatisfied: International and Asian students • Narrowing gap between groups over time • Importance of using both qualitative and quantitative

38. MAKING MEANING Community • Students identify with many communities • Chosen communities are stronger • We want students to be connected to “Community”

39. MAKING MEANING Communities Standards Theory and Practice • All students have the potential to flourish in a community standards model (self-authorship, preferred communication style) • Community standards is a set of skills which can be developed and which can benefit members of all of communities

40. MAKING MEANING Communities Standards • The implementation is too “cookie-cutter” ish • The skill is the implementation • The translation is very challenging • It is ethnocentric • It embeds privilege • There is an implication that the floor is the primary community where students are invested • It translates into a conflict resolution model • Disregards mutual construction of knowledge • Doesn’t account for differences in communication styles, personalities

41. MAKING MEANING Culture • Does lack of privilege and/or being the minority in floor communities limit the allegedly “more developed” African American student voices to be heard? • Hubbard hall conversations supported the African American self-authorship advantage • Non-white communities are stronger • Really important to understand racial identity development • Privilege piece – Majority rule • African-American confrontation style may be perceived as disrespectful • Framework works better for white students- majority bias, and supports a more obtuse confrontation style

42. MAKING MEANING Staff Training • Staff must be Ethno-relative • Cross-cultural listening and mediation skills • They must be prepared for a very difficult task • Community standards do not mean that students do most of the work – in reality, it is about setting higher expectations for staff • Perhaps the one big happy family approach is counter-productive

43. MAKING MEANING Student Self-Authorship • Challenging Assumptions • Knowledge is complex and socially constructed • Self is central to knowledge construction • Authority and expertise are shared in mutual knowledge construction among peers • Supportive Principles • Validate learners (students) as knowers • Situate learning in learner’s experience • Define learning as mutually constructing meaning