scholarly journals “This is Not Normal”: Talking Trump in Undergraduate Diversity Courses

10.28945/4430 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 103-121
Author(s):  
Ryan A. Miller ◽  
Neda Pouraskari

Aim/Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how faculty members teaching undergraduate diversity courses at liberal arts colleges in the southern United States addressed the outcome of the 2016 presidential election in their classrooms. Background: Humanities and social science faculty teaching undergraduate diversity courses faced the decision of whether, and how, to address the 2016 U.S. presidential election in their courses. Diversity courses represent a compelling context for examining this event, as instructors must routinely tackle charged and controversial topics and such courses have become the subject of debates around purpose, course content, and instructional methods. Methodology: This study draws upon one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with 38 faculty members teaching required undergraduate diversity courses at three predominantly White liberal arts colleges in the southern United States. Contribution: Understanding faculty members’ approaches to handling a critical political event sheds light on how faculty in multiple contexts might prepare for difficult dialogues in their classrooms. This study can serve to prompt reflection about how campuses engage with contemporary controversies in an era of reduced public trust in higher education and skepticism that free speech is a fundamental value of higher education. This study also offers a contribution to understanding how faculty members’ and students’ social identities including race and gender influence the dynamics of classroom discussions about contemporary controversies. Findings: Drawing upon the curricular processes detailed in the multicontextual model for diverse learning environments, findings from this study address faculty members’ personal post-election reactions, concern for minoritized students, decisions whether to disclose their political leanings, and their attempts to promote multiple perspectives, civility, and disciplinary connections to the political climate. Recommendations for Practitioners: Faculty members, educational developers, and administrators can use this study to consider how to address challenging and controversial events in the classroom and how to protect academic freedom to teach about and learn from these events. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers can advance understandings of how contemporary controversies and discussions of the political climate play out in college classrooms by investigating faculty and student experiences in multiple disciplinary, institutional, and regional contexts. Impact on Society: Higher education institutions in the United States face increasing public scrutiny and calls for greater accountability. Professors, in particular, are often caricatured as partisan ideologues intent upon indoctrinating students to particular political positions. A better understanding of how faculty members consider and approach discussions of a critical event may help shed light on the reality of many college classrooms and the self-reflective approaches to handling controversy faculty members may espouse.

NASPA Journal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad A. Lau

One of the great challenges facing Christian higher education is the role and impact of student behavior codes in furthering institutional values and inculcating those values in the students served by such institutions. The perspectives of administrators, faculty members, and students regarding the rationale for codes of conduct at their institution are examined. To obtain data, administrators, faculty members, and students at two Christian liberal arts institutions completed questionnaires and participated in follow-up interviews based on individual responses to the questionnaire. The views of all three groups are described as they see behavior codes relating to institutional purpose and the development and implementation of such codes.


Public Voices ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
Mary Coleman

The author of this article argues that the two-decades-long litigation struggle was necessary to push the political actors in Mississippi into a more virtuous than vicious legal/political negotiation. The second and related argument, however, is that neither the 1992 United States Supreme Court decision in Fordice nor the negotiation provided an adequate riposte to plaintiffs’ claims. The author shows that their chief counsel for the first phase of the litigation wanted equality of opportunity for historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), as did the plaintiffs. In the course of explicating the role of a legal grass-roots humanitarian, Coleman suggests lessons learned and trade-offs from that case/negotiation, describing the tradeoffs as part of the political vestiges of legal racism in black public higher education and the need to move HBCUs to a higher level of opportunity at a critical juncture in the life of tuition-dependent colleges and universities in the United States. Throughout the essay the following questions pose themselves: In thinking about the Road to Fordice and to political settlement, would the Justice Department lawyers and the plaintiffs’ lawyers connect at the point of their shared strength? Would the timing of the settlement benefit the plaintiffs and/or the State? Could plaintiffs’ lawyers hold together for the length of the case and move each piece of the case forward in a winning strategy? Who were plaintiffs’ opponents and what was their strategy? With these questions in mind, the author offers an analysis of how the campaign— political/legal arguments and political/legal remedies to remove the vestiges of de jure segregation in higher education—unfolded in Mississippi, with special emphasis on the initiating lawyer in Ayers v. Waller and Fordice, Isaiah Madison


2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-142
Author(s):  
Alicia Kubas

Purpose Since the 2016 presidential election, hyper-partisanship has become a regular facet of the political landscape with Democrats and Republicans in increasing conflict. The purpose of this paper is to determine if perception of government sources related to trust and credibility has changed since the 2016 election and if the experiences and strategies of librarians who teach or consult about government information has changed in response to this environment. Design/methodology/approach A 24-question survey was distributed to garner qualitative and quantitative responses from librarians who teach or consult about government information in an academic environment. A total of 122 responses were used for analysis. Findings Academic librarians are seeing more concern from patrons about disappearing online government information and wider distrust of government information. Librarians also noticed that the political leanings of students color their perspective around government sources and that librarians also need to keep their political beliefs in check. Respondents emphasized a need for more government literacy and information literacy topics when discussing evaluation of government sources. Research limitations/implications The data collection only included responses from academic librarians. Further research could include in-depth interviews and look at experiences in various library types. Originality/value With the timeliness of this topic, there has not been an in-depth investigation into how the Trump administration has changed user trust and perception of government sources from the librarian’s point of view. This paper continues the conversation about how librarians can address the growing distrust of government information and give us insight into the effects of a turbulent political climate on government sources.


2018 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. 1228-1233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick A. Robinson ◽  
Kate K. Orroth ◽  
Lauren A. Stutts ◽  
Patrick A. Baron ◽  
David R. Wessner

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 442-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine J. Cramer

Higher education in the United States has proud roots in the mission to enable people to engage in self-governance. The current political context is pushing us in another direction. I discuss the context in Wisconsin in particular, and use the challenges there as a reason to consider the civic purposes of political science. Rather than allow the political winds to blow us further into elitism, I argue that we should renew our commitment to educating people for citizenship.


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kara A. Godwin ◽  
Philip G. Altbach

Debates about higher education’s purpose have long been polarized between specialized preparation for specific vocations and a broad, general knowledge foundation known as liberal education. Excluding the United States, specialized curricula have been the dominant global norm. Yet, quite surprisingly given this enduring trend, liberal education has new salience in higher education worldwide. This discussion presents liberal education’s non-Western, Western, and u.s. historical roots as a backdrop for discussing its contemporary global resurgence. Analysis from the Global Liberal Education Inventory provides an overview of liberal education’s renewed presence in each of the regions and speculation about its future development.


Author(s):  
Ute S. Lahaie ◽  
Jacqueline M. Mumford

Many universities in the United States are working to incorporate innovative 21st century skills, new active learning pedagogical approaches, and technology. Creating new physical and virtual spaces requires agile faculty professional for technology-centric experiences. Designing and offering meaningful professional development to faculty members in new virtual and physical learning technology-centric environments is a challenge. This case study explores the journey of one higher education institution in the Midwest as they implemented new technology-centric strategies, initiatives, and support. Data from faculty participants indicate the program's success and establish an agenda for future research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document