Photo credit: www.higheredjobs.com
Colleges and universities are navigating a complex landscape where the demands for unfettered free speech often clash with the need to maintain an inclusive campus environment. As pressure mounts from various groups, administrators are tasked with balancing these competing interests. In a recent discussion, Kevin Kruger, the president of NASPA, provided his insights on the ongoing debates surrounding free speech and the employment landscape in student affairs.
Andrew Hibel, HigherEdJobs: Dr. Kruger, could you outline the mission of NASPA? Additionally, do you have a personal mission within the organization or the broader field of higher education?
Kevin Kruger, Ph.D., President, NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education: NASPA’s primary mission is to advocate for and represent the student affairs profession, both within this specialized field and throughout the larger higher education community. Our focus is on essential areas like health, safety, and wellness, while also emphasizing student success across the board—particularly for low-income, first-generation, and students of color.
On a personal level, I aim to highlight the significance of the student experience. The richness of college life is found not only in academic pursuits but also in the interactions and activities that occur outside the classroom. Much of a student’s development stems from extracurricular engagements, internships, and social interactions with peers. Thus, a comprehensive collegiate experience encompasses both academic learning and personal growth.
Hibel: In a recent article available on NASPA’s website, the author examines the concepts of free speech and civil discourse, noting that “Civil discourse is closely aligned with free speech, with a significant difference: free speech is a constitutional hallmark; civil discourse is an opportunity to create and/or enhance understanding.” What initiatives have you observed on campuses that promote civil discourse for greater understanding?
Kruger: This conversation has been ongoing and, in many ways, reflects a long-standing tradition on college campuses. While the constitutional right to free speech is fundamental, it is equally essential to recognize its intrinsic value in fostering personal growth. Colleges have traditionally been effective at facilitating the exchange of diverse viewpoints through guest speakers, films, and art. Exposing students to challenging ideas can often lead to constructive outcomes.
Yet, the current political climate complicates this dialogue. Today’s discussions are frequently polarized, leading to a lack of civil discourse. While engaging in civil discourse about policy and politics is vital, it becomes complex when addressing ideologies that promote hatred or intolerance, such as white supremacy or anti-Semitism. Conversations about civil discourse differ significantly from those that revolve around hate.
Hibel: Why is it vital for college administrators to promote civility on campus?
Kruger: It’s essential for colleges to foster environments where students feel safe discussing their beliefs while also being receptive to the perspectives of others. This ability to listen, understand, and engage constructively is a fundamental skill necessary for a cohesive society. Cultivating such skills is particularly crucial in our increasingly polarized world, and campuses are uniquely positioned to facilitate this growth.
Hibel: Have you witnessed instances of incivility on campuses where the institution has not actively fostered civility? If so, what were the repercussions, and what lessons can other institutions draw from these experiences?
Kruger: Incivility is prevalent across the country, independent of an institution’s efforts to monitor speech. However, colleges that proactively involve students in these conversations are generally more successful. For instance, American University implements a freshman seminar aimed at exposing students to a broad range of viewpoints on social justice issues.
When controversial figures like Milo Yiannopoulos visit campuses, institutions must be prepared to facilitate dialogue among students. It’s crucial to recognize that for students from marginalized backgrounds, exposure to hate speech can pose significant threats to their safety and well-being.
Hibel: Many colleges are witnessing a rise in student activism in response to contentious campus views, prompting some administrators to adopt policies regarding controversial speakers. Recently, DePaul University faced backlash for restricting Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking. Is this an appropriate response by universities, or does it infringe upon free speech?
Kruger: The activism observed today is partly driven by generational dynamics; Generation Z is more engaged and socially conscious compared to previous cohorts. While many campuses cannot outright ban speakers unless there are considerable concerns regarding safety, they are now focusing on strategies to ensure student well-being during such events.
Hibel: The concept of “free speech zones,” initially established during protests against the Vietnam War, has come under scrutiny. What are your views on the effectiveness of free speech zones on campuses today?
Kruger: While free speech zones had significance in the past, they are often regarded as overly restrictive in today’s context. Free speech should be a vibrant part of campus life, ensuring that it does not impede students’ educational experiences or hinder their learning opportunities.
Hibel: According to the U.S. Census, less than 20 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds participate in national elections, emphasizing the need for higher education institutions to facilitate discussions around civil discourse and civic engagement to empower students beyond graduation. What are your thoughts on this, and can higher education achieve these engagement goals?
Kruger: The youth vote has historically been lower in recent elections, indicating a need for improvement. As we approach the next election, we may see millennials and baby boomers engaging at similar levels. It is imperative that colleges instill habits of democratic participation among students. Programs like Voter Friendly Campus and the All In Challenge aim to enhance student involvement, helping them recognize the significance of their vote and the issues at stake.
Hibel: Looking forward, what changes do you anticipate in the role of student affairs within educational institutions over the next five to ten years, and how can job seekers prepare for these shifts?
Kruger: The next decade will likely present substantial financial challenges due to declining enrollment and reduced state funding for higher education, particularly impacting smaller regional colleges. As these changes unfold, there will be an expectation for student affairs professionals to possess a diverse skill set to manage multiple responsibilities effectively.
Addressing the achievement gap for students of color, low-income students, and first-generation students remains a high priority. Increasing graduation rates among these demographics is critical. Moreover, proficiency in data is becoming essential; regardless of someone’s affinity for math, a foundational understanding of data and evaluation is necessary to make informed decisions about program effectiveness.
Student affairs professionals are crucial in addressing the key challenges facing higher education today. Their roles are more vital than ever in influencing student wellness, health, and success.
Hibel: In concluding our conversation, what guidance can you provide for maintaining passion in a long-term career within student affairs?
Kruger: I have unwavering faith in the transformative potential of college and its capacity to empower students to succeed. The ages of 18 to 22 represent a pivotal time in a student’s life, and the role of student affairs can significantly contribute to their success journey.
Source
www.higheredjobs.com