Mr. Jones, I am glad you can see at least some agreement between our perspectives, and I appreciate the civil nature of the discourse we have been having.
I believe that most of my colleagues at Penn State would agree that voluntary discussions are best, and we actually do try to focus our discussions in the Residence Halls around two key ideas...Respect and Responsibility. And we do have facilitated discussions but they are centered around building an awareness of individual beliefs and an appreciation of commonalities as well as differences.
It's important to me that people feel valued and respected as individuals, even when I disagree with them on some topics. It is especially important to try and keep civility as part of the equation. I believe that well-meaning people sometimes forget to show respect to others, because they get incensed about topics of disagreement. I know that I do sometimes, and view my greatest failures as a human being as those times when I got so mad at someone about something they said or did that I lashed out and didn't treat them well. We all have our moments of failure, and those of us who are really committed to learning and growth see these failures as opportunities to examine our beliefs and set things right.
I believe that most Student Affairs professionals approach our interactions with students as opportunities for mutual learning rather than indoctrination. Everyone fails in how they behave at some moment or another. When this happens, it's the lesson you take from an experience that matters more than having had the experience itself. And, in most disciplinary conversations I have with students, they seem to understand this. And I usually learn something in these interactions as well.
I don't know how others are taking our exchange, but I have appreciated it. I've always believed that an honest critic is a better friend at times than a friend who will not criticize or question me. Honest criticism is a gift, and an opportunity for learning and reflection. I welcome your thoughts and hope you will feel welcome to follow whatever conversations interest you. Next time you are at Penn State, feel free to look me up. My office is in Waring Commons. If you would like to continue the conversation over e-mail or to ask other questions, feel free to contact me directly. I don't want to clog the blog comment section so much with this topic that it wears people out. There are many more topics addressed in this forum and I would hate to monopolize the conversation with this one topic. Take care, and good luck to you and your students.

Thanks for your reply and the information regarding Penn State’s online documents.
Actually, we agree on many things and are focusing on our disagreements. Thank you for your comments about the need to maintain these programs as voluntary. That is the single most important issue to me. You are right that I keep focusing on the "state" because programs mandated by state universities are, by law, being mandated by the state. And, as you know, most constitutional guarantees apply to state action. If exercises are truly voluntary and students are, in fact, not pressured to participate or ostracized in any way for nonparticipation, your team has far greater leeway in what it can do. I still may challenge the content, but not on constitutional grounds.
In my view, the exercises in which students were required to publicly state offensive stereotypes about minorities, religious groups and gay students are so offensive that they may well be as “crude” as the activities you describe as occurring in the hallways. We won’t agree on that one. I would argue that any residential life discussions of racism should be couched in terms of the dignity and rights of all individuals rather than by forcing students to write hateful things which they abhor. I also think that any discussions of race will be far more effective with many students if the facilitators avoid the prejudgment inherent in the diversity programs in which my children and I have participated, i.e., that those of European descent are oppressors, racists or programmed for racism. Focus more on the positive: We are all equal. We all have rights – inherently, under the law and constitutionally. We all have dignity as human beings.
Forgive me for wandering onto your board. This is an area of great interest to me. I appreciate the chance to share my views and to learn about yours.

Are these exercises any less crude than the behavior we see in the halls that causes staff to feel there is a need to discuss stereotypes, tolerance for differences, and the limits of acceptable behavior? Is it worse to ask a white student to consider his or her thoughts and feelings on these touchy subjects, or to pretend that intolerance doesn't exist, and excuse away behavior directed at students who are different than the majority because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.? Discussing the issues may make people uncomfortable, but so does silence. Many, many students from marginalized groups suffer in silence because it seems at times that no one notices their existence, understands their perspectives, or cares if they are harassed. Rather than push the issues aside, like some dark family secret, acknowledging them in even rudimentary and symbolic ways can be a great encouragement to those who feel that society ignores them and wants them to just go away.
As a white Southerner, I grew up having to work through my own issues related to race, class, socioeconomic status, etc., as part of my daily existence. The cultural and political history of the South is an ever present frame of reference. I've sat through similar exercises, and had similar negative reactions. But over time, I have come to realize that exercises like the one mentioned don't make the situation worse. They just hold up the mirror and give people who haven't had to think about the issues an opportunity to peek into the window of someone else's experience and see how it feels to be marginalized. It hurts. I get it. Sounds like you do, too.
I don't think you and I are going to agree on much here, because we are just coming at it from drastically different angles. Your questions about whether the "state" should be doing this or that implies that the state is a monolithic entity with a single will. It ignores the fact that learning happens within formal and informal interactions. It sets aside the reality that students are not blank slates to be written on or automatons to be programmed with recommended views. It ignores the facts that the vast majority of programs held in residence halls are facilitated conversations, not lectures, and that exercises can only be starting points for conversations in the community. Some of the best learning actually comes from the conversations students have afterward, with their roommates, peers, families, etc.
To "program" a particular set of beliefs on a student assumes a lack free will, pre-existing beliefs, or others that influence them. It assumes that learning is delivered from on high, rather than arrived at through process. I would hope, for example, that you have had and will continue to have more influence on your children than some RA who faciliated a program. I would also hope that any student who attends a program, has a conversation with me, or reads something I have written would pass it through the filters of their thoughts and experience and come to understand their own views on the topic at hand.
I do find fault with those who would push programs as "mandatory." I don't think it's the way to go. Free will should always be a part of the equation. So we do agree there.
In reference to your question about the document on Residence Life Codes, what you are referencing is a working document for staff to use when meeting with students. Section 3 refers to the overall section 3 of the Code of Conduct that I referred to, Harassment and Stalking. They are not separate codes. This sanction guide is used in helping staff who meet with students about incidents on campus to interpret whether a violation occurred, and to respond with a sanction that is appropriate to the level of severity of the behavior. Section 3 refers to behaviors such as harassment and stalking. 3.02 is a subcategory of that code. A student can be harassed and stalked in various ways...by unwanted contact, name-calling, threats, communication over e-mail. Behavior which "annoys" might include things like calling someone names, stealing their clothes while they are in the shower, "picking on" the person repeatedly after being asked to stop, and things like that which are not happenstance, but a part of some effort to cause someone intentional discomfort. Behavior which "alarms" might include making comments like "I'm going to kick your ass," "watch your back," behaviors like showing up without explanation or reason in places the target frequents, especially when asked to stop. So it's not something that gets applied without some other context. Someone has to initiate a complaint that a student was subjected to unwelcome behavior. It is that context that is missing from the interpretations out there. As to Dr. Spanier's thoughts, you will have to ask him.
Parents can provide input at any time. I talk to parents frequently and welcome their thoughts. You are entitled to your opinion and should make an informed choice, along with your students, about what kind of experience they want to have. But you cannot insulate them from the realities of campus life nor the various people and views they will encounter along the way.

[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST]
Thank you for the link to the revised PSU Code of Conduct. Last night I found the document to which I was referring. Please see Section 3.02 of this:
http://www.sa.psu.edu/rl/pdf/Community_Standard...
Is that code still in effect?
The next time I am in a room with Graham Spanier (which does not happen too frequently), I will engage him, if he is willing, in a conversation about the "educational" role of Student Life and the "co-curricular model”. Surely he agrees that there is a role for the staff to perform duties you mention that require discussion of controversial topics. We'll see what, if anything, he says about specifics. Despite the significant academic and professional achievements of Student Life employees, there remains a distinction between the role of faculty and residential life staff. I am not saying, as you rhetorically asked, that the accomplishments of your colleagues and you “don’t count” or that your careers “count for nothing”. I feel quite the opposite. But, nevertheless, you are not a member of the Penn State Faculty. There is a different process to obtain that distinction.
Unless you are bound by restrictions of confidentiality, I would be interested to know what Spanier has shared with you regarding his views of the “co-curricular model”.
We have not discussed the views of another constituency - parents. They have standing to provide input. As someone spending nearly $100,000 per year on higher education for my family, I will share my personal view that I am not paying to have my children educated jointly by the faculty and residential life staffers. I am not paying to have my children learn about sexual identity and sustainability by those in your profession. (My kids strongly agree.) Whether surveys of parents would indicate agreement with my view may depend on how the questions are phrased. But I would not expect most parents to believe that residential life staff are or should be “educators” in the same sense that faculty are “educators.”

Thank you for your reply. I understand the reason for creating the poster. While context is critical, I believe that such crude exercises (which I have endured) promote racial strife rather than prevent it. Likewise, in my experience, teaching that persons of European descent are racists and oppressors (which I have encountered in diversity training and which was stated in the UD plan) causes more racial tension, not less. But I admit I am not a social scientist with data to prove these points. In any event, whether such exercises are good or bad, can we agree these are political views that should not be taught by the state - especially to a captive audience? Can we not handle disputes by reference to the legal rights of individuals, rather than by an exercise denigrating people by race? To turn around your question about the Constitution: Does the state have the power to REQUIRE that individuals share publicly offensive thoughts about racial, religious and sexual groups that those individuals abhor and find offensive? Does the state have the power to require such students to participate in remedial sessions if they disagree with the views of the residential life staff?
To revisit your opinion that FIRE wants teachers that reflect its view: I suppose that is true if the "view" about which you are speaking is that the Constitutional rights of students trumps other interests promoted by residential life staff.
I am familiar with Penn State campus life. I know many students and am in town about 45 days per year. I applaud Student Life's "tread lightly" approach that you described.
[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...]

Context is everything. An exercise such as the one you mention is easily misinterpreted outside the realm of the activity in which it was created. A brainstorming session like this one properly facilitated can help people talk about stereotypes, the harm they cause, and also to get people to consider, reflect on them, and either change their beliefs or at least understand more about where they come from. It's up to the participant to decide what they reject and what they cling to. I do think that leaving up something like what you describe without an explanation about what it is about surely leaves it open for people to be upset. So I get it.
But there will never be universal agreement on what should be taught at universities, and there will always be people who question the credentials of people out there acting as teachers, advisors and resources. There will always be people who say psychology and education are pseudosciences, that businessmen shouldn't try to teach ethics, and that scientists shouldn't teach evolution because some people don't believe in it.
At Penn State, we have taken a different tack on the co-curricular concepts and are treading lightly and carefully to make sure we are taking into account some of the criticisms out there for programs like this, especially in figuring out what discussions are appropriate at the RA level, at the coordinator level, and in what we are putting out there in relation to our departmental values.
But I think it's a bit elitist and out-of-touch to insinuate that Res Life staff, who are closest to the students and see the "complex environmental factors" playing out in our communities, and work hard to resolve these types of problems, aren't qualified to lead discussions about them. If you have a car that's broken, do you take it to a mechanic who can fix it, or to a mechanical engineering professor who can give an extended lecture on the principles of design, but may have never tried to fix a car? You take the car to someone who works with them everyday, because that person will more likely fix the problem.
So if you are having a community issue, Residence Life should be involved in addressing it. If you have the same issue every year, there's nothing wrong with trying to make people aware of the issues and appreciate their impacts before something negative happens in the community.
When I first heard of UD's approach to "sustainability" in their curriculum, I, too, thought it was a stretch. It seems they were hoping to get people to talk about what makes a healthy and sustainable community (i.e., one that doesn't erupt with conflicts, but rather helps people find ways to resolve them). I agree that is more nebulous to people than the more accepted definition, which centers around conservation, recycling and related issues. Clumsy? Yes. Diabolical. No.
Where does "diversity" fit into this whole idea of "sustainable" communities? My guess is they wanted to get people to appreciate the fact that intolerance for people's differences often disrupt the community, and to point out that there is diversity of thought, class, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. on campus.
But the exercise that is often mentioned, about asking people when they realized their sexual orientation, does broach into interesting territory. It is often used in programs about sexual orientation. In a group setting, where people are there to learn about and think about the topic, it's appropriate, because people will understand that it is rhetorical and meant to be reflective. The power of such a question is in reflecting on it, not in answering it. So putting it into an individual, personal interview, especially one that is "mandatory" really misses the point. Telling your RA the answer isn't the point of the exercise. Thinking about a what it would be like to be marginalized because of your sexual orientation is the point. There are better, and more valid ways to help people understand this, and I can understand why some would be upset if they felt that answering an invasive question was required of them.
I sat through a training on Delaware's co-curricular model led by Dr. Tweedy once, and I actually thought him to be an intelligent, sensitive and thought-provoking person. I thought some of what they were doing was very interesting and that other parts of it (some of which are the things FIRE seems most against) were kindy of wacky. But I did not find the ideas, or this man, to be especially dangerous. I think that he is speaking a different language than his critics, just as you and I are doing on some level right now in this discussion.
I am sure that FIRE will respond to my criticism if they feel it necessary. But my skepticism comes in part from the fact that Mr. Kissel, one of their chief spokesmen, was a student of the school associated with the late Alan Bloom, a critic of liberal education (The Closing of the American Mind) who said in an article on Commentary Magazine "...[the] idea of a separate 'Student Affairs' profession in academia is pure rubbish. It is fiction. The range of work involved requires a high school diploma on the low end and a PhD in psychology on the high end. The constituent disciplines (with their quality controls) already exist and can be readily applied to students. Breeching a new 'discipline' for this purpose is nothing more than professional egotism. I see it as a spasm of self-justification for a profession that largely lacks any scholarly work, past or present. This is the worst episode of academic cheapening I have witnessed. In a continuum ranging from Nuclear Physics to Romance Languages, 'student personnel' is almost certainly the most pathetic graduate field yet conceived. It is an embarrassment..."
Arguments about who counts as faculty, who is qualified to teach this or that, and the questioning of the application of a "curricular" model all sound strikingly familiar to the tone of many of FIRE's statements. My guess is that they don't think Dr. Tweedy counts as faculty, because they don't think his career (or mine, or those of many of the readers of this blog) count. So if I seem offended or defensive in any of my commentary, it is only because I am. But I support your right to offend me, and what FIRE thinks of me and my profession doesn't keep me up at night.
It continues to amaze me how in one breath, some people claim to be clinging to the principles of the Constitution and in the next breath clamoring that people shouldn't be discussing certain issues. I just don't get it. There is something Orwellian about this kind of approach, and I think it squelches discussions that really should be happening on campuses and in our communities.
As to Penn State's Code of Conduct, you can find it at http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/conduct.shtml and even download a .pdf if you like. The language about behavior that "annoys" or "alarms" was updated a good while ago and the current wording better reflects the intent of the policy in preventing repeated behaviors and taking into account to totality of circumstances. This section of the code of conduct relates to continued behavior that interferes with a person's employment, ability to go to school, etc. So it is not vague anymore. It never was vague to those of us who work here, and wasn't applied in the ways that critics implied. Basically, a person could be held in violation if they harangued someone, followed them, made comments that implied the person should fear for their safety, etc. Initial complaints would result in conversations about whether the person understood that the behavior was unwelcome, and asking the person to stop and leave the targeted person(s) alone. If they violated this, then yes, they could face sanctions.
I concede that Residence Life programs shouldn't violate a student's Constitutional rights for some other "good." But in case I missed something, which amendment says that a person has a right to never be asked to think about issues beyond their realm of experience, examine stereotypes they hold, or to understand the impacts of their behavior on others? Or to never be "uncomfortable" when confronted with this information? I'm no Constitutional scholar, but unless there's been a new amendment, it's not in there. Maybe someone at FIRE should write their congressman and demand action. Or maybe they should just accept that learning requires cognitive dissonance at some times, and that is just the way things are.

To clarify regarding the poster in the UD residence hall: The RA required first year students to create it jointly. The RA listed various racial, sexual and religious categories on blank poster board. He then told the students to write under each category all the negative stereotypes it had heard regarding each group. The RA maintained the poster in a public area for a period of months. Obviously, ResLife and the RA were not trying to state that those stereotypes were true. However, visitors to the building did not know that. As I understand it, this exercise, although perhaps not the extended public posting, was specifically approved by ResLife. I thought it was foolish and inappropriate for an organization acting under state authority to require the students to create and maintain such a poster.
I am glad we agree that ResLife should not be teaching a specific set of political beliefs. However, that is what the original UD ResLife program did. In my view, the latest version of the plan continues to cross that line. We will likely disagree on this point, but I do not believe most ResLife staff and RAs are qualified to teach students about complex environmental matters and certain other issues described in the program. I do think UD’s version of “sustainability” wanders into a political area and is inappropriate if students feel pressure to participate in the program. And while we surely agree that it is necessary that harassment laws be enforced in the dorms, it is a large leap from that view to assuming it is appropriate for the Delaware ResLife staff to teach its specific version of "diversity".
I respect what residential life staff members do and the serious challenges they face. But I believe faculty oversight is appropriate given that education is primarily the purview of the faculty. In the case of Delaware, I believe such oversight to be essential because of the history of the ResLife program. The same staff that created a program that undeniably violated student rights -- and then lied about the mandatory nature of the program – is still “on the job”.
I do not know how FIRE would respond to your suggestions about its agenda. However, I have seen no evidence that FIRE’s leaders believe that the only people qualified to "teach" are those that agree with the FIRE view. FIRE routinely supports students of varied political views when their rights are violated by colleges and universities. I believe it is unfair and untrue to suggest that FIRE is trying to “hold up the entire career field of Student Affairs”. But I will let that organization defend itself.
I suspect you and I both believe that there will be times when reasonable people will disagree about whether a given issue should be addressed by residential life staff or left to the classroom. But in any such discussion, the Constitution of the United States obviously takes precedence over other issues. ResLife leaders at Delaware did not appear to know this. I am not sure they embrace the concept today. A program as invasive as UD’s is unnecessary. Your program at Penn State is proof of that.
(By the way, if memory serves, even Penn State’s Residence Life Code provides for sanctions of some sort for behavior that “annoys” or “alarms” another person. To this layman, I believe the code at PSU is well thought-out, but that particular language is quite vague. Is a student really in violation of the rules for “annoying” someone? President Spanier recently changed the Penn State Principles to remove language that he conceded was unconstitutionally vague – even though he stated that PSU would never have enforced that part of the Principles against any student. Maybe PSU’s ResLife team would like to follow suit?)
You suggest there is a middle ground on these issues of residential life programs. I will concede that point immediately if you will concede that it is the University’s obligation to ensure that it does not violate students' constitutional rights when seeking to promote some other “good”.

Actually, Mr. Jones,
You missed some of my points.
First, I said clearly that you can tell people what to think about but not what to think. So I agree that Res Life should not be educating students regarding a "very specific set of political beliefs."
Secondly, I don't need to review what the Faculty Senate at Delaware had to say on the issue, because I have already read it. Reliance on RA-level staff was one of the key criticisms. And though I have read many articles on this issue, mostly from FIRE, I see some of FIRE's statements about who is "qualified" to oversee such a program as basically an effort to frame the discussion in their favor. I think I can sum up FIRE's opinion on this. Who is qualified? People who agree with FIRE on any and all points, and subscribes to a our lockstep interpretations of what subjects are appropriate for discussion. Who isn't qualified? Everyone else.
Thirdly, I may only be a "staff member" but I do have a good education and a lot of professional and life experience in working with students and responding to community issues in the halls. As such, I see the problems they experience and have every right to try and facilitate discussion of relevant topics with individual students and with the community. I know how students live, what problems they experience, and what resources are out there to help them. I also see many students struggling to become who they are meant to be, and who are met at times by hostility in the community because of who they are and what they believe. Talking about these issues does not put us at the front of the culture wars, it just holds up the mirror and shows us who we are as a society.
If I have to respond to harassment in the halls based on a student's sexual orientation, for example, I think it's appropriate to bring the issue to the table and let people in the community know it will not be tolerated. I think it's even better to have some proactive discussion and programming around the issues before problems occur. People are free to think what they want, but they can't always act on it, and it's appropriate sometimes to hold the issue up to the light of day and take a look at it.
Fourth, the RA has every right to express himself as an individual and I don't know what the picture or poster you are mentioning is, but I do know a poster that is popular among college kids that "explains" different religious perspectives, tongue-in-cheek and you can see one example at https://www.changingworld.com/catalog/product_i... If one of my staff had that up, I would ask them to take it down from the door and move it inside his or her room, because of the potentially offensive nature to residents with a different sense of humor. But I could also be accused of censoring him by asking him to take it down. We try to have conversations with people about how some types of speech affect the community, but we do let students make their own choices, as long as they fall along the lines of personal or political expression, and do not broach into the area of harassment toward specific persons. So if the poster was issued by the department and they told him to put it on the door, you may have a point. If it was the RA's personal expression, then you are really arguing against this student's right to individual freedom of expressionand you can't have it both ways. Either you are for freedom of speech and conscience, or you aren't.
Finally, FIRE takes the whole "sustainability" thing out of context. It is a word that people associate with liberal political persuasions. They seem to want to reframe the discussion by defining sustainability in a way that will open it up to criticism. Just like the word "liberal" has been tarnished by re-framing in a political context. They can bold all the comments they want to, but the intent behind bolding them is transparent. They hope to hold up the entire career field of Student Affairs, and the Residence Life specialty in particular, as a source of ruination of higher education and the indoctrination of young minds, so they can misrepresent their stances, and easily knock them down. It's a straw man argument (For an explanation of this term, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man )
I'm sorry that some students felt they were pressured by Delaware's RAs and Res Life department. I don't doubt that they felt distressed. But I also don't place the responsibility for this squarely at the feet of the RAs or Res Life staff, either. And I stand by the proposition that many students at Delaware did not share their opinion, nor feel threatened, and that many RAs and staff members explained the intent of the program well, and respected the rights of students to participate or not. I have talked to a few of these people myself.
You will get no argument from me about the delivery of Delaware's program, as it is evident that there were some problems with how it was planned and conducted. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Programs can be fixed. Goals can be modified. Training can be improved. There is a middle ground on these ideas. It just hasn't been found yet, and even if a more reasonable approach is designed, it will be imperfect and open to criticism, because some people don't like the idea at all. To you, I say present some useful ideas rather than just criticism. It's one thing to point out problems and another thing to propose solutions. If you have some, put them out here in the light of day, so we can discuss them.

Your post completely misses some key points. First, leaving aside the issue of whether ResLife is in the business of educating, it certainly should not be in the business of educating students regarding a very specific set of political beliefs. ResLife determines on its own what it means to be a good member of the community, what the correct position is on difficult environmental issues and what the "truth" is regarding reacism (i.e. all white people are racists). And then it teaches those controversial views to students in the dorm.
Secondly, before opining regarding whether ResLife is in the business of educating students, please review what the Faculty Senate at Delaware has to say on the issue.
Thirdly, please don't correlate efforts of ResLife staff to settle disputes, make room changes and insure student safety with teaching them highly politicized lessons. They are not the same. Members of the Residence Life staff are not called "professors". They may have very important jobs, but they are staff members.
Fourthly, I personally know students at Delaware who have been subjected to the pressure of RAs to participate in the program. Further, one student mentioned to me this week that his RA maintained a list of all race/religious groups on the dormitory wall all semester with an accompanying description of negative stereotypes of each. How educational. Please do not act as if all is fine at Delaware so long as the ResLife staff (which concocted the original mandatory plan) continues to run this program.
A few final comments: It is quite common to use boldface for emphasis in the way that Mr. Kissel did. Is that really a basis for criticism? In addition, I found it remarkable that you defended the program (among other grounds) on the principles that students probably are not reading the materials anyway and that students will likely not believe an event is "mandatory" when told so by their resident assistants.

haha, wow. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Wow, those are some pretty powerful words. Use them wisely.

You residence life people are not 'educators', you are abusive racist bullies. It is my hope that more brave students will rise up and spend their lives fighting the evil you represent.

Oh, THANK you for writing this. I was an HD at UD from fall '06 to spring '08. You captured our collective opinion (that we young professionals dared not speak up about for fear of being trampled upon by FIRE) fairly well.
I am still tempted to go through FIRE's original pieces of rhetoric, line by line, to expose their flaws and intentional attempts at catastrophizing our educational priorities. I won't do this because I've quickly grown incredibly exhausted over the whole situation.
You said that Kissel "juxtaposes selective information with rhetorical devices to imply an answer", and I just want to emphasize how perfectly you've described his manner of persuasion. I'm reminded of the time(s) he took issue with the word "treatment" -- a word used within the social sciences for a non-control group -- and spun it into a verb. Instead of setting up a control group and a treatment group for particular activity, we were suddenly "treating" students for incorrect beliefs.
What a wordsmith.