University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An analysis of the position of dean of students in selected institutions of higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

An analysis of the position of dean of students in selected institutions of higher education

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ANALYSIS OF THE POSITION OF DEAN OF STUDENTS
IN SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
by
Paul Lynn Moore
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
August 1976
UMI Number: DP24225
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation P u b lis h in g
UMI DP24225
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TH E G RA DU ATE SC HO O L
U N IV E R S IT Y PARK
LOS A N G ELES, C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, w ritte n by
under the direction of Dissertation C om
mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of
the degree of
PAUL LYNN MOORE
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
Chairmai
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the late
Bernard Sklar for his assistance and encouragement during
the early phases of this project and to Henry Acland for so
willingly picking up the project in mid-stream. I am also
deeply indebted for the support and understanding of my
colleagues and friends who accepted the hard times with the
same grace as the good, and never gave up the faith. And I
am particularly grateful to my wife, Andrea, whose assis
tance, strength and confidence made the critical difference
for completion of this effort.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................... ii
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND METHODOLOGY . . 1
A. Historical Context .................... 2
B. Statement of the P r o b l e m ............. 11
C. Research N o t e .......................... 12
D. Review of the Literature............. 16
E. Organization of the Dissertation . . . 23
II. AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW...................... 24
A. The Early Formative Y e a r s ............. 24
B. The Years of Student Activism .... 28
C. The Post-Activism P e r i o d ............. 36
D. Summary................................ 43
III. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AND THE ADMINISTRATION . 45
A. Hierarchical Ranking .................... 45
B. Relation to Institutional Mainstream. . 50
C. The President.......................... 53
D. Summary................................ 59
IV. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AND THE FACULTY. . . . 62
A. Faculty Awareness ....................... 62
B. Faculty Expectations .................... 66
C. Faculty Impact on the Dean of Students . 71
D. Summary................... ... 75
V. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS, STUDENTS AND THEIR
ENVIRONMENT................................... 78
A. Campus Growth and the Impact of Large
ness ................... 78
B. The Entry of Minority Students . . . 80
C. Student Activism . . . . . . . . 87
D. Student Discipline and Control . . . 101
E. Student Participation in Governance . . 107
F. Summary................................. 110
iii
Chapter Page
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 113
A. Campus Growth and the Impact of Large
ness and Complexity................ 114
B. Conflicting Expectations ............. 116
C. Hierarchical Placement of the Dean of
Students . 119
D. Impact of the President................. 122
E. Faculty Awareness and Impact .... 124
F. Students ............................. 125
G. Implications................ 126
H. Recommendations for Future Research . . 132
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS . . . . 134
APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE THREE
SUBJECT UNIVERSITIES ................ 135
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................... 155
iv
I. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND METHODOLOGY
Most institutions of higher education in the United
States have a dean of students who is traditionally recog
nized as the chief administrator of student services. The
title of "dean of students" brings forth a variety of
images such as "father figure" and "disciplinarian."1 Stu
dents may simply view the dean as another one of "them,"
the administration. From another perspective the dean of
students can be viewed as a major manager responsible for
a wide variety of programs and services often underwritten
by large budgets. This is the professional student per
sonnel point of view.
^The title "dean of students" is used here in a
generic sense meaning chief student personnel officer.
Philip A. Tripp in "Organization for Student Personnel
Administration," in Handbook of College and University
Administration; Academic, (ed.) Asa S. Knowles (New York:
McGraw-Hill Company, 1970), pp. 6-7, reports that a 1966
survey by the U.S. Office of Education revealed that 75
percent of the institutions studied had a title or some
variant of "dean of students." In a number of institu
tions, particularly larger ones, the position of vice
president for student affairs has emerged to replace or
supervise a position known as dean of students. In an
historical sense, however, the term dean of students when
used in this general way is most useful for this study.
U
The intent of the study was to investigate recent
developments pertaining to the position of dean of students
to determine what impact, if any, the recent tumultuous
history and dramatic growth of higher education has had.
The research was carried out in three large, urban, state-
supported universities: California State University, Long
Beach; California State University, Los Angeles; and,
California State University, Northridge. These institutions
were chosen mainly for pragmatic reasons but also because
their type is increasingly common in the higher education
scene, having large enrollments and oriented to urban
communities with a commuting student body often from
non-traditional student populations.
A. Historical Context
To set the stage for a review of the central issues
of the study, it is useful to examine some general histori
cal aspects of the dean's position. American colleges,
particularly church colleges, adopted the English notion of
in loco parentis suggesting that the institution was con
cerned with more than intellectual development and acted
in place of the parent in matters of religion and conduct.
As Brubacher and Rudy have pointed out:
Under this regime of paternalism, the clerical
presidents and professors constituted what might
be called the first body of "personnel" officers.
The record indicates that they were constantly
2
dealing with a host of problems which involved
counseling or the supervision of extracurricu
lar affairs.2
The earliest student personnel deans were appointed to
relieve presidents of student personnel problems. Perhaps
the first dean of men was LeBaron Russel Briggs, appointed
at Harvard in 1890, whose responsibilities included a
number of disciplinary o n e s.3 Thomas Clark, an early dean
at the University of Illinois, was quoted as saying of his
role: "I relieved the president of some very unpleasant
d u t i e s . The early purpose of the dean was custodial,
"...student conduct, decorum, social life, and generally
keeping students in line. 1 1 5
Student personnel work, as a distinct educational
development, arose with the twentieth century. One of its
touchstones was the historical concern of American colleges
for the non-academic aspects of the students' life which
came to be known as the concern for and education of the
^John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education
in Transition (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1968),
pp. 318-19.
^Ibid., p. 322.
. G. Williamson, "The Dean of Students as Educator,"
The Educational Record 38 (July 1957):230.
^Fred Hecklinger, "Let's Do Away with the Dean,"
NASPA Journal 9 (April 1972):317-18.
"whole student."^ This new movement was spurred by the
development of the behavioral sciences, particularly
mental testing, expanding institutional size and diversi
fication of clientele, changing student needs, and a desire
not to adopt the impersonality of the European university.^
As the services and functions related to the passage
of students through the institution and to student well
being proliferated, new patterns of organizational coordi
nation and administration were required. Harvard anticipa
ted in 1890 later developments in the administration of
student services by essentially splitting the student per
sonnel function out of the academic deanship.® In general,
a variety of control and supervisory tasks were delegated,
often out of crisis situations.^ Non-academic functions,
such as housing, previously overseen by the academic dean
or some other officer, were "assigned to a student person
nel dean who took it upon himself to direct 'services' of
^Brubacher and Rudy, Higher Education in Transition,
pp. 318-19.
^Ibid., pp. 318-23.
®Ibid., p. 322.
^Walter F. Johnson, "Student Personnel Work in
Higher Education: Philosophy and Framework," in College
Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies, eds.
Laurine E. Fitzgerald, Walter F. Johnson, and Willa
Norris (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970), p. 6.
A
a noncurricular nature."10 In addition, "vocational and
personal counseling along with attempts to organize extra
curricular activities both within and without dormitory
units and to remain 'in touch' with student groups like
fraternities and various clubs grew rapidly after World
War I."11 In those post-war years, directors of placement,
admissions and health were appointed and the student per
sonnel movement began to obtain national recognition and
develop a sense of profession.12
Early organizational patterns tended to be somewhat
haphazard with the emerging student personnel functions
reporting directly to the president.13 Even with the
addition of a number of student services, many institutions
did not have a coordinator of the student service func
tions. 14 in 1932, Lloyd-Jones and Smith summarized the
10w. Frank Hull, IV, "The University Administrator:
From Where Has He Come?" in The Organized Organization;
The American University and Its Administration, eds.
Richard R. Perry and W. Frank Hull, IV (Toledo: The
University of Toledo, 1971), p. 20.
11Ibid.
l^Brubacher and Rudy, Higher Education in Transition,
pp. 322-23.
11Esther Lloyd-Jones and Margaret Ruth Smith, A
Student Personnel Program for Higher Education (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938), p. 24.
^Dugald s. Arbuckle, Student Personnel Services in
Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1953), p. 27.
5
situation as follows:
The situation in most institutions at the present
time is a pretty ragged one. There are a surpris
ingly large number of personnel services in most
institutions, but little philosophy or organiza
tion. The heads of most of the services report
directly to a president who is already burdened
by so many administrative problems that he is
able to do little but receive their reports. The
head of each service regards himself as an inde
pendent entity instead of as a member of a total
program related to many other personnel services,
all of which are also important, and to the total
educational program of the institution.15
As institutions grew and their student personnel concerns
likewise grew and became fragmented, presidents were
forced to organize and reorganize them, resulting in most
institutions in a coordinated arrangement overseen by a
dean of s t u d e n t s . 16 The function became institutionalized.
It has been since World War II that student personnel
administration has seen its greatest growth.17 The con
clusion of the war brought great masses of students and an
augmentation of services for students. In this regard,
Tripp has noted:
Of all the sectors of administration in higher
education, student services administration has
l^Lloyd-Jones and Smith, A Student Personnel Program
for Higher Education.
l^Charles W. Bursch, II, "The Vice-President or Dean
of Students," in Administrators in Higher Education, ed.
Gerald P. Burns (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962),
p. 142.
17Tripp, "Student Personnel Administration," p. 4.
6
grown most dramatically in the last quarter
century. Mainly responsible are (a) the impact
of burgeoning numbers of students, (b) a growing
sensitivity to the human factor in the educative
process, and (c) an awareness of the increased
sophistication required for the effective inte
gration of the personal features of students'
lives with substantive educational programs.
The shift from a fairly simplistic view that,
beyond instruction, institutional responsibility
to students was limited mainly to the provision
of bed and board and appropriate religious indoc
trination, supervised by disciplinarians, to a
contemporary view that this aspect of higher educa
tion has authentic educational purposes and func
tions is a main feature of recent higher educa
tional history.18
These "authentic educational purposes and functions" have
produced a variety of role definitions including the dean
of students as educator,1^ innovator for student develop
ment,^ administrator, twentieth-century moralist,22 an(j
counselor.23
More recently the dean's position has been challenged
both explicitly and implicitly by student activism. This
l^Ibid., pp. 3-4.
l^Williamson, "The Dean of Students as Educator,"
p. 230.
20g . Robert Ross, "The Dean of Students," in
Perceptions in Public Higher Education, ed. Gene A. Budig
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970), p. 88.
2lArbuckle, Student Personnel Services in Higher
Education, pp. 30-31.
22j. f . Kauffman, "Student Personnel Administration:
Some Questions and Recommendations,1 1 The Educational
Record 45 (Summer 1964):291.
23]3ursch, "The Vice-President or Dean of Students,"
p. 144.
7
can be identified as an amorphous movement with clear
moments of crystalization such as the Berkeley revolt of
1964, the moratorium activities of 1968-1969, and the
Cambodia-Kent State crisis of 1970. Students have come
to challenge traditional authority. Student governments,
traditionally concerned with relatively minor issues, if
they were concerned with issues at all, and activist groups,
have developed a sophistication in issues and tactics which
challenge any kind of authoritarian role. Otten has stated
in his study of the University of California, Berkeley:
University authority, as it stands, is not a
legitimate form of government in the eyes of
a large number of students. And because it is
not legitimate, it finds itself unable to govern
by moral persuasion and must increasingly fall
back on physical force to control d i s s e n t . 24
The dean as a traditional authoritarian figure, has been
faced by a clientele which does not accept the basis of
his authority.
This was complicated where the issues of unrest trans
cended the campus. Deans of students were confronted with
situations with which they were not trained to deal and
which did not fall within their authority except in the
sense of physical control. Deans of students typically were
2^C. Michael Otten, University Authority and
the Student: the Berkeley Experience (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970),
p. 5.
____________________ a
trained to deal with personal, educational and student
development issues. But activists often spoke to a higher
authority, the university president or beyond, to the
federal government.
A further general trend has involved the appearance of
minority students in increasing numbers on American cam
puses, the result of civil rights activity, legislation and
as the self-assertion of the minority groups themselves.
Minority students entered higher education with a concep
tion of rights and objectives which are backed by the great
est surge of civil rights advocacy experienced in the his
tory of the United States. The question of minority rights
and treatment is a nationwide issue. Deans of students,
responsible for the most part for student rules and conduct
and the official interface between students and the insti
tution, were caught in the middle. Deans were expected to
accommodate and integrate the new values and interests of
minority students with the often dissimilar values and
interests of the university.
The sheer growth in numbers of students attending
institutions of higher education has also had a significant
impact. Not only has the number of institutions increased,
the size of institutions has increased dramatically. As
institutions grow in size and complexity, there is a ten
dency for specialization to increase. Sheer size dictates
that greater numbers of people are involved in a given
______________________ 9
function; bureaucratic specialization is an available and
efficient method of management and has affected student
personnel programs along with other components of higher
education.
Increasing institutional size and complexity has led
to the call for more specific managerial and administrative
skills; in short/ circumstances may demand a different kind
of person for deanships. If upper management personnel
come from academic areas, their experience tends to be com
bined with major administrative or legal experience. The
dean of students, on the other hand, has traditionally come
from a general academic background without training or
significant experience with plant development, fund
raising, alumni relations and inter-institutional politics.
The dean with this orientation deals essentially with aca
demic and student life problems and issues from the student
perspective. Some consequences of this difference in back
ground will be explored later.
Despite these broad changes, the position of dean of
students seems to be increasingly fluid both in terms of
assigned responsibilities and tenure. The literature
suggests that there is some role confusion due to the campus
climate and conflicting pressures, and that identity ques
tions continue to plague deans of students and the student
10
personnel p r o f e s s i o n.25 The nature of students and their
activities seems to have changed sufficiently that there is
some question whether or not the student personnel pro
fession is meeting the changing needs and desires of the
students.
B. Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of
institutional growth and societal influences on the position
of dean of students in institutions of higher education. It
was maintained that changes in the dean's position have beer
influenced by four factors. These are: one, the decline
in the paternalistic relationship between the dean and
students; two, greater student involvement in university
governance; three, increasing managerial requirements on
the chief administrative officers, including the dean of
students; and, four, an increasing degree of conflicting
expectations of the dean of students.
25j. f . Kauffman, "New Challenges to Student
Personnel Work," NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970):12;
L. K. Rothman and C. B. Kennen, "Machines, People,
and Ideas: In Quest of Clarification of the Role of
the Professional Student Personnel Worker," NASPA
Journal 7 (January 1970):143-50; T. R. McConnell,
l k Student Personnel Services - Central or Peripheral?"
NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970):55-63; S. T. Rickard, "The
Role of the Chief Student Personnel Administrator Re
visited," NASPA Journal 9 (January 1972):219-26; and,
R. D. Patzer, "The Student Personnel Administrator:
Pusillanimous Pussycat or Tempestuous Tiger," NASPA
Journal 9 (January 1972):235-42.
JJL
It is a second purpose of this study to develop a
description of the position of dean of students. The point
of this is to provide a benchmark against which future
changes in scope, function or effectiveness of the dean of
students can be measured. The description also aids an
understanding of the position. The description involves
five areas: one, the location of formal power within aca
demic institutions and the relationship of the dean of
students to that power? two, the status of the dean within
the academic administrative hierarchy; three, the relation
ship of the dean and the president; four, the relationship
of the dean and the faculty? and, five, the relationship
of the dean and the students.
These issues are not dealt with sequentially? they
appear in various locations as the data are presented.
The main analysis occurs in chapters two through five,
and are organized around the dean's relationship to other
administrative officers, the faculty, and students. And
while the issues listed here inform that discussion, they
do not define the chapter heading.
The remainder of this chapter provides methodological
notes.
C. Research Note
The study was conducted in four stages: the first was
a review of the literature relating to student personnel in
higher education. The review covered evidence on the role,
12
status, and historical development of the position of dean
of students and student personnel work.
The second stage was aimed at understanding the sub
ject institutions. This was accomplished in three ways:
first, by visiting the campus; second, by reviewing the
campus newspapers for the years 1963 to 1972; and, third
by reviewing material which appeared in the Los Angeles
Times for the same period. The review of the campus news
papers was particularly important in that it outlined the
particular history of each institution, identified past
and present factors critical to the development of each,
which if probed might lead to a better understanding of
the institution and the position of dean of students.
The events themselves were not central to the study but
helped frame questions pertinent to the study. Among the
events examined at each institution, crisis situations
were particularly valuable, for it is "in the nonroutine
matters - that is, in crisis - that...its workings (are)
revealed."26
The third stage was to interview key people iden
tified in the previous contact with each institution.
There were three purposes to these interviews. First,
^otten, University Authority and the Student: the
Berkeley Experience, pT xi.
13
discussions led to more focused questioning about the dean
of students. Second, the informants were able to substan
tiate or correct information gleaned from newspapers and
provide some depth to the circumstances surrounding key
incidents and the dean's relationship to them. And third,
these individuals supplied important documentation and the
names of other respondents.
The first thirty interviews, thirteen at Los Angeles,
eight at Northridge, and nine at Long Beach were conducted
informally using an interview guide, a sample of which is
provided in the appendix. In the period following these
interviews, the data were analyzed to sharpen the questions
of the study and to determine additional respondents and
lines of questioning. These interviews also subsequently
supplied data on specific aspects of the study.
The fourth stage was to interview a range of faculty
members and administration personnel identified from the
previous stage. Certain key student body officers and
graduates were consulted as well.
The interviews were conducted between the summer of
19 72 and fall of 1973. The introductory and exploratory
interviews took place primarily in the summer of 1972
followed by other interviews in the summer and fall of
1973. A few follow-up conversations took place during
the writing. A total of seventy-eight formal interviews
were held with seventy-six individuals, twenty-six at
___________ 14
Northridge, twenty-seven at Long Beach, and twenty-
three at Los Angeles. Twenty-eight respondents were
in student affairs positions, twenty were administra
tors from other administrative units, twenty were
faculty and eight were students, alumni or former
university employees.
During the field work and analysis, notes or
memoranda were written in a number of areas, raising
questions, suggesting possible avenues of analysis,
possible lines of questioning and the like. During
the actual field work, this activity was particularly
heavy. These notes and those taken during the inter
views served as the principle daily guide to the inter
views and became part of a field diary. Upon completion
of the interview and campus visitation portion of the
study, the data were analyzed.
This outline indicates the study was exploratory
and has a non-quantitative emphasis. The strategy
is well described by Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean:
Sometimes quantitative data are difficult,
almost impossible, to obtain; sometimes the
relationships we want to examine are not ex
plicit; often the problem is in the explora
tory stages of research; or perhaps we want
to elaborate qualitative data on an individual
case history. For these or other reasons, the
more structured methods are not in order. Among
the most frequent uses of observation and inter
viewing are the following: testing of hypotheses
where structured methods cannot be employed;
reconstruction of an event or a series of events;
15
case histories of an individual, an organiza
tion, or even a community; and pilot inquiries
into new problem areas where the purpose is the
production of hypotheses rather than the verifi
cation of them.27
The researcher, not being bound by prejudgments, can re
formulate the problem as the research progresses.28 ^
further advantage is that the analysis can take place
"sequentially," that is, while data are still being
collected, allowing the study to alter direction in
response to earlier w o r k .29 in addition, issues can be
explored with greater sensitivity and flexibility,
resulting in richer data.
The main disadvantage is that the data are not
standardized so interpretation is more likely to be
subjective and beyond the reader's examination.
D. Review of the Literature
The review of the literature was conducted in the
areas of the history of student affairs and the dean of
27John P. Dean, Robert L. Eichhorn, and Lois
R. Dean, "Observations and Interviewing," in An
Introduction to Social Research, 2d ed., edited by
John T. Doby (New Yorks Appleton, Century, Crofts,
1967), p. 274.
28ibid., p. 275.
29Howard S. Becker, Sociological Work (Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company1970) , p. 27.
16.
students, the roles and duties of the dean of students,
and organizational behavior of universities. The histori
cal development was reviewed in section A of this chapter.
\
Most of the books and articles, particularly those dealing
with the dean of students, are the compilation of judg
ment of experts and practitioners and not research.
An important study by Dutton, Appleton, and Birch
explored the assumptions and beliefs of faculty, university
presidents, students, and dean of students on important
issues in higher education and their perceptions of the
role of dean of students.30 Questionnaires were distrib
uted on over 700 member institutions of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Among the
more important findings were these. Substantial support
was found for a role of dean of students that includes a
strong commitment to students rather than to administrative
tasks, which avoids conflicts with students, and permits
the dean to help students, be accessible to them, be a
counselor and serve as an advocate for students. Con
siderable support was also found for having the dean's own
personal values guide the dean's behavior rather than the
3^Thomas B. Dutton, James R. Appleton, and
Edward E. Birch, Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected
Members of the Academic Community, Bloomington: A Special
Report of the NASPA Division of Research and Program
Development, (April 1970) , pp. 5-13.
. 1 7 .
dictates of the president. Also, students more than other
respondents expressed greater support for the dean's com
mitment to students and non-involvement in control and
discipline. Presidents attached more importance to
administrative tasks, the integration of counseling and
discipline, and the maintaining of institutional values
and standards. The dean was found to function among
widely conflicting expectations with the result of role
ambiguity, confusion, and occasional conflict with other
members of the academic community. Further, deans were
seen as being highly supportive of student involvement in
the institutional decision-making processes.
In a 2 year in-depth study of 19 colleges and univer
sities, Hodgkinson found animosity between deans of
students and business officers, both of whom are seen as
"service" personnel by faculty. 31 Faculty tended to fear
the influence and access of the business officer to the
president but not the dean. Further, there was confusion
on the part of both faculty and administration as to
whether the dean of students was a high or low position.
They had difficulty "psyching out" the dean's overall posi
tion, many seeing the dean's office as the locus of student
Harold L. Hodgkinson, "How Deans of Students Are
Seen by Others - and Why?" NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970):
49-63.
18
behavior values which adults wished students to adopt,
although most students didn't. Hodgkinson found a rather
consistent expectation that the dean is to keep the lid
on student activities, an expectation which produces role
conflict.
A 1963 study by Rodgers using the critical incident
technique attempted to identify critical functions and
effective and ineffective behavior of deans of students.32
Specific findings included the following: (1) deans in
smaller institutions do more counseling than those in
larger institutions? (2) deans in smaller institutions are
comparatively ineffective in developing cooperative
relationships? (3) deans in larger institutions are more
ineffective in conducting investigations of student mis
conduct than those in smaller institutions? (4) deans do
not consistently take the initiative to provide leadership
and information to students? (5) deans do not consistently
take the initiative in communicating the reasons for their
decisions to all concerned parties? (6) deans are con
sistently successful when working with individual
32Allan Winfield Rodgers, "An Investigation of the
Critical Aspects of the Function of the Student Personnel
Dean as Seen by His Professional Peers Using the Critical
Incident Technique" (Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1963).
_________ 19
disciplinary problems; (7) deans are not consistently
successful in their dealings with student groups, partic
ularly fraternity and sorority disciplinary problems;
(8) deans are involved in public relations with a wide
variety of people, particularly the press; (9) deans are
not consistently aware that any action they take exerts
influence on the consideration of their effectiveness as
judged by their peers; and (10) deans do not consistently
analyze and evaluate all areas of their responsibilities to
develop policies and provide organizational direction.
Deans are most effective when working personally with all
phases of in-service training.
A 1961 study by Reynolds surveyed current practices
of student personnel officers and the dean's relationship
to certain personnel functions, as well as the appropriate
ness of those functions as seen by the incumbents.33
A survey of titles in use and the placement of the position
in the organizational hierarchy was also included. The
sample included only small liberal arts colleges. The
study found that significant growth in the student person
nel services under a chief student personnel officer had
occurred since World War II. Most chief student personnel
33william McClellan Reynolds, "The Role of the
Chief Student Personnel Officer in the Small Liberal Arts
College" (Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961).
20
officers reported to the president. The functions most
often performed were personal counseling, discipline, and
student records. The study also found support for the
expectation that the role of the chief student personnel
officer in small institutions would differ from the role in
large institutions.
Smith, in a study to determine the duties and
responsibilities of the dean of students, found the areas
of responsibility of the dean in order of frequency to be
discipline, orientation, student government, fraternities,
sororities, housing, financial aid, counseling, foreign
students, activities, testing, placement, health services,
student union, veteran’s affairs, security and traffic,
admissions, special therapy clinics, food services, and
registration.34 The major portion of the dean's time was
spent in individual counseling, supervision of the student
personnel program, committee work, public relations,
administration of the personnel program, and coordinating
personnel services with academic departments. The author
also predicted the dean's increasing involvement with
administration at the expense of personal contact with
individual students.
34Richard Jacob Smith, "A Study of the Role of the
Dean of Students and His Administrative Relationships in
a Selected Sample of Colleges and Universities"
(Dissertation, University of Colorado, 1961).
21
Fitzgerald, in 1959, attempted to determine the per
ceptions of student personnel services held by staff mem
bers with instructional responsibilities.35 Faculty in
this study perceived these services to be important for the
achievement of the purposes of higher education; however,
the degree of importance accorded specific functions
paralleled the services relationship to the academic pur
poses of higher education. The study also found that more
supportive responses came from faculty who worked closely
with student organizations.
Two organizational studies were particularly useful for
this research. The first, a study of faculty culture by
Sklar, examined the responses of faculty members to a par
ticular incident of student activism and the way faculty
dealt with the conflict.36 it was an exploratory study
using fieldwork data gathering techniques and methods of
analysis. The second is Baldridge1s study of New York
University in which he developed a political model of the
university.37 it is an intensive investigation of an
^Laurine Elisabeth Fitzgerald, "A Study of Faculty
Perceptions of Student Personnel Services" (Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1959).
36gernard Sklar, "Faculty Culture and Community
Conflict: The University of Wisconsin" (Dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1969).
37j. Victor Baldridge, Power and Conflict in the
University (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971),
pp. 54-67.
22
organization in a field setting. Further, it is explora
tory and utilizes a variety of techniques in an attempt to
provide a wholistic picture of the institution and its
dynamics. Interviews, document study, and questionnaires
were research methods employed.
E. Organization of the Dissertation
The remainder of this study will be concerned with
the presentation and analysis of data on the position of
dean of students collected at the subject institutions.
Chapter II will present an overview of the position of dean
of students on each of the subject c a m p u s e s .38 chapter
III will present data on the relationship of the dean and
the administration of the institution. Data on the
relationship between the dean and the faculty will be
presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V will present data on
the students and the student environment as it relates to
the dean. Chapter VI will present a summary and statement
of implications.
38«rhe appendix contains a description of the subject
institutions, their histories, and administrative arrange
ments.
22
II. AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the evolu
tion of the position of dean of students on the three
subject campuses. This overview focuses on the pressures
and changes which have surrounded the development of the
dean’s role.
This history has been divided into three periods; the
early formative years, the years of activism, and the post
activism period. It is important to stress that these
periods are not exclusive nor discrete; any historian is
faced with difficult problems of demarcation in defining
epochs. Still, each period has distinctive characteristics
which separate some chronological events from others.
A. The Early Formative Years
This period refers to the years when the subject
institutions were small and in their first years of exist
ence, and embraces 1947 through about 1965. The insti
tutions were without well-defined identities and had
not developed the academic characteristics and programs
for which they are now known. Administrative patterns and
__________________________________________________________________________ 2A
programs including the student personnel program were yet
to be defined and developed. The campuses were quiet with
little conflict among students, faculty and administration.
As personnel of the colleges describe them, the campuses
and their curricular and student affairs functions were
quite traditional.
A former dean of students viewed those early days as
emulating an earlier and more traditional environment
characteristic of more mature institutions.
Campus life was going in [the] direction, typical of
the '50s, if not going back to an earlier time,
because the larger institutions were going away from
dormitory and sorority life before we were aware of
that here. I'm thinking in terms of student life
and the annual queen, the pageant, kind of a rah-rah
approach to things.39
The small size and relaxed atmosphere allowed students
and the dean to work closely in a personal, face-to-face
manner. A faculty member from the original faculty ob
served the dean could
...work very closely with the students....And you
would frequently see him with most of the students
and that he was dealing with the officers of the
student body. I think that his main concern was
trying to get things done for the students' benefit „
and it would be simple for him to do this...because
he could go directly to the sources. And we weren't
3^The names of respondents and their institutions are
not identified in order to protect the anonymity of the
respondents, a condition frequently requested. Names are
edited out of quotations for the same reason.
25
too concerned with stepping on toes or going through
channels or this sort of thing.
Another veteran faculty member also recalled one relaxed,
friendly and personal encounter.
Students were agreeable. I can recall them calling
me and asking me if I would take over a fraternity as
a sponsor. That seemed to be the sort of thing, to
get some faculty participation. Of course, we were
so much smaller at that time, but the job didn't seem
as complex and it would seem like a relaxed, interest
ing position.
The deans themselves tended to reflect this view of the
campus and student life. A faculty leader not particularly
friendly to the student affairs function recalls an early
dean as
...more relaxed than the other two deans. His
operations ran themselves with no deliberate
design. He was a friend to everybody, shuffly,
relaxed, confident.
Hand-in-hand with the relaxed, friendly atmosphere of
the campus was, however, the parental relationship between
the dean of students and the students. As a campus his
torian observed:
In the old days, the dean was an independent
entity. He reported directly to the president.
He was the chaplain for the students. A thing
apart. These were the days of parental rights.
This notion, commonly referred to as in loco parentis, is
perhaps one of the more dominant motifs of the early
dean's role. The dean, acting on behalf of the institu
tion and "in place of the parents" was able to make and
enforce social and activity regulations, decide on academic
26
and social petitions, and counsel students. The
institution depended on the dean to handle these matters
and left him alone in that task. An academic administra
tor stated: "The Dean of Students' Office was run with a
firm paternal hand."
"The firm paternal hand" implied discipline. Discipli
nary problems tended to revolve around social regulations
and acceptable conduct, concentrating on minor offenses.
A faculty member described an activities dean as being
concerned with "... the behavior of students, drinking on
campus and that sort of thing."
The style of the dean tended to be more directive than
non-directive which resulted in the dean telling students
more what to do than using the counseling approach. Some
campus members saw this posture as more authoritarian than
directive. A veteran administrator noted:
The original dean was very much concerned with
translating authoritative attitudes of the original
president. He was not as accessible as his succes
sors. He tended to allow the office to protect him
from the daily contact. And he depended a lot on
the title to protect him from entangling relation
ships.
A student affairs director concurred:
I would say that [early dean] did not see himself
as a spokesman of the students, and he wasn't. He
was the one between the president and the student
who would take more of a totalitarian type role.
And while the dean may not have been the spokes
person for the students, he nevertheless represented
27
them in a variety of settings. In reviewing the approach
of a dean in the early 1960's, an influential student
affairs director observed:
[Dean] had a background in psychological counseling.
I think that was reflected in the way he played the
role of dean of students. He was a dean for students
and represented them to the administration.
At the same time, the representative role was not always
admired by faculty. One explained:
The dean of students frequently finds himself as
an advocate of students against the faculty and
faculty standards and judgments, academic stan
dards, probation, petitions, ratings and the like.
The situation evolves to one of standards-facuity
versus human judgments, the dean of students. He
thus is an advocate for inferior standards.
B. The Years of Student Activism
This period refers to those years following the stu
dent disturbances at the University of California at
Berkeley in 1964, disturbances related to the political
concerns of racial equality, the war in Southeast Asia,
and the assertion of student rights. It was also a time
of rapid growth in these institutions' facilities, budgets
and student bodies. Significant numbers of "new" stu
dents, primarily from ethnic groups and lower class back
grounds, entered with this general expansion.
The traditional disciplinary and control function
was carried through this period by the dean of students as
an essential role characteristic. However, it was modified
by the style, scope and focus of student activism and the
28
challenge of differing value systems held by the "new"
students to the academy. The old authoritarian approach
ceased to be effective as students denied colleges and
universities the right to deal with their personal lives,
especially as they were related to the university in a
manner which the students considered arbitrary. Demands
for student rights began to produce written rules and regu1
lations, elaborate structures for the development and
enforcement of those rules, and legalistic procedures for
coping with disciplinary situations.
The challenges to the old order were abrupt and
caught most institutions off-guard and ill-prepared. One
student affairs director observed:
When it first got into problems, the college had
no capacity to handle it. It still was up to the
friendly dean to tell the students to shape up.
There were no lawyers or legal manuevering. It
became obviously necessary to cope with this thrust.
They had to develop a structure and procedures.
Deans were not able to adequately cope with new student
behaviors by making superficial revisions in the old rules
and procedures.
Concern for individual discipline rapidly changed to
the need to control large scale crises. "Crisis manage
ment" became the watchword of the day. A former dean of
students reflected:
We had turmoil in the dormitory at that time. We
tried as best we could to work these things out.
We had a good deal of civil disturbance in which
the police were involved. We had a liaison with
29
the police, and [attempted] to deal with things in
a rational way. It's very difficult to do that
when you start at 4 a.m. or 2 a.m. when the building's
burning. You do just what prudent people would do
under those circumstances.... [W]e attempted to anti
cipate and to deal in sensible ways with the pressures
that were on education at that time.
A president recalled his experiences with activists:
[W] e had many problems having to do with
the Black Student Union, now the Pan-African
Union, and the Chicanos were starting to move
in a more militant style. And, of course, the
problems that we had were no different from those
other campuses were experiencing, but, nonetheless,
they were here. As a matter of fact, I spent more
time on the Open Forum addressing thousands of stu
dents than sitting in this office.
In the view of one senior academic administrator, crisis
enhanced, for a time at least, the role and importance of
the dean of students precisely because of the possible im
pact of his actions and responsibilities on the president
and therefore the institution.
We saw the role of the dean of students emerge into
a stronger position during the 1968, '69, '70, '71
years. The presidents learned that if they were
delegating something to the area of student affairs
and that person was dropping the ball, the presi
dent's head might also roll, and certainly if it
didn't roll, he had a lot of trouble on his hands.
So, theoretically, the dean of students is a very
important person.
The pressure of student demands and action heightened
both the control function of the dean of students and his
advocacy function. Advocacy was consistently one of the
most discussed new aspects of the dean's role in this
period by respondents in the study. One dean of students
from this period declared, "[F]irst of all I was...an
___________________________________________ 3 _ 0 _
advocate of students. I was working with students in kind
of an ombudsman role." Another dean of students stressed
student advocacy.
You have to have an advocate for students. There
must be a person to develop programs for students
in areas where student personnel workers can be
more attuned. It is more important now than ever.
Students want to have counselors. The minority
students [have] set up a micro-personnel service
unit. It is more important now than ever because
of changes in the community, problems on campuses,
and a lot of frustration about the kinds of things
happening in society. We need advocates most.
The advocacy role is not without its conflicts and
disadvantages. The very rapport that is necessary to
serve in an advocacy position caused, at times, suspicion
among the dean's colleagues. This faculty distrust is an
extension, perhaps more intense at this time than the dis
trust described in the earlier period. As was also
observed earlier, advocacy can suggest the support of one
party against the interests or perceived interests of
another, and in some instances, that is how the faculty
viewed the dean of students' role. An academic adminis
trator and faculty member noted:
[Dean] was accessible to students, did relate to
them, was the champion of students, champion of
flexibility in academics, but he was outside the
major academic policy hub. The faculty were often
surprised by his proposals.
A department head and former Academic Senate chairman was
more direct: "At times the dean is in opposition to the
faculty, particularly in grievance problems. Most
faculty feel that's the way the dean is here."
_________________________________________________ 31.
The conflict suggested by an advocacy role can also
reflect the perceptions of students and administrators as
well. A student affairs director noted the expectations of
students.
Theoretically, the dean is in an advocacy role, but
he can't always function that way because of his ad
ministrative duties. The students feel he should be
a student advocate.
Whatever the differences of opinion as to the proper
role or actions expected from the dean of students, crisis
and activism placed him in the middle of the action. A
director made these comments about a dean of students in
this environment.
[Dean] was ideal for the times of student activism
and demonstrations which demanded that you get out
and get where the action is. [Dean] demanded that
of his staff. That was new. [Dean] was extremely
effective in that type of environment. He was very
much at-ease or at least appeared to be outwardly
[while] in the middle of a demonstration. He was
very effective.
A veteran faculty member noted that the dean was the "man
in the middle," caught in the crossfire which resulted
from differing expectations and mistrust.
I'm sure the dean of students... is caught in the
middle. He's got students on one side saying,
"why aren't these things being done right now,"
and the administration saying, "We're doing this,
tell them to ease off." Neither side believes
things are being done.
The issues with which universities had to deal
during this period were varied and reflected concerns
much wider than the university and local issues. A
chief academic officer catalogued some of the problems
______________________________________________________________ 32
with which the dean contended:
...The Vietnam war, the vociferous nature of the
number of rightwing organizations as well as the
left, the demand by students for more control of
student government, the demand of students for
greater input into the decision-making process
relative to the Dean of Students Office, a greater
voice in disciplinary problems and, indeed, within
the area of financial allocations to areas below the
Dean of Students Office...
A former student body president during the late
1960's noted with sympathy the problems of university
students with which the dean contended:
[Dean] was very sensitive to the minority problems
when it wasn't in fashion to be so sensitive. And
during that period he dealt extremely well with
their problems, more so than any dean of students
in the country was able to deal with them. He did
some exciting and experimental things during that
period, but again it was one crisis after another.
And everything that he did was a stop-gap measure
to prevent future crises.
Despite the pressing need to manage crisis and deal
with a number of seemingly unanswerable questions, deans
initiated programs designed to meet specific age or back
ground problems typical of the student population. For
example, they started programs in racial sensitivity,
community action, ombudsman roles, drug abuse and remedial
programs for disadvantaged students. An administrator,
describing the dean from the activist period, agreed with
this new emphasis.
[Dean] was more aggressive and innovative than his
predecessor. He was intelligent and had ideas.
His predecessor..., simply kept the shop going.
[Dean] encouraged the staff to innovate which was
a dramatic change.
____________ 33
An academic department head and faculty leader noted:
[Dean] was far better at innovation, new ideas.
He needed someone to work with others to implement
the ideas. Sometimes the faculty felt that maybe
he was overstepping what they thought were the
boundaries of the position. They thought he was
empire building.
This thrust by deans towards the development of edu
cational programs reflected the educational backgrounds of
these deans who typically had degrees in education and psy
chology and held closer association and identification with
professional organizations and activities. As a group they
tended to be more academically oriented than earlier deans,
wrote more articles for professional journals, and spent
more time speaking to the various institutional and pro
fessional publics concerning the issues of student affairs
and higher education.
Another important thrust was emphasis on individual
counseling reflecting both interest in the development of
educational programs and the academic preparation of the
encumbents. A senior administrative officer observed:
I think [Dean] saw his role in terms of developing
counseling and to some extent student activities,
but primarily his interest was in the counseling
area. He was interested in drug problems. He was
interested in personality aberrations, in group pro
cess and the social climate of universities. He had
strong personal interests that were of a professional
nature in guidance and counseling in which he spent
a fair amount of his time.
An experienced student affairs director continued in a
similar vein:
[Dean] is the almost perfect counselor - administrator.
34
It allows him to deal with each individual clinically.
He had people relating positively in a short while,
and he could be reflective and affable with everyone.
He could say no. His one-to-one relationship was
quite excellent and he lived it.
But crisis often precluded the broad application of coun
seling .
[Dean] had more of an academic background. He was
more involved with individual students, counseling,
trying to save the one individual student, working
with their thoughts....Now I am not critical of this,
but it is a different approach. The time that he was
dean of students was often crisis-oriented with one
major problem after another. Just the magnitude of
the problems of that era precluded any sort of pro
gressiveness, or any inter-relationships within the
university.
And a former dean of students reflecting on his counseling
background and orientation, suggested that this orientation
may not be compatible with the administrative requirements
of the position.
The old role, friendly, jovial, paternalistic, is
impossible in large metropolitan schools. I had
over one hundred people [working for me]. I worked
primarily with staff and the community. I couldn1t
see as many students as I used to but if a student
wanted to see me, I would try to schedule him even
if it were early in the morning or late after hours.
There are problems if you come out of the counseling
background. You are torn between administration and
counseling. Some thought this was part of my down
fall, the tension, that I couldn’t use the tension,
that I couldn't use the counseling philosophy.
Administratively, you can't do it. You are too
emotionally involved, too much feeling-oriented,
and not enough expediency-oriented.
The tension between a counseling and educational program
development approach and the requirements of administration
noted in this period, demanded resolution in succeeding
years as calm returned to college campuses and economic
3 _ 5 _
issues moved to the forefront.
C. The Post-Activism Period
This period refers to the early 1970's as student
protest and confrontation began to wane. It is important
to note again that these are not entirely discrete periods
but rather the grouping of events for analytical purposes.
The early 1970's brought an economic downturn in
higher education. Budgets were affected also by declining
enrollment growth rates as interest in college attendance
and the growth rate of the college age pool declined.
Tighter budgets and public demands for administrative
accountability contributed to a greater interest in the
efficient management of institutions. At the same time,
the student environment quieted to the point of apathy.
Yet despite this, discipline and control functions con
tinued to be an important aspect of the dean's role. Stu
dent actions and demands led to the greater codification
and development of student rules and procedures. The com
plexities caused by the large size of the subject institu
tions contributed to the difficulty of managing these
issues. As a result, on all three campuses the dean of
students' role in disciplinary actions became more formal
ized. Despite the formalization, expectations continued
for less structured and more personal intervention actions
by the dean. As one administrator observed, a president
and dean can emphasize that role.
____________________________________________________________ 36
Responding to the president personally is seen
by [dean] as his role. He represents the president
in confrontation, and discipline is a primary role.
All others are subordinated to that.
A student affairs administrator concurred with this expec
tation for the dean by the president.
Presidents still do what presidents historically
did and that is if somebody writes a bad letter...
car uses a bad word in the newspaper, they call the
dean of students in on the carpet because they want
one person to be responsible.
Serving as a buffer between students and the president
has been shown to be a common expectation for the dean and
it continues to be an active element of the role. A veteran
faculty member saw an important historical and contemporary
role in the dean's serving as a buffer between presidents
and the students.
The president counted on the dean of students to keep
the students off of his back so that he could run the
college. In fact, he was the buffer that was expected
to take the hard knocks and answer the questions and,
at times, control the situation so that it didn't get
out of hand.
The situations which require a buffer or middle-man were
described by one president.
He's got a diverse constituency; veterans, Mexican-
Americans, Blacks and some of them don't like each
other, are competitive with each other. We've had
some political rivalries and feuding. The last few
years some of the officers [have been] feuding tre
mendously with each other.
This president's description suggests a continuing
advocacy role for the dean produced by conflicting interests
within the student body. Certainly the infusion of "new"
22
students into the university contributes to a dispersion
of student expectations. A young administrator with
experience in the student culture, contended that the
advocacy role is still viable. Its viability stems from
the lack of consistent student access to the higher adminis
trative levels where most decisions are made.
Decisions are still made in the higher councils and
the major decision in any university is how money is
allocated and if it weren't for [dean] in there bat
ting for every cent that he gets for student related
programs, I would guess that a substantial number of
these programs would not have been funded. Secondly,
one of the greatest problems which plagues student
government is the lack of continuity. The need for
an advocate is still there.
A faculty member also saw a continuing advocacy role
despite changes in governance which grant students a
large role which has been defaulted because of the un
willingness or inability of students to take advantage
of these new opportunities.
I guess my answer to that would have to be that
they don't avail themselves....We want them to be
a participating member of this institution, [but]
you cannot get them to attend. So I really think
that when all is said and done, it's still the dean
of students who is there to solve the problems and
lend a sympathetic ear that the kid needs.
While advocacy in the sense of "pleading in favor
of" continues to describe this aspect of the dean of
students' contemporary role, the corollary notion of
mediation, that is, "intervention between conflicting
parties to promote compromise," emerged as a more impor
tant role. A veteran administrator who works closely with
_______________________38
students discussed the difficulty of surviving within
the complexity of differing interests while mediating
those interests and relating them to the management of
student-oriented resources.
[As to] the problems of our civilization, the
changing value system, the difficulty of trying
to be honest with thirty thousand students in
terms of what they feel on important issues of the
day, and direct contrast of the administrative
responsibility of the institution; I think that
the dean of students probably has the toughest job
on campus. Trying to be straight forward with stu
dents and at the same time held responsible for
keeping the peace. Seeing that budgets are properly
implemented and that the roles are abided by.
Student government falls directly in the sole respon
sibility of the dean of students, and of course with
this happening this is where the conflict really hits.
This is where your student activists perform. And
[dean] is in the very, very difficult...position of
trying to keep faith with them as individuals and
human beings, as militant representatives of their
groups, in carrying out his basic charge from the
president; frankly, keeping the president out of
trouble.
Survival, he went on, requires a management approach to
the delivery of student services.
I think that management is the only way we are going
to survive. I think that the services that are pro
vided by the dean of students at a major university
campus are so complex, the dollars that are handled
are so great, that if you don't use management tech
niques, there is no way you can make it.
The increased interest in management, as noted above,
does seem to be the most noticeable and, perhaps, important
orientation change in the position of dean of students. An
academic dean with over twenty years in office traces the
evolution of the role as progressing "from father figure to
counselor to manager." A former dean of students in a
_________________________________________________________________________ 3-9-
different administrative capacity concurred while stressing
its negative implications. "Deans of students have become
functionaries rather than educators. They have become
storekeepers." A Faculty Senate chairman viewed the
change as a movement from dealing with students on an
individual basis to dealing with broad policy issues.
Deans of students dealt with problems with students
individually and not on the policy-making level.
I see a much more policy-making kind of level in
the present organization of the Office of the Dean
of Students.
An academic administrator concurred, stressing the change
from a personal delivery of services to a systematic and
non-personal delivery system, from a counselor to a
manager.
I think [personal assistance] is still needed,
because there are many occasions when a student
has a run-in with the faculty and needs support
of his parents and so on. But, you see, a great
deal of the personal relationship has been taken
off. He has a huge staff and when there is a pro
blem with one of the faculty, he goes to one of his
staff, not to the faculty member. I think [dean]
has deliberately done that, diffused as well as
defused, spreading responsibility among his staff.
Of course, [dean] has a bigger staff than [former
dean] ever did. I'm sure a division of labor has
taken place so that [dean] doesn't have as many
aspects to handle personally as he used to. He is
much more of a manager.
Consistently, deans of students were criticized for
their lack of attention to the management implications
of the role. A business vice-president noted this his
torical neglect while tracing the evolution of the role
of dean of students from advocacy to management.
40
I believe that it is a managerial position today.
The dean of students has to be a managerial person
because of the various areas he is responsible for.
It is essential to a large operation. Generally you
will find that student personnel operations have not
been well managed. He is a manager of services
that are essential to the student. The dean of
students to me is no longer like he was fifteen
years ago, a spokesman for the student.
In a similar vein, a chief academic planner noted:
I think that the position has become much more
management oriented and that there is more of
an organizational approach to fulfilling the
total function.
A chief administrative vice-president concurred with the
historical neglect of administration by deans of students.
He should bring to the job a different perspective.
He may not be in day-to-day intimate contact with
students but he commands the staff that are and that
student perspective ought to be represented. That's
where a lot of deans of students flunked out. They
don't recognize the management tasks that they have.
They are totally unprepared for that. They come out
of this counselor thing, the ideal model for the
counselor is one-to-one, sitting in an office on an
appointment kind of arrangement. The counselor that
comes out of that kind of background and who has that
as the ideal application for his professional skill
and is thrust into the dean of students situation is
not prepared.
He noted further the managerial approach which the current
dean of students brought to the position.
He came in as part of the new administration after
ten years of the previous administration, and during
a period of probably the height of student unrest.
We were all eager to...deal with the student unrest
problem and maintain the direction and vitality and
social acceptance and financial support and academic
credibility in the institution. He began to try to
administer student services, to deal with the pro
blem. He was much more interested in and willing
to work with student discipline, to react vigorously
and positively to the confrontations of the students.
41
He attempted to build a team effort in the student
services. He was very vigorous in his own regard,
not so intellectual, not so academically oriented
as [former dean] is....
Another senior administrator from the same institution
continued.
I think the concept of what the position is has
completely changed. It has changed in a way which
seems to be a trend in the country. That is the
concept of...a vice-president for student affairs
rather than a dean of students who reports to some
one else in turn. And that student affairs, like
academic affairs or business affairs, has long been
recognized as being a top echelon management
position. There has been a coming trend of higher
education to treat student affairs as this as well.
I suppose that in a way this unravels back to every
thing that we were trying to do here and much in
higher education since the first fuss at Berkeley
which somehow fired the awareness that the student
is more important....
A president shared his views of the nature of the position
noting that the dean of students can no longer be the
"friendly old dean" but must deal with the problems of a
very large and complex organization.
I think that the vice-president for student affairs
has to be primarily a management of resources position.
He can't just be friendly old Dean Fuddy-Duddy who is
smoking a pipe and being a pal to all the students.
He has to manage a large-scale operation of about
250 individuals that are extremely sensitive in
terms of everything that they do. You're talking
about millions of dollars in financial aid; you're
talking about veterans' affairs, an ex-felon program,
a current felon program; you're talking about Project
Share, the handicapped, the Mexican-Americans, MECHA,
Blacks, Asian-Americans, the native Americans, and
so forth, besides the government of the Associated
Students which has its own complexities, the health
services. These are all pressure points.
42
D. Summary
In their early years, the subject campuses were
small, quiet and relaxed with a rather traditional
approach to student life. The dean of students opera
ted on a face-to-face basis with students; relations were
friendly. In loco parentis was the cornerstone of the
dean's position towards students. The dean's style
tended to be directive and, while he represented them in
a variety of settings, he did not act as advocate or
spokesman. The institution allowed the dean to operate
very much on his own in the student affairs area.
With student activism came a change in tone, inten
sity and style of the campuses. Discipline and control
of students continued to be a major concern for the dean's
role but the situation had changed. As the "father figure"
role became inappropriate, student rules and regulations
became formalized. Disciplinary problems became compara
tively more serious and numerous, and crisis management
became the administrative focus. Student protest and
disturbances brought greater administrative interest in
student life. A more aggressive new role for the dean of
students developed in response to student demands and
awareness. The role was not without its conflicts as
the dean found himself between conflicting interests and
expectations of students, students and administration,
and students and faculty. Activism required that deans
4 3
and institutions deal with new issues which frequently
crossed the campus boundaries into the national and
international political arenas. Deans were more aca
demically and professionally oriented and developed new
programmatic and counseling components of the role. The
administrative processes were secondary to these role
developments.
At the same time, the Vietnam War ended, student
energies subsided, the campuses became quieter. For the
deans, discipline continued to be a significant problem
but was dealt with in a formalized manner consistent with
the extensive development and codification of student
rules, procedures and rights. Deans continued to serve
as control agents in many cases and as a buffer for the
president and administration. Advocacy continued to be
an important but secondary function. Increasingly caught
between administration and students, faculty and students,
J
and students and students, mediation claimed the greatest
amount of the dean's attention. Size, complexity, and
economic pressures moved the dean away from providing
individual assistance towards the systematic delivery of
services on a less personal basis. Deans dealt less with
students and more with policy, and supervised supervisors
rather than students. The dominant aspect of the dean's
role became the management of resources.
44
III. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AND THE ADMINISTRATION
This chapter concentrates on the relationship
between the dean of students and the university adminis
tration. The purpose is to understand the conditions in
which a dean of students operates, the factors which en
hance or hinder his effectiveness, and his ability to
influence the institutional environment. The analysis
reveals the dean of students1 status in relation to other
major figures in the administration and suggests reasons
for that placement. But though the dean1s position can in
part be attributed to his formal location in an hierarchy,
much of his effective influence is determined informally.
That is to say, his personal style, especially the way he
relates to other administrators, is critical to understand
ing his position.
A. Hierarchical Ranking
A number of authors have suggested a status differen
tial between the dean of students and other senior adminis
trative officers. Hodgkinson reported that deans were
viewed by a range of individuals "less with fear and more
45
s n e e r ."40 Bursch reports that while the dean of students
is considered a general administrator and is frequently a
member of the president's cabinet, "he is frequently
excluded from the council to the academic administrators,
and characteristically ranks below the dean of faculty and
with [or a shade below] the other academic deans.
Quite consistently with these are the findings of Ingraham
which indicate that deans of students are more dissatisfied
with their status within their institution than are other
officers.^2 informants for this study frequently reflected
a similar view.
The student affairs organizations at the subject
institutions varied in the number of functions reporting to
the dean of students and the stability of that number, the
reporting channel of the dean of students and the stability
of the reporting channel, and explicit statements of value
both written and verbal.^3 it is important to note, how
ever, that despite differences in scope of responsibilities
^ H o d g k i n s o n , "How Deans of Students Are Seen by
Others - and Why," p. 50.
4 3 - B u r s c h , "The Vice-President or Dean of Students,"
p. 145.
42Mark Ingraham, The Mirror of Brass (Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), p. 225.
43see the description of the subject institutions and
their student affairs units in the appendix.
46
and level of support by the central administration, the
status with respect to other senior administrative per
sonnel had some commonalities among the institutions.
In addition, respondents' assessment of status tended to
be similar regardless of the level or nature of the re
spondents' position within the institution.
An administrative vice-president who had also been a
long-time faculty member suggested the following ranking:
I think the formal pecking order and the informal
pecking order match pretty closely. And it would
run like this: the president, vice-president for
academic affairs, vice-president for administrative
affairs, vice-president for student affairs.
A veteran student affairs officer on the same campus largely
echoed this assessment.
Unofficially the president relies heavily on...
the vice-president for foundations for advice on
many things such as public affairs, community,
legislators. I would say other than that, the
pecking order is the president, the vice-president
for academic affairs, vice-president for adminis
tration, and the dean of students.
A president, while maintaining a fairly neutral pos
ture, did make the following description of his organization
which placed the dean of students last among his immediate
staff for purposes of serving as acting-president in the
absence of the president.
I think that the fact that we do have a kind of line
of responsibility in my absence might indicate some
thing in regard to the importance that I do attach to
the dean of students. We have an operational policy
that in my absence, of course, the executive vice-
president is the chief executive officer of the
campus. In his absence, the dean of the university
4 7 .
is the top academic officer. In his absence the
vice-president for business and administration,
and in his absence, the dean of students.
A faculty member and former chairman of the Academic Senate
noted the ranking and the general function of each adminis
trator and suggested that the decline of student activism
has actually reduced the dean's role in institutional
management from a high point achieved when activism was
dominant.
I think there is not much doubt that [executive vice-
president] is the number two man. In fact, (he) is,
in effect, acting-president. [President's] actions
are externally oriented in relation to the Chancellor's
Office, with the Trustees, with the community....
[Executive vice-president] and [chief academic
officer]... tend to pretty much oversee the internal
operation of the school. I don't see evidence that
[dean of students] is playing nearly as prominent
a role in the last year or so as he did two or three
years before.
A student affairs assistant dean with several years
experience made this assessment.
[0]rganizational chart-wise it goes like this:
president, the executive vice-president, business
vice-president,...and dean of the university. Then
there's the dean of students. The dean's last there.
[M]y perception is that the three are about equal -
the executive vice-president, the dean of the univer
sity, and the vice-president for business. And [dean]
is definitely an outsider, a loner. And by low-man
I don't mean just right below them, but certainly
in their eyes, way below them. They really make him
the butt of the executive staff.
A young colleague concurred. "The dean is not very high.
There are five people on the cabinet counting the president
and the dean is last."
48
A senior officer noted that the salaries reflected
his understanding of the relative status of the senior
administrators on his campus.
In just the financial arrangements, the president
is the highest. The executive vice-president and
the business vice-president are the vice-presidents
in terms of classifications. Next would be [name]
who is chief academic officer. That’s a postion
financially just barely below the vice-presidents
but above the deans. And [dean of students] and
[I] are both dean classifications.
A student affairs director evaluated the status of the
dean of students in this way, again describing him as the
lowest member among the president’s staff, and explaining
why.
Things always surface in the office of the vice-
president of instruction. He’s the busiest guy on
campus. The next busiest guy is the vice-president
of administration because he’s got to make policies
to facilitate all these kinds of problems and hang
ups that are occurring in the instruction office.
The vice-president of student affairs is over here
dealing with extra-curricular activities. He isn’t
of the same stature nor is his voice heard on this
campus until there’s disruption on the campus or
some other matter.
The organization of the Chancellor’s Office at the
state level reveals a consistent hierarchical placement of
the state-wide dean of students in the formal structure.
The six officers reporting directly to the chancellor
do not include the state-wide student affairs officer who
reports to the vice-chancellor, academic affairs. A campus
officer saw this as a reflection of the chancellor’s view
of student affairs.
49
The chancellor doesn*t listen to the dean of students.
He sees the deans as keeping the campuses quiet.
Keeping us out of the newspapers is negative. All
expectations are negative.
A faculty member with extensive experience on the state
wide Academic Senate was more direct.
I was [position] of the State-Wide Academic Senate
and for a couple of years had interesting insights
into the chancellor and the trustees. And I know
that when the chancellor was interested in getting
a state-wide dean of students, he didn't want any
one with the sort of traditional training that deans
of students have. He didn't want any student lover.
[H]e wanted a college president who could get tough
with the faculty and he wanted a dean of students who
would get tough with students and law and order and
suppression and everything else that seems to be the
order of the day.
B. Relation to Institutional Mainstream
A number of the respondents in this study related the
low status of the dean of students to the relationship of
student affairs to the central purpose of these universi
ties, that is, instruction, and the flow of power within
the institution towards instruction. They also related
the low status to conflicting views of the role of stu
dent affairs within the institution. The former explana
tion for the low status of the dean of students is
graphically outlined by an academic administrator who has
frequently moved between administrative and faculty
positions.
[Institution] has a long standing problem with the
dean of students. The problem is really one of
50
information and communications. Student affairs
often operates outside of the...mainstream of aca
demic policy. The dean of students often sets up
his own empire and tries to operate outside of
faculty politics which is almost always a mistake.
Student affairs is on the periphery....
The conflict in the views of the role of student affairs
is clear. An academic administrative view is that student
affairs is not academic and therefore peripheral. The
student affairs view is that the educational efforts of
student affairs are as important as those promoted by the
academic side of the institution.
In an organization such as a large university,
power exists and will be exercised in the daily opera
tions of the institution. An administrative vice-
president noted that the sources of power within an
institution of higher education are varied and include
personal resources, formal authority, control of
resources, and institutional traditions, such as the
role of faculty in governance, faculty-administration
relationships, and the role of the president. He
pointed to the importance of an administrator's academic
background:
I'm tempted to say in part [that the status of the
dean of students is] a product of maturity where
the student affairs function has come to the V.P.
level most recently. Part of it is probably a
function of tradition in institutions and part of
it is probably a quality of the incumbents. We
all come out of an academic background....We all
have academic status and qualifications, retreat
rights within the faculty, which [dean of students]
51
has never had. We've got the doctorates and [dean
of students] hasn't and whether or not that has any
significance, I couldn't say.
Another vice-president in recalling a problem on his
campus between the chief academic and student affairs
officers suggested the outcome depended on the control
of the institutions' resources.
I hypothesize that in an academic administration,
power tends to flow to those individuals who con
trol resources. And that would include the academic
vice-president because he has the tremendous
resources of the faculty and it would go with the
business or administrative function because it is
so deeply involved in the policies and procedures
of accountability and the actual implementing of
financial concerns.
The academic vice-president or whoever is in charge
of the academic program is going to be the number
one power figure below the president because there
is little question that that is what we are all
about. Now when you talk about resources, in the
business area, we work with the budgets and we are
accountable for the funds, but 75 percent of the
resources of this institution are under the control
of the academic vice-president. That is where power
flows.
This view was supported by a third vice-president who
placed both student affairs and business affairs into a
secondary relationship to the university's instruction
purpose, noting, with much ambivalence, the greater
importance of business affairs in the operation of the
institution.
The only raison d'etre for this place is education
and so instruction is in the forefront and the
other things are subordinate. So I get incensed
with business when they are making instructional
decisions. Now the student affairs area to me is
52
a secondary purpose and my bias extends from the
fact that it's adjunct to the main thrust of the
institution.
A faculty member commented on the faculty percep
tion that student affairs was seen as in competition
financially with the instructional program. The point
again is that student affairs is secondary.
It's a case of teaching loads and teaching resources
versus resources available for students. And the
professors take the attitude that classroom
resources, student-teacher ratios and class loads
are the kinds of things that free a professor to
write and to a teacher are more important than
kinds of student support....Everytime you hire a
new person over in student affairs you take away
from the resources in the academic area. It's
very much an in-house competitive system. As long
as it is competing with academic programs, it's seen
as a threat. It's seen as a substitute for crippled
parents. It's seen as frivolous. It's seen as
needless. It's seen as something that ought to be
taken care of by the therapist or the psychiatrist,
not the dean of students.
C. The President
Descriptions of the typical relationship between
the dean of students and the president vary considerably
and include such characterizations as a m b i g u o u s ,^4
^ M c C o n n e l l , "student Personnel Services - Central
or Peripheral?"
53
presidents alter-ego,45 president's man,46 and
independent professional.4 7 Hodgkinson found in his
sample, "No president admitted having any kind of
vital relationship with the dean of students."48
Dutton, Appleton and Birch found that there tends to
be some conflict in expectations for the position
between presidents and deans.49 Whatever the perspec
tive, the writers agree that the president, as the chief
administrative and academic officer has tremendous
potential for influencing the status and effectiveness
of the dean of students. The data collected in this
study strongly support this view.
In supporting the impact of the president, an aca
demic vice-president presented the view that the
45Philip A. Tripp, "The Dean - Leader, Teacher and
Learner," in Conflict and Change in the Academic
Community (Detroit: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, 1970), p. 42.
46John Jay Corson, Governance of Colleges and
Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 64.
4^e . G. Williamson, Student Personnel Services
in Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1961), p. 354.
48Hodgkinson, "How Deans of Students Are Seen
by Others - and Why," p. 5 3.
49Dutton, Appleton, and Birch, Assumptions and
Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Community,
p. 8.
54
perceptions and style of the president will be two of
the most important factors.
It's the president's perceptions that will determine
[the dean of students'] influence on the cabinet.
I think that the style of the president and...his
perceptions as the chief administrator govern the
management functions.
To identify the significance of presidential influence on
a particular function does not insure presidential
concern with that function. Commenting on the selec
tion process for a dean of students who subsequently
experienced a short tenure, a senior student affairs
administrator noted the lack of presidential interest.
The papers were excellent and he was a charming
person. The president displayed very little
interest in this selection. I suspect, if there
was any deficiency or any lack of support, it may
have been from [president].
This lack of interest was evident even though the dean
of students in question was to report to the president.
An administrative vice-president noted that his president
was simply not interested in most aspects of student
affairs nor in promoting the function should the oppor
tunity arise.
Now the program that [president] is very interested
in within student personnel is financial aid. He
thinks that, at least at this institution, is one
of the most important programs we have. Very
important [but] it's been, unfortunately, rather
poorly managed. [President], I think, believes
very strongly that perhaps the financial aid pro
gram should be taken out of student personnel and
put under business management. He feels quite a
bit more confident about it now with a guy like
55
[name] overseeing it who is a very strong adminis
trator, and he likes the fact that student personnel
reports now to the vice-president for business....
I have put more of our business resources into it.
I have our financial manager, my assistant manager
working directly on the program. This is the kind
of thing that the president relates to. He does
not relate very well to the disciplinary problems
we have. I don't think he relates very well with
the student activities area.
In contrast, a president who took considerable
interest in students and the services they receive made
the following observations:
Regardless of the title, [the dean] is considered
to be the vice-president of student affairs and
the equal of any other vice-president within the
institution. In other words, the way that I have
reorganized this institution since becoming president
is that there are three operating divisions within
the university: academic affairs, administration
and business affairs, and student affairs. Each
of the operative divisions is headed by a functional
vice-president. An all-integrating staff pulls the
three operating divisions together or the Executive
Office of the President which includes these three
officers as operating officers and has them in a
role as both line and staff. They're staff to the
president and line to the president, depending upon
the problem and the process.
A student affairs director with long experience on the
same campus confirmed the president's view of student
affairs.
The dean established a relationship with top adminis
tration where he was "taken in" and treated as a
vice-president and was responsible as a vice-
president. I heard the president say...that he
considered [dean] as one of the most valuable of
his staff members. [Dean] established a position
with the president so he is right in there where
the decisions are made. As a result, this division
of student affairs no longer has to take whatever
is left over.
56
A chief academic officer concluded that the president's
interest in the dean of students and student affairs
during the period of activism was largely a reaction to
the dean's relationship to the president's own security.
This was not the case in early years. The tendency for
the president to rely less on the dean of students during
periods of peace and calm while concentrating on faculty
and organizational problems was the observation of a
faculty member and former Academic Senate chairman.
I think that in a time of relative calm and peace
as far as students are concerned, there's not nearly
the tendency for the president to lean on or rely
on the dean, so he tends much more to lose a con
siderable amount of his status from that side and
at a time when the student government is a dead
issue there's not much from the other side. He's
kind of sitting out in limbo.
Style is obviously important in determining the
relationship between the dean and the president. An
academic dean observed that a dean of students, who lasted
in the position for only a short while, misread the adminis
trative style of his president.
[Dean] had relationship problems with the president.
[President] demanded to be informed although he
didn't want to get involved in the details. I'm
not sure that [dean] handled it that way.
A chief business officer noted the contrasting styles
and views of student affairs of two presidents and the
contrasting implications for the dean of students.
[The current president] is perfectly able to tangle
with all of those student problems personally. He's
52
willing to get out and be counted. And he moved
the presidents office downstairs [saying], "I'm
going to be able to get out there and head them
off before they can get into the building." Now,
[previous president] said "I don't want to be
bothered with all that. Keep them the hell out of
there. They don't have any business being here
anyway." Now both are excellent administrators,
excellent presidents, but with a different view
of operations. [Former president] says "If the
dean of students can't keep these guys in line,
then I'll find one who will." [Current president]
is much more easy going than that.
Another senior administrator observed that various people's
attitudes towards the dean of students determine his role
and effectiveness. The important attitudes are those of
the dean himself, the president, and the other top adminis
trators, with the president's being the most important. He
also noted that the president's view of student affairs and
the incumbent help shape the views and relationships of the
other senior administrators towards the dean of students.
I'm inclined to say that the thing that controls all
of the deans of students is various people's attitudes
towards what the dean of students is. And I suppose
the dean of students' attitudes as well as those of
the president would be the two most important. On
this campus, a vice-president's attitudes don't
matter as much because he is one of us. [President]
has made it clear to the academic VP that his attitude
has to be one of co-equals....On some campuses, maybe
the vice-presidents' attitudes as well as the
president's would make a difference. I suppose the
students' attitudes matter, too. I have the feeling
that a dean of students who worked out very badly in
relation to the students would be in an untenable
position, period.
Not only is the president's attitude towards^ under
standing of, and interest in student affairs important,
58
but also his expectations of the function are crucial. An
associate dean in student affairs noted the presidents
expectation that the dean successfully handle the
disciplinary and control functions.
[Dean] got on top of discipline and the president
respects it. He is not unwilling to take an
unpopular viewpoint and stick with it if he thinks it
helps the president or the institution.
Another academic administrator noted that the president did
not get on well with students and expected the dean of stu
dents to act as a buffer, an expectation in marked contrast
with the succeeding president.
[Former president] was a highly individualistic sort
of person, rather an aloof man, distant from all, bar
none. And he did not interact well with students, so
he needed [dean] very much more as a cushion to
students....
D. Summary
Among the senior officers typically reporting to the
president, the dean of students generally ranks lowest in
status. This is not a function of the relative strength of
the student affairs program on a particular campus but
rather seems to hold true whether the program is strong or
weak. The dean of students' position is similarly placed
in the hierarchy from campus to campus. The dean's prin
ciple job expectation is not of great weight in the overall
management of the institution, but rather is to keep the
troops happy. There is some evidence that the status of
the dean of students rose with the pressures of student
____________ 59
disruption and has declined again with the return of calm
to the campus.
The low status of the dean and student affairs re
flects, in part, the fact that the function is not central
to the primary purpose of these institutions: instruction.
Student services are secondary. As a result, power tends
not to flow through the position. Power within the adminis
tration tends to be concentrated in academic affairs where
the bulk of the budget and faculty resources are located.
Other factors which influence the distribution of power
include the ability and personal status of the incumbent,
formal authority, and institutional history and tra
ditions .
In addition, there are conflicting views within the
university as to the appropriate role for the dean of stu
dents. While some administrators and faculty external to
student affairs contend that student affairs are peripheral,
deans of students and student affairs personnel typically
see themselves in an important educational role. Programs
developed by the dean and student affairs which are near
the boundary of student and academic affairs, well-defined
or not, can produce faculty concern and opposition.
To a very large extent, the president determines the
role and effectiveness of the dean by virtue of the
presidents definition of the position and the dean's
60
relationship to institutional power. Because of the lack
of power, the dean does not have a strong independent base
of operation and is therefore highly subject to the presi
dent's views of student affairs and of the incumbent dean,
and to the style of the president. While the president
has significant impact on the dean, he may not be interested
in the function. The expectation of the president is quite
crucial. The president may have no real expectation or he
may see the dean as a buffer, disciplinarian, or major
manager of student services. Crisis has typically
increased the president's interest in student concerns
and in the dean. That interest tends to decrease in
quieter times. While the president's views are critical
to the dean, there is no evidence that strong support by
the president moves the dean higher than other senior
officers in the administrative hierarchy.
6 1 1
IV. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AND THE FACULTY
The previous chapter dealt with the inter-relation
ships of top administrative officers, the status of the
dean of students in that group, and the overall impact of
these administrative and status relationships on the
position of dean of students. This chapter seeks to
explore the relationship of the dean of students and the
faculty, including the faculty's awareness of the role of
the dean and the functions the dean administers, faculty
expectations, and the extent of their mutual impact.
A. Faculty Awareness
The impact of the faculty on the dean of students
depends primarily on faculty perception of whether aspects
of the dean's role and responsibilities impinge on their
specific interests and prerogatives. Historically, the
faculty's range of interests has diminished as faculty
have moved away from administrative concerns in favor of
academic o n e s ,50 and developed stronger national than
50Brubacher and Rudy, Higher Education in
Transition, pp. 353-54, and Corson, Governance of
Colleges and Universities, p. 99.
62
institutional ties.51 Faculty interest tends to be con
centrated in the areas of academic freedom, academic
standards, promotion and retention, and salaries and
benefits. In so far as the dean's responsibilities fall
outside of these areas, they will be of little concern to
the faculty. At the same time, the faculty will tend to
have little understanding of these "non-faculty" functions
and the administrative personnel responsible for them.
The faculty at the subject institutions consistently
expressed a lack of understanding and involvement with the
dean of students and the student affairs area. The follow
ing responses are typical.
There is no reason for the average faculty member to
become involved in the dean of students' area. The
dean of students isn't involved in personnel and in
struction, so there is no reason for contact.
The faculty doesn't know much about the dean and tend
to downgrade what they don't know about. They are
fairly ignorant of the activities associates with
the office, so it is easy to move them one way or
another depending on who they have heard.
I don't think they really have a good insight into
how much of a load this man carries.
I would have to say that probably if you took a poll
around here the majority of the faculty don't really
know in detail what student affairs does.
The theme that there is little faculty interest in
student affairs and the dean and little reason, as seen by
^ C h r i s t o p h e r Jencks and David Riesman, The
Academic Revolution, Garden City: Doubleday, 1968, p. 38.
63
faculty, for such interest was expressed frequently. An
academic administrator and former Faculty Senate chairman
observed the following:
There's very little interest. As a faculty member
I didn't have much input with the department at all.
About the only time I had any involvement with stu
dent affairs was with regard to an emotionally dis
turbed student or a person having some kind of
personal trouble that I needed counseling for. I
think I used them more than the average faculty
member and that wasn't much.
A senior administrator who had spent most of his career in
the faculty concurred, noting a general expectation that
the dean takes care of students if they cause difficulties.
I think the attitude of the faculty toward the dean
of students until recent years has been one of
benign neglect, and I suspect the rank and file
faculty member now would not rank the dean of
students high in his concept of significance.
They don't know what he does. His activities are
removed from the classroom and their interests.
If there are riots, for God's sake, let's get the
dean out there and let's get this thing settled.
In part, this evident lack of knowledge and under
standing resulted from the size and commuting nature of
these institutions. A senior administrator, recently
transferred from the faculty, expressed a representative
view.
The faculty tend to do some of the same things as
the students, to get up and drive here and teach
their class and go home. The campus is big, a lot
of different buildings and unless they have a cause
to be involved in and there's some reason for them
to do it, either an inner drive that they want to
work for the young people or an assignment or looking
for promotion...then the student activities staff has
to go out and recruit them to do things. And it's
not easy to do.
6 4
Another faculty leader expressed an even more pessi
mistic view and questioned the appropriateness of the
function.
I think that there are specific points of contact
at which the faculty become conscious of the
existence and operation of the dean of students
and these are very seldom positive and wholesome
ones for their relationship. I think that if
you...took a sampling of the faculty attitudes
about the dean of students and his whole operation
that you'd find a great deal of hostility....
[0]ne wonders what in fact would be lost if the
whole enterprise never existed. Why when we live
in a large urban area, do we need to have concerts
and dances and shows? Perhaps part of the answer
is to combat the commuter aspect of the institution,
to try to foster more of a sense of belonging and
identification for the institution. All right, a
worthy endeavor, but in all these years, has anyone
ever put the question or devised a method of testing
it?
One of the most consistently and pervasively expressed
reasons for the lack of knowledge of student affairs was
the lack of communication and personal interaction between
the faculty and the student affairs staff. A chairman of
the Faculty Senate related his lack of contact with student
affairs staff.
I see them as having very little interaction in an
attempt to get anything through or representation
on the Senate. I got into this job this year. I
didn't know any of those people except [the dean].
I don't think faculty even realize that he's the
head of all those other things like housing and I
didn't know that until I saw the organization charts.
A young professor on the Student Affairs Committee of the
Academic Senate concurred. "There is poor communication
between the dean of students and student activities and
6 _ 5
the faculty. There is no personal communication and
contacts." A faculty leader and former Academic Senate
chairman also noted the tendency not to consult and
communicate with the faculty as manifested by the lack
of items processed through the Senate.
We have an Academic Senate of about sixty. About
twenty of those are top level administrators. The
president appoints three senators so [dean] is a
member of the Academic Senate. He attends most
Senate meetings so there is an open line of communi
cation. I have a feeling that not much goes through
him [and] he doesn*t bring, or rarely brings, anything
to the Senate and the Senate rarely refers anything
to him. There*s almost a complete lack of communica
tion.
B. Faculty Expectations
Though there is a general lack of understanding of and
knowledge about the dean of students and the student
affairs function, faculty hold expectations about his
function. These expectations are built on a variety of
contacts with student affairs such as serving on disci
pline committees, student affairs committees of the Aca
demic Senate, and advisement of student programs.
Predictably, faculty expectations vary considerably.
Some faculty have straightforward expectations that the
dean takes care of student problems in an unspecified
way. Typical of this view is an associate dean of an
academic department.
66
I view the dean of students as one who takes care
of all the problems that arise regarding a student
and a faculty member. Of course, everybody thought
about the dean of students during the time of student
unrest. We couldn't spend a day without saying,
"Where is [dean]?" But I think the regular faculty
and the ordinary administrator will not think about
the function of the dean of students.
Another veteran faculty member noted that faculty members
are happy as long as there are no problems. "If they are
having all kinds of problems, then they want [the dean] to
take care of them and not bother the faculty."
It would appear that expectations are residual? that
is to say, faculty are clearer about what the dean cannot
do, rather than what he can do. For example, he is not
expected to intrude on academic concerns. While the
definition of academic concerns was not always precise,
it includes classroom and curricular matters, grading, and
faculty-student relationships. Not only is the dean to
stay out of faculty concerns, he is typically not con
sidered to be intellectually and academically oriented.
A veteran faculty member and Academic Senate chairman made
the following observation.
The old fogies who maintain a professor-student kind
of distance, are not going to be influenced by any
thing the dean of students says. So he has no
academic control, he1s not going to tell you how
to grade. [Dean] probably is an ex-jock.
That's one of the images that we have of the dean
of students, and very often he is or someone who
looks like he is. [Dean] is athletic looking....
So they don't think of him as being very intel
lectual, an intellectually-oriented person.
67
A faculty leader and former dean of students illustrated
the sensitivity of the border between academic and stu
dent concerns by reviewing the problems of a former dean
in his institution.
[Dean] came in and wanted to make a mark rather
quickly, I think, and in attempting to do so,
handled a variety of things quite poorly. Among
them were interference with the faculty prerogative
on grading. He got into some mess in which he was
attempting to get some grade changed with a history
professor and that really hit the fan. He created
an ombudsman position. He did so with [professor]
and he got out of bounds in some other grade-change
things....
Not only is there sensitivity on the part of the
faculty to border or jurisdictional concerns, but also
there is a sub-theme which emerges pointing to the dean's
role as student advocate which sometimes places him
against faculty. In describing one facul'ty's struggle
for a larger role in policy and decision making, a faculty
leader said:
As the faculty fought the administration for a
faculty role, the faculty then didn't trust the
dean. The dean was for lower standards. If you
were student-oriented, you were obviously slip
shod. He was accessible to students, related to
them, [he was a] champion of students, champion
of flexibility in academics, but he was outside
the major academic policy hub.
An academic department chairman echoed this view. "At
times the dean is in opposition to the faculty, particular
ly in grievance problems. Most faculty feel that's why
the dean is there." A faculty leader and former Academic
Senate chairman noted:
68
The dean of students frequently finds himself as an
advocate of students against the faculty and faculty
standards and judgments. The situation evolves to
one of standards versus human judgments. [The
dean is an] advocate for inferior standards.
The main expectation faculty have is often rather
modest; they see the dean as "a glorified dean of activi
ties." This was best expressed in the following response:
Student affairs is seen as an unnecessary, inane
kind of auxiliary program and itfs still viewed by
many faculty as a rah-rah-cheerleading-bonfire-
football kind of thing. I think they see it more
as the student activities office than they do an
overall view of student affairs.
A faculty leader from a graduate program and former Aca
demic Senate chairman provided a similar perspective.
As far as I'm concerned, it is all irrelevant and
I think that the whole student government business
is atrocious, for graduate students especially.
That half a million dollars that they play with is
wasted and they don't do one thing for graduate
students.
But above this, the most pervasive expectation of the
dean of students was that he take responsibility for
student discipline. These expectations encompassed the
entire range of minor behavior problems to mob behavior
associated with student activism. A chief academic
officer held this view: "The only time that they think
about the office is if they have a case of plagiarism or
cheating or disruption." The role of social control was
exemplified more directly by a veteran faculty member and
academic administrator.
69J
In many respects the president counted on the dean
of students to keep the students off of his back in
order that he could run the college. In fact, he
was the buffer that was expected to take the hard
knocks and answer the questions and at times control
the situation so that it didn't get out of hand.
One faculty member felt that the expectation of the dean
of students for social control permeates the entire
system, from the Chancellor's Office through the faculty:
"The social control function...a police function, not a
student support system is foremost, which is a tragedy."
There is a further way in which expectations of the
dean are diminished. For although the dean is responsible
for student affairs, many faculty see themselves as pro
viding significant non-classroom support to students.
I don't think that [faculty] lose sight of the
student as much as some people might think. In
the academic deans' councils that I have attended,
I see them never losing sight of the students. And
we're trying to bring better services and education
to the students and I hear that from deans whether
they're in philosophy or business or wherever they
are on the campus. So don't think that the dean
of students is an exclusive advocate. Now he may
be in terms of campus life, in terms of dormitories
or other kinds of problems like that.
A veteran faculty member and leader concurred that the
dean does not have the sole responsibility for student
interests.
I felt that [dean] took a superior attitude about
his knowledge of students based upon the supposition
that if his job was to be concerned with students
and their lives and problems, then somehow the
faculty were not. I felt that the faculty probably
had more contact with the students than his office
did and that depending upon their degree of interest
70
in people, some faculty members were very much
involved in the lives of students. So I can
remember questioning what I may have called a
proprietary interest or concern on [dean's] part.
C. Faculty Impact on the Dean of Students
If there is little awareness of the dean and the
student affairs function by the faculty, and if faculty
nevertheless have expectations of the dean, what influence
has the faculty on the activities and performance of the
dean of students? How can their relationships be
characterized?
One important influence on decision making and role
definition in universities is the formal organizational
structure. In Baldridge's typology of power bases, these
are bureaucratic r e s o u r c e s . 52 in the case of faculties,
the most significant formal structure is the Academic
Senate, usually composed of a faculty majority selected
from the various academic schools and departments, a
certain number of administrators in ex officio or appoint
ive positions, and in some instances, a few students.
The Academic Senate in turn has a number of standing and
ad hoc committees with broader representation than that
of the Senate. Usually, one such committee is the
52galdridge, Power and Conflict in the University,
pp. 154-67.
71
committee on student affairs. The committees typically
advise specific functions or administrative personnel and
make policy recommendations to the Senate itself. The
Senate typically recommends academically related policy
and certain other policy depending on the interest of the
administration or Senate leadership. The Senate and its
committees also serve as a vehicle for faculty opinion.
This description generally fits the subject institutions
although there are, of course, some differences in exact
membership, tradition, and emphases.
In the subject institutions, faculty-dean of students
relationships were predominately neutral tending toward a
negative or veto posture on the part of the faculty.
There was little evidence of positive and cooperative
relationships between the dean of students and the faculty.
One positive opportunity was faculty participation in the
selection of a broad range of high level administrative
personnel, particularly when that relationship was
formalized.
In one institution, faculty involvement in personnel
matters extended beyond participation in the selection
process for administrators. The president and Academic
Senate cooperated in a face-to-face annual review of
administrators. In this instance, faculty leadership
unhappiness with the dean of students contributed strongly
to the dean's departure. A senior official who had access
72
to information concerning these evaluations of adminis
trators, reported the following:
The Academic Senate had the procedure of an annual
review of administrators by the Executive Committee
of the Senate. [Former dean of students] got into
a foul situation when a number of other things were
happening on campus [and] brought down the wrath
of the rather conservative faculty leaders. So
in the annual- review the last couple of years that
[dean] was in office, the Executive Committee really
got after the president... to do something about this
situation. The Executive Committee was so outspoken.
I think that was the only time that I'm aware of that
they came flatly out and said somebody should be
removed.
Examples of Academic Senate censorship of individuals and
student affairs-related decisions occurred at all insti
tutions during the period of the study. Typically, the
negative reaction had to do with politically related
situations such as the treatment of activist students or
the handling of a demonstration. This typically negative
impact of the formal faculty structure is consistent with
Jencks and Reisman's observation that faculty power is,
for the most part, a negative or "veto" p o w e r . ^3
Another important formal power of the faculty which
can have significant impact on the dean of students as
well as other administrative officers, is that of making
reports on a broad range of institutional issues. The
exercising of this power both in terms of process and
^ C h r i s t o p h e r Jencks and David Reisman, The
Academic Revolution, pp. 15-16.
73
content can have important implications tor a university
administrator or unit. Agenda as well as philosophical
and programmatic direction can be influenced significantly
by the statement of charge or objectives of a study and
the selection of personnel to conduct it.
During the period of this report, two institutions
conducted self-studies which were administratively
located under the Academic Senate. Both studies were
primarily concerned with organizational problems result
ing from rapid institutional growth. One did not include
representation from student affairs on the parent study
committee or any of the subcommittees, despite the fact
that an explicit objective was that "particular
concern...be paid to the student personnel function, and
to the organization and purpose of the college as a
whole." The self-study ultimately recommended a plan
which split the student affairs functions and placed them
into a number of other administrative units and demoted
the dean of students from a reporting relationship to the
president to a vice president. These major recommenda
tions were implemented to a large degree, again illus
trating the level of impact of the formal faculty structure
on the dean of students.
The second institutional self-study, on the contrary,
while based in the faculty, included broad representation
in their study of organizational concerns. The net
74
result was to strengthen the role and scope of the position
of dean of students to the extent of recommending that the
position be elevated to a vice-presidency. This plan was
also substantially implemented.
D. Summary
Faculty consistently expressed the lack of under
standing and involvement with the dean of students and the
student affairs function. In the faculty view, the dean
does not communicate nor have much contact with the
faculty leaving the faculty with little from which to
form an opinion. There is, on the other side, little
reason for faculty interest in this function not only
because of their lack of interest in the administration
of the institution, but also because student concerns and
non-classroom interests and problems have little to do
with the dominant faculty interests, instructional and
professional issues. The lack of understanding also
results in part from the size and commuting nature of the
institutions. When there are contacts with student
affairs by faculty, they tend to be negative.
Faculty expectations for the dean of students vary
considerably. Some faculty expect little more than that
the dean in some obscure way takes care of student pro
blems. Many feel the dean can operate wherever he likes
as long as it is outside of faculty academic concerns
___________________________________________________________________________________________ _ _ ________________________________________13.
and prerogatives. The border area between academic and
student affairs tends to be sensitive. Many faculty feel
that student affairs is essentially superfluous and that
the dean is not intellectually and academically oriented,
partly because of function and partly due to the lack of an
academic background.
An important faculty viewpoint is that the title of
dean implies advocacy by the dean for students against
faculty. As such, the dean is for lower standards. Many
faculty also feel that the dean is not the sole advocate
for students, seeing in their own role interest in support
ing the non-classroom aspects of student life. The most
pervasive faculty expectation is that of discipline and
control of student behavior. The types of behaviors to
be dealt with by the dean range from minor behavioral
problems to mob action.
The formal governance structure of the faculty is the
Academic Senate. Typically, policy questions, including
those for student affairs, are processed through the
Senate or its committees, thus serving as an important
vehicle for faculty opinion. In the subject institutions,
faculty-dean of students relationships ranged from neutral
to negative. There was little evidence of cooperative
relationships.
Overall, lack of common interests and communication
between faculty and student affairs leaves the two far
76
apart. Since contacts are irregular and typically around
negative situations, the relationship is frequently
negative. The result is that the dean of students has
little impact on the faculty, while the faculty have only
a veto role with respect to student affairs.
77
V. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS, STUDENTS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT
Earlier chapters have described the overall evolution
of the position of dean of students and the interaction of
the position with administration and faculty. The purpose
of this chapter is to examine the dean's relationship to
his primary constituency, the students. Attention is
focused on the effects of institutional size, the increased
attendance of minority students, student activism and dis
ruption, changes in discipline and social control, and
changing patterns of student participation in governance.
A. Campus Growth and the Impact of Largeness
The early dean-student relationships tended to be
personal, student centered, and relaxed. The problems
reflected the scale of the community. The student bodies
were traditional, homogeneous and academically oriented.
But as the size of the student bodies grew, so the nature
of the dean's job changed. A veteran faculty member who
was one of the charter faculty members on one campus noted
the loss of the personal touch in the approach of the dean
as the number of students increased and the bureaucracy
became more complex in terms of registration and financial
78
aid procedures, greater specialization of student services
offices, and greater formality of personal contact and pro
cedures.
[Former dean] could politic on a one-to-one basis
because he knew everyone and he could reasonably get
around and talk to each key person and lay founda
tions within this committee....The same way with
trying to set up advisement and getting each of the
departments to do something about advisement. You
achieve quite a bit this way on a personal basis.
This is lost now. The organization is too big and
there's the usual type of management hierarchy that
he works down through. And I'd say that there's
almost no communication between faculty and [dean's]
office. I suspect he's much more a supervisor over
his associates who in turn take sub-groups. Size
almost requires that you handle it this way and it
would be impossible for him to work at the level
that [early dean] worked.
Not only has institutional size affected the
approach of the dean of students, changing it from a
personal to a more abstract role, it has also produced a
complexity which has significantly altered the dean's
role. The entry of new student constituencies discussed
in detail later in this chapter, has brought on a number
of new student oriented support programs which must be
managed. Massive infusions of financial aid from state
and Federal sources require the development and manage
ment of sophisticated data processing systems, as do
complex admissions and registration operations. The dean
supervises supervisors rather than students in these large
universities. A senior vice-president provided a com
parison of the early college and the present requirements.
79
[With greater institutional size] there are things
a person either adapts to and changes in his mode of
operation or he finds himself inundated with students.
For instance, the dean of students likes to handle
individual cases. When we only had 500 students,
he didn't have a tremendous staff under him. He had
a relatively small group of people, a counselor or
two, one medical doctor, a nurse, maybe a registrar,
a few clerks. He might do all the admissions himself.
They might in the placement services have one person
that takes the graduates and refers them out to some
body .
The greatly increased size of these institutions con
tributed, then, to the evolution of the role from a very
personal one towards a "manager of functions and people"
and little student contact.
B. The Entry of Minority Students
Since World War II more students from a greater
variety of backgrounds have reached college. The GI
Bill started this influx which has been sustained by
various programs aiding low income and minority groups.
Perhaps the minority students among these students have
had the biggest effect on universities in terms both of
total enrollment and dramatically increased attendance
rates at previously all-white institutions.
The overall impact of minority students on the subject
campuses has varied. California State University, Los
Angeles, for example, has a high percentage of minority
students and is surrounded by a minority community. The
result appears to be greater racial tolerance and more
80
minority staff. The other two institutions, with smaller
percentages of minority students, are located in pre
dominantly white communities. As would be expected, the
overall influence of minority students on these campuses
has been less pervasive.
A highly placed minority academic administrator
reflected on the contrasting level of intensity of
minority student activity between campuses with small
percentages of minority and those with large.
We did have some tough times with the Black Student
Union and the Brown Berets and with the Pan-African
groups. There, for instance, the faculty stood back
and let the dean of students handle the case. I
really don't think this school had previously had
such a problem. There really are not enough Black
students here, enough Chicano students here to cause
a problem. When I came in 1961 we had 14,000 students.
We couldn't have had more than two or three hundred
Blacks. Now I understand we still have less than
1,000 with 29,000 students. So unless you get really
large groups you really can't get the surge of energy
that will mean that you're going to have a real crisis.
There were pushes like...to have a Black Studies
Department. I think there were a few confrontations
where they wrote a few really dirty words on the
blackboards in front of some little old lady professors
who fainted in their chairs and gave them whatever
they wanted. That's not really a crisis. LA State
is probably the one which would come closest to
having that kind of problem. They seem to run
about a 50 percent minority.
Despite differences in intensity among campuses pro
duced by differences in the number of minority students,
the coming of minority students has had certain quite
similar impacts from campus to campus. The first is that
many minority students brought with them values concerning
31.
the educational process and institutions, and educational
backgrounds which were frequently different than those of
the traditional white, middle-class students. Differences
are observable in perceptions of authority, view of
school and school as a work environment, and academic
competition.
Differences in values and expectations often sur
faced in traditional student structures and activities.
A typical situation was reported in a college newspaper
article in 1966 concerning the selection of the homecoming
queen. Black students were questioning the racial balance
of judges and winners. Typically, an issue such as this
was followed by the formation of an association, club, or
interest group to press for the interests of the particular
group. In this case the Black Student Union was officially
organized seven months later.
Another student function which came under minority
student scrutiny was intercollegiate athletics. Minority
students, athletes and non-athletes alike, were concerned
about the lack of minority coaches, alleged unfair treat
ment by the coaches and other athletes, and alleged racist
treatment both on and off campus.
As minority numbers grew and their understanding of
student political structures grew, minority students took
a very active role in student government, encouraged in
part by the attitudes of their fellow students and access
82
to the student government budgets available for student
projects and athletics.
In a discussion of these and other arenas of disagree
ment, a former dean of students commented on how those
value differences began to change the role of dean and
redirect student affairs priorities.
One of the things we really pushed when we started
was that [the university] is not a homogeneous
place. It is very diverse and there is great
strength in that diversity. Back in 1965, people
were still thinking of the college as a homogeneous
body. We tried to use the argument that the world
is diverse and its damned good to go to school in a
diverse university. And I think what happens is that
when you get more minority people,..., it makes it
impossible for any one man to speak for the student
body. In the first place, I don't think that one
man can speak for students anyway. If he's white
or Mexican-American or if he's Black, it doesn't
matter what the combination is, he's not going to
speak to those ethnic groups or for them. So I
think that made the role more difficult.
We had some big battles with athletics and I have
some background in athletics. I was probably more
alien to them than I was to Black students because
the athletic people wanted to keep all [the student
fee money]? but I thought it was very legitimate to
spread it in different ways than it had been.
For the most part, both the campuses and their
communities were ill-prepared for the impact of the
arrival of minority students in larger numbers. The
lack of experience with minority persons contributed
to their inability to deal with these students. A
senior administrator noted the situation on his campus.
In our particular case, we had two Black students
on campus in 1964 or 1965. When it became the
83
popular thing to do to encourage Black students to
come to school here, they went out and literally
beat the bushes. Anybody could come into school here
if they were a minority. And so two students one
year and 700 the next and the administration frankly
did not know what it meant to be Black. They did not
know the cultural characteristics, the value systems
of these people. They brought them on to the campus
and expected them over night to conform to a totally
new environment and set of values. They were appalled
to think that one student might be giving another
their concept of what life was in the west San
Fernando Valley. Not knowing any of this, the disci
plinary system was totally inappropriate, punishing
things that in the culture of the minority student
would not be punished....And not really trying to
understand and reacting with fear. The dean didn't
know what to do any more than anyone else.
Not only were institutional administrators ill-
prepared for the new value dimensions and necessary pro
gram and policy shifts, but minority students introduced
new tactics to the university scene. They were less
willing than their white counterparts, particularly
early in their years at the university, to operate
according to the rules of the system. They were less
patient. As one veteran student affairs director noted:
The minorities found the higher you go, the quicker
the results. They avoid going to the dean. Where
possible, the dean gets these assignments, [but] if
the dean doesn't deal personally, the situation may
escalate to the top.
Demands were another important new tactic. Minority stu
dents would take a rather dramatic action and list a group
of demands for administrative action or response, often on
an unconditional basis. This tactic flew in the face of
traditional bureaucratic and "reasonable" traditional
84
processes and policies. As one former dean of students
noted: "Demands were a new ball game. Getting them
[Blacks] back into channels was one of my biggest jobs.
They don't understand channels and never have."
These students also made use of violence or threat
ened violence. The most celebrated or infamous example
in these institutions was the alleged holding hostage of
university personnel on the Northridge campus in November,
196 8. Other campuses also experienced demonstrations,
lock-ins, threats, and destruction related to minority
student grievances and issues.
The coming of minority students to campus in larger
numbers, then, produced value conflicts, programmatic
shifts and adjustments, and new priorities. Policy and
procedural weakness were highlighted, particularly in the
area of discipline. Deans of students as well as other
institutional authorities had to develop new responses
to new tactics and student behavior patterns. Deans
found themselves in new roles, such as mediation, and
discovered that they could no longer "speak" or "represent" v
all students since minority groups would not accept it.
The dean of students found himself increasingly as
the "man-in-the-middle," or in Baldridge's terms, as the
man who "stands at the intersection of ...contradictory
__________________________________________________85.
expectations."54 To be in the middle is to be in a double
bind for either side can withdraw or not accept the role.
The dean can be viewed by the administration as the
"students' man" or "advocate."55 To illustrate the dis
trust students felt for the dean, one can look at the out
rage of the Black Student Union when one of their campus
offices had been given to another student group without
their authorization. In the student newspaper they
accused the dean of lying about promises to give them
"everything" that would suit the needs of Black students on
campus.
"He said that we would get an office, a xerox
machine and everything that we needed by the
end of the semester but he hasn't delivered,"
a BSU spokesman charged. "BSU doesn't like the
systematic ways that Student Affairs and [dean]
have used in trying to move us from one building
to another. They are trying to cover up the fact
that they promised us a building," he continued.
The middle-man role was also suggested by a veteran
administrator who works closely with students as he dis
cussed the dean's role as it relates to student government,
54ealdridge, Power and Conflict in the University,
p. 113.
55Hodgkinson, "How Deans of Students are Seen by
Others - and Why," pp. 49-54, and Dutton, Appleton, and
Birch, Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of
the Academic Community, p. T ~ .
86
which was, at the time, dominated by minority students.
Right now we are in a very, very difficult situation
where we have a real mixed bag of student officers,
a Chicano, an Indian and a Black and they want to
work out their thing that they want to accomplish
and [dean] is in the very, very difficult position
of trying to keep faith with them as individuals
and human beings, as militant representatives of
their groups and carry out his basic charge from the
president.
The middle-man role between student groups was noted by a
senior officer.
One of the most difficult things that we've had in
the last two or three years has been the conflict
between the Chicanos and Blacks and its almost
erupted...a couple of times it did erupt, requiring
a minor physical force. It broke out in an EOP
meeting. Thatfs been a major problem. Consequently,
having a [minority] dean of students has not been
particularly helpful as far as [one minority group]
is concerned. And the Chicano movement today like
the Black movement of ten years ago, went so many
different directions that the most militant, the
most radical, and those are likely to create most
of the problems you have, donft really have anymore
rapport with [dean] than perhaps...I would have with
them.
The dean of students, then, frequently found himself
between groups with differing expectations of his role
and the actions he should take or interests represent.
C. Student Activism
The period of student activism dramatically announced
by events in Berkeley in 1964 changed the faces of campuses
across the nation and the lives and styles of many adminis
trators. The impact did not affect all students in the
same way. Traditional and non-traditional student styles
87
co-existed side-by-side. As it was customary to say, the
latter represented only the views and attitudes of a small
minority.
The juxtaposition of campus cultures is aptly illus
trated by two articles which appeared in a campus news
paper late in 1966. The first reported a panty raid.
Students had mixed reactions to Valley State1s
first "panty raid" Monday, but a strong censure from
the administration seems imminent.
The raid occurred at 12:15 a.m. Friday and involved
approximately 35 members with some from every Valley
State fraternity but one. The one not taking part
hasn't been disclosed as yet.
Two women were injured in the raid: Eilene Cohen,
junior English major, who had to have a toe nail
removed and Esther Laks, freshman health science major,
who suffered a broken finger.
"We can't condone such behavior where damage can
occur," said Kenneth E. Hultman, administrative
assistant to the dean of students.
Both Dr. John Palmer, dean of students and
Dr. Donald Cameron, associate dean of students,
activities and housing, are out of state at present
and were unavailable for comment.56
Just over a week later the following article appeared
reporting a demonstration against the Air Force ROTC
program.
Demonstrations again erupted on campus Wednesday.
This time in protest to the presence of the Air Force
ROTC and its attempt to recruit students on campus.
The 90 minute demonstration took place in the
lobby of Sierra Hall, opposite the table set up by
the ROTC for recruitment purposes. More than 200
persons looked on.
Approximately 50 protesters, who sang anti-war
songs and distributed leaflets, were threatened with
56"Campus Panty Raid," Daily Sundial, 22 November
1966, p. 1.
88
suspension from the college at the height of the
demonstration.
Dr. John Palmer, dean of students, who had
arrived on the scene for the second time about
3 p.m., asked the students to leave the building.
"Unless you go I will have to suspend you from
the college," Palmer said.
"Students who participated in the demonstration
are subject to disciplinary action for disrupting
classroom activity," said Dr. Donald Cameron,
associate dean of students, activities and housing.
Dr. Cameron said he feels that Wednesday1s incident
was an example of "shocking and infantile behavior."
Commenting about the disturbance created by the
protest, Dr. Cameron, who was also on the scene, said
those students who demonstrated are people who pretend
to stand for free speech but are denying others of
their freedom to speak.
"The buildings were made for instruction and not
for organized demonstrations," Dr. Palmer said. He
added that the demonstration was a violation of fire
regulations, beside disturbing the classes.57
This comparison illustrates the differences in substance,
motivation and tone which existed side-by-side on the
campuses. The panty raid was a non-political, collegiate
activity performed by a social fraternity, and was treated
benignly by the administration. The second event, on the
otherhand, was a politically motivated demonstration
against an institutional program by a non-traditional
grouping of students, and was viewed with alarm by the
administration.
As the Vietnam War and the protest against it
escalated, college campuses frequently became the
57"ROTC Demonstration," Daily Sundial, 8 December
1966, p. 1.
89
location for much more serious protest. Protest was
not, however, the only campus dynamic challenging old
patterns which was faced by colleges. Students were
generally more politically aware, exhibited a loss of
belief in institutions and group activity, believed less
in competitiveness as a value, adopted non-conventional
life styles and interpersonal values, and demonstrated a
somewhat anti-intellectual strain. An academic vice-
president chronicled the issues which students were
raising from a campus perspective.
Probably the greatest social evolution explosions
that [dean] had to deal with were these: the Vietnam
War, the vociferous nature of a number of right-wing
organizations as well as left, the demand by students
for more control of student government, the demand of
students for greater input into the decision-making
process relative to the Dean of Students' Office, a
greater voice in disciplinary problems.
There [also] began to develop a battle between the
middle-of-the-road, mainstream student and either
the extreme right or left and the minorities for
control of student government. [Dean] had to concern
himself with...an increasing number of disciplinary
cases. Another thing that began to develop was a
greater thrust by students in terms of greater due
process in discipline. We've seen this evolution
up to the present day as a result of SDS, student
riots, minority problems.
The overwhelming implication of the data concerning
student activism and the dean of students is that the dean,
particularly during that period, was a man-in-the-middle.
Some of the situations the dean of students found himself
in during the activism years had their origins in more
"normal" times. The dean was always in the middle to
90
some extent but the more extreme circumstances clearly
exposes this aspect of the dean of students* role.
Frequently, the dean of students served as the "front
man" for the institution or the president. It was not
unusual for student newspapers to begin articles in this
way.
PECKHAM, NOT CLEARY, ANSWERS CROWD
Students seeking to have College President
James W. Cleary answer the demands he was presented
with at last Friday's demonstration were met instead
by Dean of Students Edmund T. Peckham in the Open
Forum Monday. The crowd was estimated at 250 students.
Dr. Cleary*s office refused to comment to the
Daily Sundial on the president*s refusal to appear,
but William Corcoran, Director of Information, was
able to get a comment from Dr. Cleary. "He was at
a meeting and he thought that Dr. Peckham was the
appropriate representative to send to the forum,"
Corcoran said.58
As the front man, the dean personally met with stu
dents concerning issues or situations. The expectation
was that the dean not take substantative action but simply
interact with students and keep the central administration
informed. An excellent example is a confidential memoran
dum from a college president to his staff concerning
assignments with respect to an anticipated demonstration.
58"Peckham, Not Cleary, Answers Crowd," Daily
Sundial, 17 March 1970, p. 2.
91
Those Concerned - CONFIDENTIAL DATE December 6, 196 7
President [Name]
Procedures Regarding Student Demonstrations
December 6, 1967*
1. [Dean of Students] is responsible for keeping
College Administration and Security Officers
informed.
2. If students wish to picket or distribute hand
bills during the recruiters* visit, they may do
so. The situation becomes a problem when the
passageway to the recruiters is physically blocked
or the activity of the recruiter is disrupted, or
an interviewee is prevented from visiting the
recruiter and/or holding his interview, or any
act of physical violence occurs.
3. If problem situation exists, [Dean] informs
College Administration and Security Officers.
4. [Director of Placement] addresses those involved
in the problem situation concerning College
philosophy and traditions regarding freedom of
access to ideas, and asks them to desist.
5. [Dean] informs all campus personnel concerned.
[Police Chief] stands by? alerts Los Angeles
Police Department.
6. If problem situation persists, [Dean] addresses
those involved, cites campus regulations,
threatens campus discipline, and makes dis
ciplinary referral.
7. [Dean] informs [or alerts] all campus personnel
concerned. [Police Chief] informs Los Angeles
Police Department who may move to staging area
off-campus.
8. If problem situation persists, [Police Chief]
reads legal statutes to demonstrators,
P.C. 64 7c, 407, 602j, and if demonstrators do
not disperse, P.C. 409. Arrests may follow.
9. If those arrested leave peaceably after arrest,
[Police Chief] will take them to [police station].
92
10. If resistance to arrest occurs, [Police Chief]
backs off. The Chief Campus Officer [or next
appropriate official] calls Los Angeles Police
Department for major or minor assistance. The
Chief Officer of the College will be the Presi
dent or his designee as follows: [Six adminis
trators and faculty members were listed? the
list did not include the Dean of Students].
The Chief Officer of the College or his desig
nee will order the arrests if necessary.
11. If the Los Angeles Police Department enters
the campus, they are in charge of Security -
everyone acts as ordered.
*These steps were not in rigid order; if violence
occurs, steps will be omitted.
Implicit in this memorandum is the related notion
of the dean as the representative and defender of the
established order. This places the dean in the middle
in that there is an expectation on the part of students
that the dean of students somehow represents them and their
interests even though those interests might be more or less
at odds with the dominant institutional view. The tension
was expressed in this way by a former dean and academic
services administrator:
Times have softened, but the dean of students was
the focal point of the establishment. It was a
reflection of the times. We have become advocates
if not adversaries. The dean is no longer a com
patriot.
Another former dean saw his role during this period as
being one of acting as an "agent of the administration"
and as such he later experienced the residue by having
to testify in court against students.
93
I spent most of the next year with the fall-out
of the dean of students' occupational hazards.
We had a record number of misdemeanor arrests,
and constitutional questions of failure to dis
perse, invasions of buildings, and the holding
of hostages. I was usually there telling people
"you shouldn11 do what you1 re about to do." As
a last resort, I stood in court waiting to testify
one way or another.
A typical newspaper report reflecting the role of dean
as defender of the established order follows:
[DEAN] DENYS CHARGES OF AIR FORCE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES
At about 12:30 half way through the two hour mill-in
on the second level of the college commons, dean of
students [name] mounted the speakers platform to
answer Student Action Committee charges that the Air
Force has free rein on campus. [Dean] admitted that
some contradictions do exist in college free speech
regulations, but he said that an ad hoc committee is
working to make the regulations more equitable. The
dean denounced crash programs to change college regu
lations and said that the administration was surprised
that SAC chose to demonstrate while taking part in
the discussions of the ad hoc committee. He critized
the SAC for flagrantly disregarding free speech area
rules....
On another campus, the role was acted out in much the
same way.
PECKHAM CONFRONTED ON NON-RETENTION ISSUE
A discussion of the non-retention of the four
faculty members at the Open Forum Monday resulted
in a march to the Administration Building where
students confronted Dean of Students Edmund T.
Peckham, concerning the non-retention controversy.
The noon rally opened with Mike Lee, Students for
a Democratic Society member, informing the estimated
200 listeners of the course of events resulting in
the disciplinary proceedings to be taken against 15
persons present at last Friday's demonstration on
the fifth floor of the Administration Building.
Lee warned students that "Cleary is looking for
blood," and went on to draw parallels between the
94
recent campus situation and police reprisals on
the Black Panther o r g a n i z a t i o n .59
This stressful situation often led to students
calling for the dean’s resignation. The cause could
be alleged misfeasance or merely an alleged inability
to communicate any longer with students, as in the
following instance.
To the Editor:
An Open Letter to [president]:
Having observed the events on this campus for
the last year and one half, and having seen the
general situation deteriorate to the point of
frustration that now exists, I am compelled to
do everything possible to improve the now non
existent communication between the students and
the administration.
For this reason, I am asking you, as president
of this college, to terminate immediately
[dean's] position as Dean of Students. Speaking
as one of many skeptical and disgusted students,
I want to remind you that the position of Dean of
Students is a totally useless position if students
have lost confidence and trust in the general
character of whomever holds that position.
This distrust is being expressed right now
from every segment of the student body. It
is obvious that [dean] has forfeited his
right to remain in his current position, if for
no other reason than that he has lost any ability
to communicate with students.
I plan to seek office in the student elections
next month. I am hoping that suitable action will
be taken by your office by then. In the event
that you don't see enough cause to take action
at this time, I am sure that the election will
provide the necessary incentive for you to take
such action as is necessary for the administration
59nPeckham Confronted on Non-Retention Issue,"
Daily Sundial, 9 December 1967, p. 1.
95
to regain some type of communication with the
students of this campus.60
Perhaps this exposure is predictable given that the
dean is the enforcer of student rules. While this role has
traditionally produced conflict, this became more
evident during the period of activism. Whereas
earlier enforcement problems might have involved the
illegal consumption of alcohol, panty raids, and
residence hall infractions, the new problems tended
to be major public confrontations. These were played out
in public and at times had serious consequences. The
enforcer role is clearly revealed in the following
typical article from a student newspaper. It is a
report of a typical non-violent confrontation between
students and the dean of students over student actions
protesting Marine recruiting on campus.
STUDENTS PROTEST MARINE RECRUITING
Disciplinary action was invoked yesterday against
eight student war protestors who refused to leave
the Placement Office in Bungalow A. Amid cries
of 'Peace Now1 a crowd of more than 150 spectators
and the news media watched as dean of students
[name] talked to the demonstrators who were
demanding a confrontation with the Marine
recruiter in the office....[Dean] was asked by
the students what the consequences would be if
they refused to leave. The Dean replied they had
the right to picket and demonstrate, that it is
part of the educational process, but he warned
he would take disciplinary action because the
60Paily Sundial, 15 April 1970, p. 4.
96
recruiters could not carry on their business with
so many people in the bungalow. He gave the group
fifteen minutes to make up its mind.
Deans of students also found themselves between stu
dent groups when these groups vied for attention in the
student press or attempted to influence an institutional
decision on student policy. What appeared to one group of
students as a reasonable response appeared totally con
trary to another. Excerpts from the following newspaper
article from 1970 illustrate what became almost a daily
occurrence on the subject campuses during the late 1960's
and early 1970's, student versus student conflict which
also involved the dean.
On Feb. 19, a South Vietnamese embassy official's
speech was disrupted by a fight and heckling by stu
dents, 15 of whom were later arrested for disturbing
the peace and disrupting a public meeting.
Bill Steel, member of the Libertarian Alliance,
complained during the question and answer segment
about due process.
Steel was recently suspended from school for the
remainder of this semester, a sentence which was
later reduced to two weeks. The suspension resulted
from an alleged demonstration Dec. 5 in the Adminis
tration Building, at which Steel was present.
One of the reasons for Steel's suspension was
his alleged racist remark to one of the dean's
secretaries. Steel violently accused Dean [name]
of lying about the remark, and he told Dean [name]
"we know that you lied before and you're lying now.
The whole thing's a lie."^^-
61"Outcome of Disruption of Speech," Daily
Sundial, 12 March 1970, p. 1.
97
Not only did the dean find himself between student groups
and interests but he was also unsure where student support
or criticism would come over time due to changing student
leadership or newspaper staffs. For example, in the
spring of 1968 a student editorial questioned the ability
of the administration to handle Black student demands
without capitulating.
We think the dean of students must be firmly
and continuously reminded that he is dean of all the
students and not merely for a noisy, irresponsible
minority.
Twenty days later the same newspaper condemned the
college administration and the chancellor's office in
actions taken in confiscating photographs of a banned
art exhibit. The dean of students said he was acting
on the orders of the chancellor's office when he
ordered the removal of the pictures.
While not always in a role which might be termed
"crisis manager," dean of students were actively involved
in dealing with the institutional problems which flowed
from student activism. For some, the crisis orientation
lasted for years. In the words of one senior faculty
member:
We were 90 percent oriented to student disruption,
disorders and 10 percent to the operation of the
rest of the institution for a matter of two or
three years and I felt (dean) was probably more
influential than any of the vice-presidents in
the institution during this period.
______________ 98.
Constant attention to crisis tended to preclude the dean
from effectively dealing with administrative concerns and
the development of programs to meet new student needs.
The time that he was dean of students was often
crisis-oriented? in the '66-'68 period [we had]
one major problem after another. That prevented
him from being innovative....Just the magnitude
of the problems of that era precluded any sort of
progressiveness, or any inter-relationships within
the university.
The inability to deal with the usual administrative con
cerns isolated him from most students and their problems.
Student affairs was enmeshed in the confrontations,
disciplinary actions, strategy development and nego
tiations which frequently characterized daily life. A
president noted that isolation.
One of the problems that I encountered in the first
two years here, the years of unrest, was that I felt
as I'm sure the dean of students felt, the isolation
from the rest of the students and one could never be
sure whether one had his finger on the pulse of the
student body.
Finally, involvement in the problems of student tur
moil had personal consequences. All the deans at these
institutions who were involved significantly during the
period of activism suffered physically from the strain
which accompanied their participation. A business officer
offered this brief note about the dean of students at his
institution.
[Dean] was a very good man and administrator but he
had no stomach for that, it scared the hell out of
him and it made him sick. His stomach began giving
99
him physical nervous trouble. And he just decided
that he was going to get right out of that and he
did. He was right.
One other finding was the change which occurred in
both the content and explicitness of campus rules and
regulations for students and the dean's relationship to
them. When students expressed their interests actively,
personnel and procedures were not prepared. A senior
student affairs director characterized that situation.
When it first got into problems the college had no
capacity to handle it. It still was the friendly
dean to tell the students to shape up. There were
no lawyers or legal maneuvering. It became obviously
necessary to cope with this [new] thrust. They had
to develop a structure and procedures.
A former dean of students described his experiences upon
taking office noting the new kinds of problems which
student discipline caused him and his institution to face.
The fascinating thing is we had so little in the way
of anything spelled out [concerning how] we would
cope with difficulties, problems of behavior. We
have procedures that would cover situations in
which a young man might steal some books in the
cafeteria and go next door and sell them in the
bookstore, something like that. We didn't have
anything...that would take care of somebody who
got knocked down and kicked in the head or when
we had mass confrontations. We simply didn't
know how to cope with disciplinary action.
The net result in the area of student rules and regu
lations was a rather dramatic change in their precision
and comprehensiveness as well as the development of legal
or quasi-legal sophistication. Disciplinary procedures
were carefully developed to withstand legal review, student
100
rights were defined and in some instances adopted as campus
policy and administrative roles were more clearly defined
with respect to students.
D. Student Discipline and Control
Student discipline and the control of student behavior
have historically been an important part of the role of the
dean of students. Typically, the dean has been the insti
tutional figure most directly related to this function.
This responsibility is consistent with the expectations
most students and faculty have of the dean.
Historically, colleges and universities have stood
in loco parentis to students. This was true of these insti
tutions during their early years. Deans of students and
their staffs tended to be quite concerned about the
appropriateness of student activities, student behavior
in the residence halls, sexual contacts, and drinking and
smoking habits. The essence of in loco parentis is that it
was personal and informal.
As the institutions grew and became more complex, new
students to higher education came to college and the
challenges to traditional values became felt, both the
methods and substance of the control of student behavior
was challenged. The processes for the development of
student rules and the methods and instruments of enforce
ment were questioned as well as the content of the rules
101
themselves. Deans of students, being the institutional
figures responsible for this aspect of institutional
behavior, were caught up in the re-evaluation and re
formation of student regulations.
For the most part, institutions were ill-prepared
for the challenges they received and the questions that
were asked. An administrator close to a dean of students
who experienced the brunt of these student challenges,
expressed one of the dilemmas surrounding student
discipline.
[Dean] was caught in a bind. Does the institution
try the kids? What if laws are broken? Is there
double jeopardy [if students are tried in civil
courts and disciplined on campus]? The times were
defying the role of the dean. The problems [dean]
had with discipline are not inherent in the role.
Factors outside the institution were impacting
the role....
Whatever the source, internal or external, these were
questions that had not been previously faced in student
discipline. The questions were usually raised in a way
which allowed little time for debate. Remedial action
was frequently demanded immediately. A typical situation
was the demand on one campus for open hearings in a
case involving political action against an off-campus
recruiter. The Academic Senate committee responsible
for approving disciplinary procedures, which at the
time had no student members, refused to consider a
change in procedures which would allow open hearings.
102
The student newspaper reported the following:
[The] dean of students argued that 'it is in
conceivable to me that in the middle of a case
the overall guidelines would be changed.1 He
said that while present procedures could be im
proved the system was 'in no way unjust.'
A few individuals including two deans of stu
dents, one active and one retired, continued to
champion the disciplinary role of the dean of
students. One felt that "discipline is an integral
part of student development," and the other that
"[discipline] is a very viable function for the dean
of students." For the most part, most respondents
agreed with a former dean of students who felt that
the role caused credibility problems and complicated
the dean's role excessively and should be placed out
side the dean's area of responsibility.
I don't think that a dean of students can be every
thing. I think that's one of the problems -- to be
a counselor, to be an administrator, an advocate,
and disciplinarian. I honestly think it should be
moved to reduce the decreasing credibility and
reduce some of the conflicts that are involved.
It's an anachronism as it is presently constituted.
So I think that discipline could be in student
affairs possibly, but I don't think it should be
in the dean of students' office.
All subject campuses have provided distance between
the disciplinary function and the dean of students by
the creation of a special office to handle disciplinary
matters and work with the development of student poli
cies and procedures. This structure has not only
103
clarified the disciplinary situation, but also other
questions pertaining to student rights and behavior
have subsequently been examined and new policies and
procedures developed. One former dean of students saw
these changes as significant improvements which allow
the institution to respond adequately and equitably
to complex situations. But another presented a con
trasting case, seeing the new policies and procedures
as resulting in a very legalistic system which was not
appropriate to a particular view of the university and
its relationship with students.
I had a basic fear myself of getting too back-
fence lawyerish about discipline. The students
forced us into a more complicated system like
opened and closed hearings. Luckily we had
[name] who was a Ph.D. in law and chairman of
the committee, and he saved us from ACLU
lawyers or anybody else.
Another veteran student affairs and academic adminis
trator also noted the problems presented by complex
and extensive rule systems, particularly the greater
difficulty in changing rules once they are written.
There are more and more rules and fewer arbitrary
judgments. As rules become more precise, there
is less room to operate and less potential for
variation to meet individual needs.
Despite the disagreement as to the value of the changes
that have occurred, student policies and procedures
are more complex, sophisticated and explicit than
earlier ones. It is also clear, that the role of the
dean of students in relation to this system is less
104
arbitrary and more clearly defined.
Of considerable significance also is the broad
agreement that the concept of in loco parentis is no
longer appropriate. A vice-president commented on
the situation at his campus. "[T]reat people like
adults when they act like adults, and when they don't
they can be disciplined in the disciplinary procedures
that adults have." A senior student affairs adminis
trator noted the complete change that has taken place
over the students1 dormitory visitation rules over a
twenty year period.
When I came, we required everyone under 21 years
of age, both men and women not living with a
parent or guardian, to live in the college
residence halls or to have permission to live
elsewhere. That's changed. We have no parental
rules now. People live where they want, when
they want. On campus, the dean in the role of
a parent...we started out with Sunday afternoon
visitations for two or three hours — men in
women's halls, and women in men's halls. You
had to keep your door open six inches. We went
from that to closing the doors. We went from
that to open visitations, and now, we have a
program that was recommended by our students,
approved by this office, the dean, the presi
dent, everybody, on visitation that is what the
students want. From 12 noon till midnight on
weekdays, noon 24 hours Friday, 24 hours on
Saturday, and ending at 12 midnight on Sunday.
For all practical purposes we had 24 hour visi
tation .
A senior administrative officer felt that the appear
ance of minority students on campus contributed to
the change in in loco parentis because of the
questions they asked.
105
The college could still get by with in loco
parentis in *65 when I came here. It was
dying and after the real revolutionary times
we went through in '68 and '69 with the
minority students it was about finished then
because the questions about our control that the
minority students had the nerve to ask during the
time when they were pressing were in many cases
the same kinds of questions that the establishment
kids would have liked to have asked ten years ago.
Another administrator saw students' demands under
cutting the authority of the dean of students because
students found the dean, when pushed, had no real
authority and power.
Very quickly it appeared as this new breed of
student came to the campus where he recognized
his power as being the majority population at
this time. Students very quickly saw that
administration as represented by the dean of
students had no claws. And when this was
recognized first, the first person to go was
the kind, gentle, sensitive mother assistant
to the dean of students who was a helper in
all student affairs but subtly made decisions
many, many times. She was the first to give
way. Then always behind her was the dean of
students who presumably had the authority and
power and the muscles to see that things were
done as they were written. When her hand was
exposed the attack came on the dean of stu
dents. He was exposed as having no balls.
And indeed he didn't have because the adminis
tration has never given him this kind of
authority* He's been an organizer and a kind
of manipulator of the student body to keep the
students involved in things which had small
consequence. As soon as these students became
involved in things which had large consequence,
the dean of students was overlooked, by-passed,
and new authorities were identified at the
vice-presidential level.
106
E. Student Participation in Governance
One of the hallmarks of student demands during
the 1960's was for greater participation in university
affairs. Initially, students were most concerned with
involvement in the processes which directly affected
them, residence hall regulations, disciplinary pro
cedures , and student government prerogatives. As
students achieved success in their quest for involve
ment, student interest in participation became more
diffuse. All areas of institutional behavior became
legitimate areas for student interest and partici
pation .
An administrator reflected this development on
his campus and suggested that this changing role of
the student in university affairs has required a
change in administrators.
Progressively, the students are playing a greater
role in higher education. Throughout the 60*s
you see a greater role of the student in gover
nance of the institution, participating in every
thing from whether recruiters belong on campus
to academic decisions, evaluations of faculty.
I think just the role of the student in the
university has dictated a change in administra
tion. Whereas I would typify [former president]
as much more the traditional president, somewhat
secluded, a very distinguished academic indi
vidual, thought of as a traditional mode in the
university, I think [new president], because
he's younger, is very much involved with stu
dents. He's enhanced student participation in
the university, he welcomed it and created a
philosophy here on campus that the purpose of
107
this institution is for the students, not for
faculty or administration.
A senior academic administrator who has held a num
ber of academic administrative and faculty positions
explained his view of the expanded student interest
in participation.
The trend in academic governance over the last
ten to fifteen years has moved away from stu
dents being isolated from any kind of governance.
As students become more involved in "real" gover
nance, then their role in real policy making
changed the old student government. Now stu
dents don't use the dean of students' office.
They are on committees and work in spite of the
dean's office. The "student as consumer" is a
productive role. If they get themselves organized,
they will see themselves on major policy committees.
Another academic administrator saw an increased
student reliance on their peers as well as the drive
towards participation in university affairs as being
part of the new scene. He also noted that students
no longer need the dean of students to serve as adult
go-between and helpers in meeting student interests.
I suggest that peer guidance is sought by stu
dents more than adult guidance. Student per
sonnel is unsure what it is to do. If there are
no volunteer clients, their role must change.
It is no fault of the dean, it's part of the
change in times. The student drive for partici
pation in governance, suggests less need for
adult go-betweens and helpers. The students
can avoid the dean. Student representatives
can take things to the Academic Senate them
selves .
The extent of student involvement in university
governance was rather extensive in the subject
108, i
institutions. The typical situation was outlined by
a chief business officer. He noted that as a conse
quence of this extensive involvement, the dean of
students' role has changed away from being a spokesman
for students.
I think he is a manager of services that are
essential to the student, but the dean of stu
dents to me is no longer like he was fifteen
years ago, a spokesman for the student. The
dean of students doesn't need to be a spokesman,
hell they are all spokesmen.
We have regular student members on all of our
standing committees, on the executive committee,
in the Senate, on the president's cabinet, the
foundation board, and our union board has a
majority of students. We have heavy student
involvement by the students; they don't need
the dean of students.
However, despite students' extensive access to
institutional governance, they often fail to make use
of their opportunities to participate. A veteran
faculty member noted that since students often do not
participate, the dean of students still has a viable
role in problem solving.
When all's said and done it's still the dean of
students who's there to solve the problems and
lend a sympathethic ear that the kid needs because
I've become disenchanted with some students who do
all the screaming about the representation and then
you can't get them out. You know, it takes them
three-quarters of a semester for them to get their
officers elected and then the representative is
assigned and then he doesn't show up. We've
worked hard at it and we can't get 100 percent
representation.
An academic vice-president observed that students are
not consistent in their advocacy of their interests,
1 M
and since/ in his opinion, consistency is the key
element of advocacy, the dean of students and his
staff are needed to play that role.
The dean of students and his staff are there
year in and year out and they have a feel and
a balance to make better judgments in terms of
the mixed modes or attitudes and I think that
there should be advocates of student affairs.
F. Summary
A number of factors relating to the students and
their environment were examined for their impact on
the dean of students. The first, the change in insti
tutional size from small colleges to large universi
ties, has affected the position of dean of students.
The dean is no longer able to deal with student concerns
and problems on a one-to-one basis. With size has come
complexity. Contributing to this complexity have been
the development of new student support programs, the
massive increase in financial aid and government regula
tions, and new and more sophisticated information systems.
The dean of students supervises functions and people and
has relatively little student contact.
The attendance of minority students in institutions
of higher education in unprecedented numbers has also
contributed to changes in the position of dean of students.
Minority students brought differing value systems to
previously white institutions. University personnel
■ ‘X
110
including deans of students were not prepared to deal with
these value differences nor to make necessary program and
policy shifts. Policy and procedural weaknesses were high
lighted by new tactics such as sit-ins, unconditional
demands, and threatened violence. The dean of students
found himself no longer able to speak for "all" students,
and found himself in the middle, between minority students
and the administration, and between student groups.
Student activism quickly followed, presenting value
challenges to the prevailing norms of the campuses and pro
viding a more strident tone. The dean of students increas
ingly found himself in the middle of powerful forces from
faculty, administration and students. At times he acted
as the front man operating between the students and the
administration with no expectation that he was to take sub
stantive action. At other times he represented and
defended the establishment to the students, sometimes in
areas outside of his administrative control. He also
functioned as the enforcer of rules on students and as an
arbiter between student groups.
While the dean tried to reconcile divergent interests,
he rarely had authority to deal directly in the resolution
of issues and differences. As a result, it was not un
common for the dean to be critized by students, faculty,
and administrators simultaneously. The dean was heavily
involved in crisis management, requiring a significant
commitment of time. As a consequence, he was frequently
unable to deal adequately with other administrative
responsibilities.
Activism was also a major contributor to student
challenges of discipline. In an effort to put some
distance between discipline and the dean, the disciplinary
function in the subject institutions has been restructured
in recognition of the conflict between discipline and
counseling responsibilities. The rules and enforcement
systems have become more legalistic, sophisticated and
explicit. In loco parentis no longer functions as the
primary principle determining the relationship of the
institution to the student.
Students have also become increasingly involved
in institutional governance, with their participation
spreading from areas of direct student interest such as
residence hall regulations, to broader institutional
issues such as faculty evaluation. As this participation
has increased, the dean of students has ceased to
represent students in the governance process nor is the
dean a go between in areas of mutual student and
institutional interest. The students are able to express
their own views in university councils. There is some
evidence, however, that their participation is not
always effective.
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It has been the intent of this study to describe the
position of dean of students, and to assess how this has
developed over the last ten years. The method of data
collection allowed detailed consideration of many influ
ences on the dean's role including campus growth, student
activism, and managerial accountability. However, generali
zations must be advanced cautiously since the subject insti
tutions represent a special sector of higher education:
large, urban, commuting, state universities.
The most general conclusion of the study is that there
have been fundamental changes in the position of dean of
students. The changes have been the result of local influ
ences particular to each institution and pervasive factors
which have influenced higher education generally such as
the dramatic growth of universities. The traditional basis
for the dean's role has evolved away from paternalism
toward a managerial basis of relationship. The absence of
a residential environment in the subject schools also dic
tates a less personal and more restricted role. The
demands for student rights and the greater involvement of
113
students in governance has meant the dean ceased to repre
sent students to a significant extent.
The position has moved away from its origin in the
faculty and has become a managerial function. The main
job emphasis is that of a manager of a complex series of
support functions with substantial budgets. At the same
time the position is not as influential as it has been
which reflects the fact that the responsibilities of other
senior officers have grown as fast or faster than the
dean's. Student interests may not be central to the
functioning of the institution.
However, a number of expectations have persisted.
The dean is still expected to handle discipline, student
problems and problem students. For many, the dean's prin
cipal role is to keep the troops happy. Presidents con
tinue to rely upon the dean to serve as a buffer between
them and students. The dean is at once expected to fulfill
the contrary roles of counselor and disciplinarian.
But these general findings rest on a more complex
analysis which is summarized to represent the true dimen
sions of the dean's position.
A. Campus Growth and the Impact of
Largeness and Complexity
The growth of the subject campuses and their result
ing large size and complexity, has contributed to a change
114
in the position of dean of students. Growth is used nere,
as it has been throughout the study, to refer to increase
in numbers of students, faculty, facilities and functions.
Complexity refers to the more elaborate relationships
among those functions and people caused by increased insti
tutional size.
Institutional growth has resulted in increases in the
number and complexity of functions under the jurisdiction
of the dean of students. New functions typically assigned
to the dean of students, as illustrated in the appendix B,
include veteran affairs, international students, Equal
Opportunity Programs, disabled student affairs, and learn
ing assistance programs. These functions were added in
response to a variety of factors such as greater awareness
of disadvantaged students, greater Federal interest in cer
tain programs and constituencies, and a greater representa
tion of non-traditional groups in higher education.
Size and complexity tend also to produce greater
distance in the relationships within an organization. For
the dean of students, this has meant a move towards more
formalized relationships. During the short histories of
the subject schools, the position has evolved from the
traditional model to one which more closely resembles that
of the modern manager with responsibilities for a large
staff, substantial budgets, sophisticated systems and
115
technologies, and complex interactions with other mana
gerial units.
Beyond the increases in number and complexity of
responsibilities under the dean, student bodies have
become more diverse as new kinds of students entered the
universities. This change had a direct effect on the dean.
New students brought with them different values which, at
times, conflicted with those of the dominant white middle-
class culture. New attitudes challenged traditional prac
tices and loyalties. The paternalistic style of relation
ship conflicted with these students' assertions of indepen
dence and their general distrust of the university estab
lishment. New students also tended to have specific occu
pational goals rather than the more conventional of an
"education for life." This too required the dean to adapt
by providing programs and services which reflected a
broader value spectrum, for instance, in the areas of drug
problems and race relations. Rules promulgated or encour
aged by the dean tended to lose their moralistic quality.
B. Conflicting Expectations
The dean of students is found caught between con
flicting definitions of his function; he is a "man in the
middle." The dissonance and ambiguity in the role of the
dean of students reflects the dissonance and ambiguity in
lie.
the perceptions of the role by others. The dean is often
in a "no win" situation, facing the difficulty of pleasing
a sufficient number of individuals or groups at the same
time.
As demonstrated earlier, the role evolved from one
concerned primarily with student behavior and the non
classroom activities of students into a more complex
role, with far-reaching responsibilities which frequently
brought it into conflict with faculty or administrators.
At the same time, new role definitions emerged involving
responsibilities for student advocacy, program develop
ment, and mediation. People the deans related to were
not always familiar with these aspects of the dean's work
nor necessarily supportive of them. Since the move away
from the strictly in loco parentis style of relationship
there has been no clearly defined and widely accepted job
description for the dean of students. Faculty remember
their collegiate experiences and frequently are not
aware of new realities. The president and other senior
administrators, if not holding a view common with faculty,
are often not in sympathy with some of the new roles, or
with the notions of counseling and assistance to stu
dents. Student rights and opportunities for student
participation in the affairs of the institution have
significantly increased, and in the exercise of these
_____________________ '117
rights and opportunities students have found that their
ideas of student needs and rights are not always consis
tent with those of their dean. In short, no agreed upon
role has been developed.
It is well to guard against the easy assumption
that the objectives and interests of the major groups
within the institution are similar. Discussion in
chapter IV suggested most internal administrative
authority is now forfeited by the faculty and assumed by
the central administration. Faculty are primarily con
cerned with employment and instructional issues. This
emphasis by faculty does not, however, imply agreement
with either the content or process of university decision
making. Faculty efforts to unionize, to take one obvious
example, suggest sharply divergent interests. Similarly,
students have made it clear, particularly in the struggles
of the 1960's and early 1970's, that administrative views
of student interests are self-serving and contrary in fact
to the actual views of students. A recent trend toward
viewing the student as a consumer rather than the recip
ient of a privilege suggests that a similar difference
exists between students and faculty. The dean, expected
to intervene to resolve these tensions, often confronts
irreconcilable differences.
Students have traditionally had a special claim on
118
the dean of students. As the title suggests, students
can see the dean as "theirs" and expect him to side with
them even though the students' position is at odds with
the institution's position. It may be noted that selec
tion of the dean of students was one of the first in
which students participated and the dean of students is
typically expected to get along with students, student
government, and student interest groups. These expecta
tions suggest certain vulnerabilities for the dean. It
is difficult to be an advocate for students and, at the
same time, a member of the executive team responsible for
the management of the institution.
This position is made still more tenuous for lack
of an independent power base from which to push for
acceptance of his views. The dean's is a dependent
position? that is, the dean does not have an indepen
dent power base to the extent that the president, chief
academic officer, and the chief business or administrative
officer do because of their relationship to financial
resources and bureaucratic authority.
C. Hierarchical Placement of the
Dean of Students
Among the senior line officers of the institution,
the dean of students has least prestige. Typically,
senior line officers report to the president and fill
the following positions: chief academic officer, chief
student personnel officer, chief business officer, and
chief administrative officer. Among these, the dean
ranks lowest in terms of status and influence. This
ranking tends to be true despite the relative strength
of the student personnel program, level of presidential
support, and personal and professional qualities of the
dean. Though it is difficult to define trends with con
fidence, some evidence suggests this position is moving
further from the center. For example, some deans no
longer report to the president. However, others have
been given supervisory responsibility over more functions
and personnel than previously. Therefore, direction is
uncertain.
As was noted earlier, the dean of students simply
does not command the resources that other officers do
and therefore is unable to compete from a position of
power. Power flows to those who control resources and
the primary functions of the university. The chief
academic officer typically wields the most power by con
trolling the bureaucratic resources. Students, the dean's
primary constituents, are not sufficiently organized,
informed, or unified to counterbalance the academic
interests within the university. Student disfavor may
be directed towards the dean rather than less visible
120
administrative officers.
Student affairs is clearly ancillary to the primary
instructional focus of these institutions. Throughout
the study, respondents reinforced this evaluation. Some
faculty and administrators even argued that student
affairs was superfluous. Faculty see themselves as the
heart of the institution and their priorities are usually
the one's first served. By contrast, student interests
are less important to the university; they are less
clearly defined and are supported by little real power.
Therefore, it is not surprising that chancellors and
presidents have not raised the position of dean of stu
dents to the vice-chancellor or vice-presidential level.
Significant presidential interest in the function of
student affairs is the result of crisis or temporary
difficulty rather than of sustained interest and support.
In this way, the lack of definition, interest, and presi
dential support relegate student affairs to a secondary
position within the academic hierarchy.
Personal and professional resources reinforce this
situation. In general, deans from the subject schools
typically did not have strong academic backgrounds,
either in terms of experience or degrees. And this was
not compensated by strengths in administration. It is
not surprising that deans of students were critized for
121
paying less than sufficient attention to the management
aspects of their positions since, by their own admission,
many were less interested in management than program
development and counseling. They were more interested
in solving student problems and dealing with student
activists than dealing with the daily management and
long term planning necessary for student services.
Their inclination reflects, in part, their personal
commitments and professional training. It may be ironic
that deans were evaluated by their colleagues not on
their performance of their traditional role of working
directly with students but rather on the newer management
dimension of the position.
D. Impact of the President
The single most significant determinant of the
effectiveness of the dean of students is the president's
view of the role and the incumbent dean. At an earlier
time, the dean operated with greater independence from
other administrative authorities due to his more limited
responsibilities; consequently, presidential support and
interest was less crucial. In the contemporary setting,
however, a number of the student affairs functions com
pete for institutional resources against other major
functions. Since the number of employees in student
122
affairs often numbers in the hundreds, the financial
impact becomes rather obvious. It has been demonstrated
that the dean has relatively little independent power.
It is for this reason that the president is so critical
in the competition for resources and the overall status
of the student affairs function. While the president,
through his style, expectations, and understanding of a
given function, has significant impact on most institu
tional functions, it would appear that the dean of
students is more susceptible to that influence than most,
due to a greater lack of independent power.
A companion finding is that despite the strong
relationship that exists between the president's attitude
towards student affairs and the effectiveness of the dean,
presidents typically exhibit little interest in the func
tion, except as it serves as a buffer against the demands
of students. Again, this reflects the peripheral nature
of student affairs. Presidents are more interested in
academic concerns, and they deal primarily with the pro
blems of budget, planning, faculty, and governance. This
attitude is modified during periods of significant student
unrest which can monopolize the president's time. It
appears that with the return of calm to the student world,
presidential interest returned to more typical areas of
attention.
123
E. Faculty Awareness and Impact
Faculty have little understanding and awareness of
the dean of students and the student affairs function.
Furthermore, faculty expectations vary considerably
depending upon specific individual experiences. In
general, however, faculty hold a rather traditional
view of the role, that is, they see it as having to do
with controlling students and dealing with problems of
student behavior.
This view stems from the faculty's own collegiate
experiences, a view of reality that many have had no
reason to re-evaluate. Unless a faculty member is involved
in governance, committee or task forces, or has some other
experience with the student affairs function, he has little
opportunity to observe, let alone to understand, changes
which might have occurred. The management and super
visory responsibilities of the dean frequently are not
obvious to faculty while disciplinary and regulatory
activities are. Conflicting expectations develop because
the dean is less involved in traditional areas and more
with new functions and management concerns.
There is also little reason for the faculty to be
concerned with and knowledgable about the content of
student affairs. Faculty culture is focused primarily
on instructional and professional issues. Counseling,
124
financial aid, and other services are typically less
important to faculty than promotion and tenure, academic
disciplines and interests, and classroom instruction.
There is also evidence that institutional size and
a commuting student and faculty population contribute to
this relative insulation. Institutions such as those
studied simply do not lend themselves to the kind of
contact and information exchange expected in a residen
tial institution, particularly in smaller settings.
Insulation, specialization, and national rather than
local faculty loyalties, produce a bureaucratic rather
than a collegial institution.
F. Students
Students and student culture have significantly
affected the role of the dean of students. Students, as
the dean's primary clientele, might be expected to have
such an impact. The dean's traditional authority over
students has eroded, being replaced by more formalized,
less paternalistic, and more bureaucratic relationships.
Moreover, the value-laden leadership implicit in the
traditional dean's role has given way to an expectation
that the dean and the university will deal with a multi
valued student body in an evenhanded, non-judgmental way.
These shifts came in response to changes in the
student culture. Minority and other students brought new
125
values and tactics. Challenges to traditional practices and
sources of authority brought demands for significantly
greater student self-responsibility and participation in
university governance. Student demands for changes in con
trol of individual behavior also produced an increase in the
number and degree of formalization of regulations affecting
student life. The dean, in short, is required to react to
meet changing expectations, and to successfully mediate
changing students1 interests with the rest of the institu
tion .
G. Implications
Perhaps the most important implication of this study
is that there may be no need for a dean of students, at
least as a senior position. The study suggests some
question as to the soundness of the position and of its
future, confirming Hodgkinson's earlier c o n c l u s i o n .62
The dean receives much of his status by virtue of his real
support from faculty. While the dean maintains perfunctory
relationship with councils of academic deans and faculty
senates, primary support comes from the administration.
That support, however, is limited and conditional. Presi
dents tend to see the dean as someone who takes care of
62Hodgkinson, "How Deans of Students Are Seen by
Others - and Why," p. 53.
126
students, keeping them happy, while many other administra
tors and faculty see the dean’s function as peripheral.
The scope and centrality of new responsibilities does not
provide for an independent power base within the institu
tion. The lack of power is partially related to the greater
expansion of other areas, notably research, business and
financial management. But it is probably more realistic to
see the dean's weak position arising from the fact that it
lies outside of the academic mainstream.
Beyond this reality, there may be good reason for
abolishing the dean’s role. Administrators and faculty see
themselves as highly concerned with student welfare. In
addition, the expanded role of students in the governance
process allows them to represent their own interests.
This change in the students’ role and the dean’s relative
lack of power led one faculty member to conclude: "I don’t
think the dean’s position is viable because the students are
not talking to a person who can solve their problems? they
need to talk right to the administration.1 1
In addition, some see no organizational or philosophi
cal reason for grouping the student affairs services
together. Many respondents felt these could be better
run under the business or academic affairs sectors.
Yet there is a counter case for maintaining and even
strengthening the position. One argument stresses inertia.
127
As one academic administrator observed: "Someone has to
run these rather troublesome services." But a more con
structive argument is that intellectual development does
not occur in isolation from other dimensions of human
d e v e l o p m e n t . Universities should, therefore, attend to
the broader range of o b j e c t i v e s .64 one way is to have an
administrative unit which deals with the student environ
ment and provides support services. Such a unit is not dis
tracted by research and instructional concerns and, ostensi
bly, brings a higher level of expertise to student develop
ment, by virtue of training, complementing instructional
efforts. Besides, faculty and students do not always share
the same interests. Differences are clearly expressed in
attitudes toward collective bargaining and the evaluation of
courses and professors. Promotion and tenure pressures
6^Arthur W. Chickering, Education and Identity
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1969),
pp. 8-19, has identified these "constellations of
development": achieving competence, managing emotions,
becoming autonomous, establishing identity, freeing
interpersonal relationships, clarifying purposes, and
developing integrity.
6^Kenneth A. Feldman and Theodore M. Newcomb, The
Impact of College on Students, vol. 1 (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1969). An excellent
example of impact of differing environments on students
is the finding that residing in a residence hall during
the freshman year increases a students chances of com
pleting college. See Alexander W. Astin, Preventing
Students from Dropping Out (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Inc., Publishers, 1975), pp. 89-108.
128
typically reduce the time faculty can spend with students.
This argues for a separate administrative unit 'for student
services to protect student interests from being completely
subordinated to faculty ones.
Finally, it is argued that despite significant in
creases in student participation in governance, the need
remains for an advocate for student interests in the highest
institutional councils. This stems from the transient
nature of students, their lack of experience in organiza
tional behavior, and their smaller stake in the outcome of
policy decisions. The dean of students provides consis
tent student-oriented input.
Whatever the arguments for and against maintaining the
position of dean of students, it is likely the position will
be maintained. First, as long as the university is orga
nized by constituency, that is, with major divisions for
faculty, alumni and administration, an effort can be
expected to keep a student affairs unit. Second, the pro
jected decline in the college age pool foretells increased
competition for students by colleges and universities in
order to maintain budgets. This competition suggests not
only increased attention to marketing and recruitment, but
also to the retention of students. This argues for greater
attention to student needs, services, and the student
environment.
On the assumption that deans will be maintained in
_______________________ 129
university hierarchies, a number of implications follow
from this study. First, since large complex institu
tions will likely be the organizational mode for the
future, deans of students' roles will continue to evolve
as managerial positions, with increasing requirements for
management-oriented degrees and experiences. Student
relationships will for the most part be delegated to
"junior," non-management staff while student-institution
relationships will continue to be formalized as rules
and procedures are codified. New and different students
will also continue to press universities for more responsive
programs and policies. For though one cannot predict new
surges of activism, universities will probably have to deal
with non-traditional values and political actions. Should
student political actions increase, it is likely the dean
of students will be called again to deal with them.
There is no reason to expect the dean's status to
increase significantly, Unless he is granted greater
resources and responsibilities. This is unlikely to
happen despite the increasing managerial nature of the
position. Student affairs is still ancillary. It may
be ironic that the expected change in training and back
ground to better handle managerial responsibilities may
in fact blur some of the claim for a distinct profession
130
called student personnel work. The deans may be forced
to abandon backgrounds in the mental health disciplines
and compete with other managers who have greater responsi
bilities and experience.
All evidence suggests that the dean will continue to
be highly dependent on the president for status and support.
Just as the climate has returned to normal from the period
of student activism thus allowing the president to be less
concerned with students and more with faculty and fiscal
affairs, the president may again have to emphasize student
concerns for budget maintenance reasons. Like activism,
this may have an impact on the president's view of the dean
of students and student services.
Little suggests a change in faculty awareness except
that younger faculty bring more updated views of the dean.
But as with their elders, their views will likely become
obsolete as well. Student affairs may produce greater
interest from faculty, particularly young faculty, as a
possible employment outlet. Economic and enrollment
trends may also push administrators to increase faculty
"productivity" by requiring more than lip-service to
faculty interaction and support of students through advise
ment and counseling. As long as faculty interests are
directed as they are, however, there is little reason to
expand student affairs. It is more likely that student
131
affairs, to be effective, will have to move towards the
faculty, thus bringing student affairs more directly into
the mainstream of institutional interests and decision
making.
H. Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendations based on the study for further
research are as follows:
1. There is a need to review periodically the posi
tion of dean of students in order to assess its vitality
and effectiveness, for insofar as the dean of students
reflects a focus on the education of students and the main
tenance of a viable student learning environment, the posi
tion is of interest to educators. Such periodic review
should also contribute.to an understanding of the personal
qualities and skills needed in the position and a more
effective combination of duties and roles.
2. There is a need to continue to study the adminis
tration of institutions of higher education as wholistic
entities. The insights in this study into the dean of
students* relationships with other institutional officers
have reverse implications as well; that is, dysfunctional
personal relationships, imbalanced power relationships, and
significant role conflict may afflict other institutional
officers as well. Such study may produce models for the
more effective administration of universities.
132
3. It is recommended that similar field investi
gations be conducted on other types of college and
university campuses following the model of this study.
Case studies of these institutions should produce
rich data and a greater understanding of the delivery
of student services and the administration of higher
education in specific settings.
4. It is further recommended that a quantitative
study using hypotheses generated in this study be con
ducted utilizing a broader sample which would additionally
include small private institutions, large private universi
ties, community colleges, and major research institutions.
Such a study might use stratified sampling techniques
in order to compare the differences in the role of deans of
students and student service administration among the
various types of colleges and universities.
133
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Position, tenure, committee and adminstrative
experiences.
Observations on the role of the dean of students.
Observations on the style of the dean of students.
Observations on the responsibilities of the dean of
students.
Describe the power position of the dean in relation
to other senior line officers. Why? Clout? Based on
what?
Faculty and their impact on the dean? Faculty opinion
of dean and his functions?
What are the major problems of the dean? Why?
Do students need the dean?
What has been the impact of the bureaucracy on the
dean?
Does in loco parentis exist? Has it? To what extent
is discipline and social control an occupation of the
dean?
Relationship to the president?
Is the position viable? Status of dean? Is student
affairs in the mainstream of academic and educational
affairs?
i34
APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
THREE SUBJECT UNIVERSITIES
The three institutions were established between 1947
and 1958, reflecting the dramatic population growth of
Southern California following World War II. California
State University, Los Angeles was established in 1947;
California State University, Long Beach in 1949; and,
California State University, Northridge in 1958 after
functioning for two years as a branch of the then
California State College at Los Angeles. All are large,
urban, commuting institutions. Fall 1973 enrollment
figures were 23,826 at Los Angeles, 24,990 at Northridge
and 30,505 at Long Beach.
A. California State University, Northridge
Located in the western section of the San Fernando
Valley, California State University, Northridge occupies
a campus of 380 acres. It was established at its present
site in 1956 as the San Fernando Valley Campus of the Los
Angeles State College of Applied Arts and Sciences. In
1958 the California legislature gave it separate existence
under the name of San Fernando Valley State College.
In January 1958, the college's first president was
_____________________________________________________________________ 135.
appointed, Dr. Ralph Prator. At the time of the appoint
ment, the institution employed 104 faculty with a student
enrollment of 3,300. As had been the role of the college
under its relationship with Los Angeles State College, San
Fernando Valley continued in a liberal arts emphasis. In
1971, the institution was renamed California State Univer
sity, Northridge, as approved in authorizing legislation.
From its inception, the university has experienced
tremendous growth. In its first thirteen years, the
faculty grew from 104 to 909 and the student body increased
from 3,300 to 24,450. The areas in which bachelors degrees
were offered grew from sixteen to thirty-eight, and masters
degree areas from nine to twenty-eight. Its rate of growth
is clearly demonstrated by fall semester attendance figures
for 1963, 9,923, and 1972, 24,718 an increase of 250
percent.
The late 1960's represented for the Northridge campus
a period of activism, stress, and administrative fluidity.
The institution's original president, Ralph Prator, resign
ed in the fall of 1968. Upon resignation he was replaced
by Paul Blomgren, who when hospitalized a short time later
was replaced by Delmar T. Oviatt, the long-time academic
vice-president. Upon Blomgren1s ultimate resignation for
health reasons, the chancellor appointed Malcolm O. Sillars
as acting president. Finally, in March 1969, the Trustees
136
appointed James W. Cleary as permanent president, a post
he has filled since. In addition to the presidency and
other top administrative and academic positions, the
position of dean of students was also in flux.
The nature of the attendance area and student body has
remained relatively constant over the years. The institu
tion is essentially an urban, middle-class, commuting
institution. Its attendance area is essentially the San
Fernando Valley. An administrator supplied an excellent
overview of the nature of the institution.
We have 25,000 kids and about 22,000 are from
Los Angeles County, the valley, about 2,000 are
from Ventura County and Kern County north of us,
and another about 1,000 would make up the inter
national students and people from out of state.
So we*re one big valley here - a million and a
half people, [and] we're the only institution of
higher education in it. And we're a five year
institution so people commute back and forth....
Now we run more of a McDonald's operation because
people are usually on the go, driving in. They're
grabbing a sandwich, they're off to their classes,
they're on their way again someplace. Our dormitory
here has never attracted very many people, not just
because of problems after the '68 riots but because
the signs of the times are changing. The faculty
tend to do some of the same things, to get up and
drive here and teach their class and go home.
An academic dean noted:
We have a very large student population which is
all commuter, very apathetic student body, and
we have a lot of students over 21 or 22 who,
perhaps, are married and working, returning
veterans. Their interests don't lie here on
campus. There are too many other things they
have to be about. It's not a U.C.L.A., U.S.C.,
or Pomona....
137
Northridge, like many other institutions of higher
education experienced a significant degree of activism
during the last half of the 1960's and the early 1970's.
One particular incident stands out as having contributed
significantly to the nature of the institution in a sub
stantial and long-term way. On November 4, 1968, a group
of twenty-eight Black students occupied an area of the
administration building and allegedly held college person
nel hostage, including clerks, the dean of students and the
vice-president for administrative affairs. The incident
developed as a tactic for obtaining rapid college action on
the demand by minority students for the establishment of an
ethnic studies department.
The following two months were filled with rallies,
demonstrations and confrontations between students and the
college culminating in the arrest of 286 persons on
January 9, 1969, for failure to disperse. While this
period represented the most active one, sporadic incidents
took place over the next two years.
The November 4, 1968, incident developed, in part,
from the introduction and rapid expansion of the Equal
Opportunities Program. A full professor described the
campus prior to the introduction of the E.O.P. program as
"academically-oriented, virtually 100 percent white [with]
a scattering of Mexican-Americans and a half dozen Blacks."
138
The institution apparently was ill-prepared for the
introduction of a large number of minority students into
the environment and did not handle it well administratively.
A long-time faculty member indicated the students them
selves played a part in recruiting.
[The director] was in charge of the selection
of the Black students [who made up the] original
crew and was in charge of the Black and Chicano
E.O.P. students. He leaned very heavily on one
of the Black students to assist him, then went
off on vacation letting the Black student finish
the recruiting. And the general scuttle was that
that was when the goon squad was brought in.
The November 4 incident resulted in demonstrations and
trials that left a legacy which is still felt in the insti
tution. The one large residence hall, once thought to be
the promise of a new dimension on campus, illustrates this
continuity. The residence hall was closed for one year
beginning in the summer of 1973 because of occupancy and
racial difficulties.
The administrative structure of California State
University, Northridge, contains four administrative areas
under the president, administration, business, academic
affairs, apd student affairs. In addition to the heads of
these four areas, the president's cabinet is composed of
the president and the associate vice-president for business
affairs.
The Student Personnel Services Division is composed of
fourteen functional areas, all of which report to the dean
139
of students. The titles reporting to the dean of students
are:
Associate Dean of Students
Associate Dean of Students, Activities and Inter
national Programs
Director of Housing
Associate Dean of Students, Admissions and Records
Admissions Officer
Registrar
Associate Dean of Students, Counseling and Testing
Associate Dean of Students, Relations with Schools
Director of Financial Aids
Director of Student Health Center
Director, Judicial Affairs
Director, Career Planning and Placement
Business Manager, Associated Students
Director, Equal Opportunities Program^
This suggests a rather complete range of "typical"
student affairs functions. There have been no recent
deletions from the dean of students' responsibilities and
there has been one addition, the Equal Opportunities Pro
gram, in the summer of 1973. It is important to note that
Admissions and Registration remains with the dean of stu
dents, a situation which does not exist at the other two
institutions.
B. California State University, Long Beach
Located in the city of Long Beach, the University was
established January 27, 1949 and began instruction
September 28, 1949. It opened in rented facilities under
the name of Los Angeles-Orange County State College with
^catalog, California State University, Northridge
1972-73, p. 12.
140
the purpose of serving southeastern Los Angeles and Orange
counties. Its first class included 160 juniors, seniors
and graduate students served by a faculty of thirteen.
In 1950 the name of the university was changed to Long
Beach State College and it moved in 1951 to its present
320 acre campus which was donated by the City of Long Beach.
Freshmen and sophomores enrolled for the first time and
construction was begun on the first permanent facilities in
1953. In 1964 the name was changed to California State
College at Long Beach, in 1968 to California State College,
Long Beach and again in 1972 to California State University,
Long Beach.
By 1973-74, the university enrolled 30,505 students
and had over 1,100 full-time and 500 part-time faculty.
Like its sister institutions included in this study, Long
Beach has experienced tremendous growth over the past
decade, doubling its size during that period, increasing
from 14,735 in fall 1963 to 29,513 in fall 1972.
California State University, Long Beach is currently the
largest member of the California State University and
Colleges system and the entire public system of higher
education in California.
Long Beach has had only three permanent and one
interim president in its quarter century history. Its
first president was P. Victor Peterson (1949-59) who came
141
to Long Beach after a two year tenure as president at
California State College, Los Angeles. Peterson oversaw
the establishment of the campus before being forced out
by the faculty in 1959. His successor was Carl W. McIntosh
(1959-69) whose primary emphasis was the physical expansion
of the campus. During the student upheavals of the late
1960's, McIntosh left Long Beach to accept a presidency
elsewhere. Robert Simonson served as interim president
during the year between McIntosh's resignation and the
appointment of Stephen Horn in 1970, who has served since
then.
Long Beach is much like its sister institutions in
that it is a large, urban, commuting institution. To a
question about the impact of these factors on the institu
tion, the president had this response.
[I]t encourages apathy. You look at the turn our
student elections have taken. Less than 10 percent
vote and the result is the Academic Senate very clever
ly has a 10 percent rule which disenfranchies the
students. In other words, the officers can serve
but if less than 10 percent voted in the election,
the Senate won't seat the people they elected.
There is some amusing irony, but it is still a
problem of apathy. The part-time student has many
other concerns than campus life. Of the 868 stu
dents who live in the dorms, it would be interest
ing to know the proportion of them who vote in the
student elections. When you think of the more tra
ditional residential campus where every little nuance
that happens in the faculty and the administration
becomes something that you talk about at breakfast,
lunch and dinner, I know that doesn't happen here.
A lot of students are married, they've got jobs.
They're a lot more serious about their education
than students at prestige Ivy League schools, to
142
whom it's the more traditional 18-22 year-olds....1 '
don11 want to knock the Cardinal Newman type of
higher education, but frankly, I chose this institu
tion because I saw tremendous potential. I thought
this was the way American education was heading by
the year 2000.
A vice-president saw it in much the same way, character
izing the institution as "the working man's university."
Another vice-president elaborated on the characteristic of
the student body and the institution.
There are several facets. One is that these urban
institutions are of great size. Another thing is
that the commuting factor creates a much different
kind of environment because the student is not invest
ing his total being in the unversity experience.
He's in effect leading two lives or perhaps even
three which are quite different in their milieu
and their demand upon him and their schedule and in
every other way. Many of our students, maybe 50
percent, more than that now, work, so they have a
work life. Most of them live at home, or they're
married and have their own homes, so they have an
entity there that makes demands on them. And then
they have a university experience of sorts. There's
no way that university experience can be all-demanding,
all-encompassing, as if they were the typical under
graduate, a resident student in a libert arts college
in Kansas.
As with other institutions, Long Beach experienced
the stresses of activism and dissent. Most reknowned in
the public eye and its general impact on the institution
was the so-called Spaeter incident which occurred in
1967. An art graduate student displayed publically a
masters degree project of paintings depicting nude men
and women in a variety of poses. While the situation
generated considerable attention and controversy, it
.143
appeared to be resolved on the campus. An agreement was
worked out at the campus level which seemed to satisfy most
of the involved parties? however, the chancellor stepped in
and nullified the agreement and order the exhibit not shown
under any circumstances. The event subsequently received
great attention from the public, trustees, and legislature,
and was exacerbated by continuing student protest and dis
ruption. In its immediate aftermath, President McIntosh
resigned. The incident continues to be a touchstone in
descriptions of the campus climate and the stresses of the
late 1960's.
Another important characteristic of the institution
is the apparently continuing difficulties between the
faculty and university presidents, the history of which
goes back to the early days of the institution. The
feeling among faculty members that most of their problems
stem from administrative action or inaction is quite deep
and fairly wide-spread. The most important situation in
the early history of the university was the opposition
to President Peterson by fourteen senior professors.
Their oppostion contributed to his departure.
The current president has experienced a continuation
of this "tradition." Faculty diagreements with the presi
dent reached such proportions that in 1972 a study was
made of personnel practices at Long Beach under the
____________________________________________________ 14_4_
auspices of the California College and University
Faculty Association, the California Higher Education
Association, and the California Teachers Association.
A rather extensive report was issued in June 1972 which was
highly critical of the president. At issue were the areas
of promotion policy, accessibility of the president to the
faculty, the deterioration of faculty welfare, and specific
personnel actions. The conflict has continued as evidenced
by the May 18, 1973 vote of the Academic Senate to censure
the president. This tension continues to negatively affect
faculty-administration relationships and those programs
and situations requiring mutual support.
Administratively, California State University, Long
Beach has undergone some change in recent years. Under the
previous administration the primary positions reporting to
the president were dean of the college (academic affairs),
business manager, executive dean, and dean of students,
although the latter position was not involved in the
general administration of the institution. However, this
structure was not definite.
Under the current president, there are three opera
tional divisions; academic affairs, administrative and
business affairs, and student affairs. In the executive
office of the president is the dean of planning and the
executive vice-president, foundation, the latter being a
145
non-state funded position. The three operational heads,
the business manager, the two officers within the
president's office and selected administrative assistants
to the president compose the policy committee which is
advisory to the president.
It is important to note that in 1971, the president
promoted the dean of students to the position of vice-
president for student affairs which was a parallel position
to the academic and administrative vice-presidencies. This
action was forecast in a 1969 report by a blue-ribbon
faculty committee. This change made the chief student
personnel officer at Long Beach the only one with vice-
presidential status in the entire California State
University and Colleges system. While this reflected
President Horn's position with regard to student affairs,
the move was rescinded by the legislature. The president
explains:
Well, let me just say that [dean] whose position you
are talking about on this campus had the title
although he doesn't have it now. He is considered
by me, regardless of the title, to be the vice-
president for student affairs and the equal of any
other vice-president within the institution. In
other words, the way that I have reorganized this
institution since becoming president... is that there
are three operating divisions within the university,
academic affairs, administrative and business affairs,
and student affairs. Each of the operative divisions
is headed by a functional vice-president.
[0]nee I felt very strongly that raising the dean
to a vice-presidency should be done, I sat down
with the chancellor and I said, "Glenn, I'm going
to establish this vice-presidency, period. Regardless
146
of what the system says or anything else. This
is really nonsense the way we function now with
the largest university in California...and yet I
have two vice-presidencies." Well, he certainly
agreed that this was justified but he said, "Don't
rush into it now. I'll do it administratively in
terms of giving you support." It turned out that
the president of Northridge was also interested in
another vice-president-, but his, interestingly enough,
was for academic affairs. So this went on for roughly
one year until the Committee on Ways and Means of the
Assembly ended it. And the politics which go behind
that are hard to decipher and discern, but it's
another chance to take a kick at the administration
and so on. I suspect that...the chancellor's office
had not properly cleared this and given the appro
priate homage.
In line with his intentions and the decision of the legis
lature the president retitled the position "executive:
student affairs, dean of students." The incumbent has
continued to operate at the vice-presidential level
although the salary and title are not equivalent.
The student affairs function at Long Beach contains
a full slate of offices and functions. These departments
and functions are:
Counseling and Testing
Financial Aid and Student Employment
Health Services
Housing
Intercollegiate Athletics
International Students
Student Activities
Student Development Programs
University Student Union
Judicial Affairs
Career Planning and Placement Office
Learning Assistance Systems and P r o g r a m s 6 6
6^California State University, Long Beach
Bulletin 1973-74, pp. 17-18.
147
Until 1969, Admissions and Records reported to the dean of
students. That year the reporting responsibility was
changed to the dean of instructional services in the aca
demic administrative structure. This change occurred
during the height of the students* disturbances at Long
Beach and during the tenure of an acting dean of students.
The change was recommended by a special blue-ribbon
committee and approved as part of a larger recommendation
package by the Academic Senate on April 18, 1969. A
recent dean of instructional services suggested some of the
reasons for the transfer including the lack of effective
supervision resulting, in part, from the time required to
deal with student disturbances.
[The change was made] because the dean of students
had no time because of his limited time and staff,
to supervise it. It was thought by the administra
tion that the operation needed supervising and the
registration process was pretty bad. Long lines of
people lined up for hours just waiting to be admitted.
So I was brought in four years ago to straighten that
out.
In addition to adding certain functions such as
veterans, minority, and disabled student programs made
necessary by new groups of students previously not
receiving significant attention, there was one significant
addition to the responsibilities of the dean of students -
intercollegiate athletics. This occurred in 1971 in con
junction with the president's drive to elevate the dean of
students' position to a vice-presidency. Previously,
148
athletics had reported directly to the president with
working relationships with the Department of Physical
Education and the School of Applied Arts and Sciences.
According to the president, the transfer to Student
Affairs was made "to bring some effectiveness and
efficiency" to the department and because the president
didn't "have time as president to supervise such opera
tions. "
C. California State University, Los Angeles
California State University, Los Angeles was estab
lished by the legislature in 1947 as Los Angeles State
College. It was established in response to the needs of
veterans and was the first of twelve state colleges estab
lished after World War II. The college began with 136
upper division and graduate students many of whom came
directly from Los Angeles City College whose facilities
were shared with the fledgling state college. The two
institutions shared facilities until 1956 when the present
campus was occupied.
In 1949, the first president, P. Victor Peterson, was
transferred to the new Long Beach campus and was replaced
by Howard S. McDonald who is credited with building both
the program and physical campus during his thirteen year
tenure. In that same year, the name of the campus was
149
changed to Los Angeles State College of Applied Arts and
Sciences. During its early years, the college experienced
rapid growth particularly in its evening and extension
programs. At one point, the combined enrollment of the
city and state colleges was over 30,000. In 1956, a
branch campus was established in the San Fernando Valley
and between 1956 and 1958 the college was conducting pro
grams on all three campuses. Finally, in 1958, the campus
moved into its first permanent buildings at its present
site and in 1959 admitted its first freshman class and
began developing its lower division program.
California State University, Los Angeles is the small
est of the three institutions in this study. As it is the
oldest of the three, most of its growth occurred prior to
the 1960's. Between 1963-72, its enrollment has increased
only 5,000, from 18,574 to 23,611.
California State University, Los Angeles is indeed an
urban institution and formally subscribes to an urban
focus. It is noted for its high percentage of minority
students. The percentage of the student body classifying
itself as non-white rose from 20 percent in 1964 to 40
percent in 1970. The students are typically older,
married, first generation college students and from the
immediate area. A professor and former senior officer of
the college offered this view of the student body and the
institution.
ISO
This is really more important than the commuting
nature of the student body, the fact that there are
no residences. But even if there were, we wouldn1t
have very many of our students in them because they
are first generation college-going, basically the
lower-middle class or the upper-lower class. They
are older than the average. They have personal com
mitments. They are poorer than the average. Our
student body looks a hell of a lot more like a junior
college student body in an urban setting than it does
like anything else. The nearest thing to it, we'd
have to go back to New York to CCNY or go to Chicago
and Roosevelt.
Perhaps, one of the most important defining character
istics of the institution is the role of the faculty in
university governance. The administration and the faculty
have a self-described "unusually amicable relationship"
and participate together in a "democratic, legislative-
administrative form [of government] based upon mutual
trust and communication."^ The faculty handbook describes
the process of governance in the following way.
Faculty members and students have a major role in
the governance of the college through the Academic
Senate, which is the official representative body
of the faculty. The Senate recommends policy to
the president. If the president rejects a Senate
proposal, he informs the Senate in writing to the
chairman of the Senate, of the compelling reasons
for his rejection of the Senate recommendation.
All full-time members of the faculty are eligible
for election to the Senate, whose membership also
includes five student voting members.6 8
S ^ S e l f - S t u d y (California State University, Los
Angeles']! 1971) , p. 19.
6^Faculty Handbook (California State University,
Los Angeles, 1972), p. 20.
151
Faculty members move in and out of administrative
posts with ease. According to college policy faculty
members must sit on selection panels for major administra
tive posts and participate with the president in the annual
evaluation of administrators. This policy applies to the
dean of students.
Until 1969, there were three line officers reporting
to the president: the vice-president for academic affairs,
the vice-president for business affairs, and the dean of
students. In a memorandum dated March 19, 1969, the
preisident recommended to the Academic Senate that the dean
of students' reporting channel be changed from the presi
dent to the vice-president for academic affairs because:
"Students have become much concerned with academic manage
ment, instruction, and curriculum which they regard as
more relevant to their interests now than traditional stu
dent activities." The Senate concurred less than a month
later and the change was implemented prior to the appoint
ment of a new dean of students.
The change was recommended in part because of con
tinuing difficulties between the vice-president for
academic affairs and the dean of students and in part
because faculty displeasure with the administration of
Admissions and Records by the dean of students. This
function was transferred to academic affairs. At the
point that Admissions and Records was transferred, it was
________________________ 152.
felt that it was "no longer feasible or desirable to have
the dean of students report directly to the president."
At that point, only two line officers reported directly to
the president.
A self-study published in 1971 recommended a further
splitting of the responsibilities of the dean of students
into two areas, one being essentially the area of student
activities under the dean of students and the other the
area of student services in a new administrative unit.
Despite the recommendation of the faculty, this plan was
not implemented.
In 197 3, the reporting relationship of the dean of
students was again changed. The title of the vice-
president for business affairs was changed to vice-
president for administrative affairs and the student per
sonnel function was transferred to that administrative
jurisdiction. The primary reason for this move was that
the function needed more supervision and assistance than
the academic vice-president was able to give.
The president does not have a policy committee. All
policy matters are referred to the Academic Senate for
recommendation. The president does maintain the cabinet
which serves essentially as a sounding board. The dean
of students serves on this committee along with the two
vice-presidents, the chairman of the Academic Senate, the
1531
president of the Associated Students, the chairman of the
Staff Council, and such other personnel as the president
might appoint.
The areas reporting to the dean of students reflect
to a considerable degree, the nature of the institution.
Functions normally associated with a more residential or
traditional program are de-emphasized or non-existent.
Particularly suspicious by its absence is the housing
function. Between 1968 and 1972 a number of changes have
taken place in the programmatic make-up of the Student
Affairs area. As noted above, Admissions and Registration
was transferred to Academic Affairs. In addition,
athletics was transferred from Student Affairs to the
Department of Physical Education. Program additions during
that period include the Equal Opportunities Program which
was transferred from Academic Affairs to Student Affairs,
the addition of the University Union, and the institution
of specially funded outreach and minority student programs.
The following is a program comparison for the years 1968
1968__________________________1972_______________________
Admissions and Registration..........................
Athletics................................. ..............
Placement...... ............ Placement
Student Health..............Student Health
Counseling and Testing.....Counseling and Testing
Financial Aid...... ........Financial Aid
Student Finance.......... . . .Student Finance
Student Activities......... Student Activities
...... .................Equal Opportunity Programs
.............................University Union
154
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arbuckle, Dugald S. Student Personnel Services in Higher
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
Astin, Alexander W. Preventing Students from Dropping
Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers,
1975.
Ayers, A. R., and Hollis, E. V. "Differentiating the Func
tions of Administrative Officers in Colleges and
Universities." Higher Education 20 (December 1963):
3-6.
Ayers, Archie E., and Russell, John H. "Organization for
Administration in Higher Education." Higher Education
20 (April 1964):7-10.
Bailey, A. S. L. "Dean at Work: a Composite Portrait."
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors
Journal 31 (Fall 1967):30-3.
Baldridge, J. Victor. "Organizational Change Processes: a
Political Systems Approach." Selected Major Speeches
and Excerpts from NASPA1s 55th Annual Conference.
Philadelphia, National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, 1973, pp. 30-37.
________ . Power and Conflict in the University. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.
Barnes, R. E. "So You Want to Be a Dean of Students."
Peabody Journal of Education 41 (July 1963):3-9.
Becker, Howard S. Sociological Work: Method and Substance.
Chicago: Aldme Publishing Company, 1970.
Bess, James L., and Lodahl, Thomas M. "Career Patterns and
Satisfactions in University Middle-Management."
Educational Record 50 (Spring 1969):220-9.
155
Bloland, Paul A. "Students' Search for Community and
Personnel Work: Recent Trends and the Future."
22nd Annual Institute for College Student Personnel
Workers. Minneapolis, Minn., 1971.
Boykin, L. L. "Who Should Do What? The Allocat-on of Duties
and Responsibilities Among the Personnel Deans."
Educational Administration and Supervision 41
(November 1955):397-401.
Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis, Higher Education in
Transition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968.
Bursch, Charles W., II. "The Vice-President or Dean of
Students." In Administrators in Higher Education,
pp. 141-155. Edited by Gerald P. Burns. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1962.
California State University, Long Beach Bulletin, 197 3-74.
"Campus Panty Raid." Daily Sundial, 22 November 1966, p. 1.
Catalog, California State University, Northridge, 1972-73.
Chickering, Arthur W. Education and Identity. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1969.
Corson, John Jay. Governance of Colleges and Universities.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Crane, Robert M. "The Raison d'Etre of a Student Personnel
Administration." Improving College and University
Teaching 13 (Winter 1965):19-20.
Cross, K. P. "Higher Education and the Student Personnel
Administrator." National Association of Women Deans
and Counselors Journal 29 (Fall 1965):5-10.
Dean, John P., Eichhorn, Robert L., and Dean, Lois R.
"Observation and Interviewing." In An Introduction
to Social Research. 2nd ed., pp. 274-304. Edited by
John T. Doby. New York: Appleton, Century-Crofts,
1967.
Dutton, Thomas B. "critical Functions and Behaviors of
the Student Affairs Administrator." Selected Major
Speeches and Excerpts from NASPA's 55th Annual
Conference. Philadelphia, National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators, 1973, pp. 4-12.
156
Dutton, Thomas B., Appleton, James R., and Birch, Edward E.
Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the
Academic Community. Bloomington: A Special Report
of the NASPA Division of Research and Program
Development, (April 1970).
Edwards, Scott. "An Academic Chairman Looks at Governance."
Change, September 1972, pp. 24-9.
Faculty Handbook. California State University, Los Angeles,
(1972).
Feldman, Kenneth A., and Newcomb, Theodore M. The Impact
of College on Students. Vol. 1. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1969.
Fitzgerald, Laurine Elisabeth. "A Study of Faculty
Perceptions of Student Personnel Services."
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959.
Gross, Edward, and Grambsch, Paul V. University Goals and
Academic Power. Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 1968.
Habenstein, Robert W., ed. Pathways to Data. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1970.
Hecklinger, Fred. "Let's Do Away with the Dean." NASPA
Journal 9 (April 1972):317-20.
Hodgkinson, Harold L. "How Deans of Students Are Seen by
Others - and Why." NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970):49-63.
Hull, W. Frank, IV. "The University Administrator: From
Where Has He Come?" In The Organized Organization:
the American University and Its Administration,
pp. 11-24. Edited by Richard R. Perry and
W. Frank Hull, IV. Toledo: The University of
Toledo, 1971.
Ingraham, Mark H. The Mirror of Brass. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 1968.
Jencks, Christopher, and Riesman, David. The Academic
Revolution. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.
Johnson, Walter F. "Student Personnel Work in Higher
Education: Philosophy and Framework." In College
Student Personnel:Readings and Bibliographies,
pp. 6-11. Edited by Laurine E. Fitzgerald,
Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970.
________________________________________ 157
Kauffman, Joseph F. "New Challenges to Student Personnel
Work." NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970):12-16.
________ . "Student Personnel Administration: Some Questions
and Recommendations." Educational Record 45 (Summer
1964) : 291-8.
Kinnane, Mary. "Evolving Role of Dean of Students."
Catholic Educational Review 61 (September 1963):403-7.
Lavender, Harold W. "The Dean of Students - Why?" NASPA
Journal 9 (April 1972):312-16.
Leonard, Eugenia A. Origins of Personnel Services in
American Higher Education. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1956.
"Letters to the Editor." Daily Sundial, 15 April 1970, p. 4.
Lloyd-Jones, Esther. "The Art of Helping Others Live Their
Lives•" National Association of Women Deans and
Counselors Journal 31 (Fall 1967):17-22.
________ . "Serendipity and the Deans." National Association
of Women Deans and Counselors Journal 20 (June 1957):
151-7.
Lloyd-Jones, Esther, and Smith, Margaret Ruth. A Student
Personnel Program for Higher Education. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938.
McConnell, T. R. "Faculty Government." In Power and
Authority, pp. 98-125. Edited by Harold L. Hodgkinson
and L. Richard Meeth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Inc., Publishers, 1971.
________ . "The Individual in the Organized University." In
The Organized Organization: the American University
and Its Administrators, pp. 97-117. Edited by
Richard R. Perry and W. Frank Hull, IV. Toledo:
The University of Toledo, 1971.
________ . "Student Personnel Services - Central or
Peripheral?" NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970):55-63.
Meeth, L. Richard "Administration and Leadership." In Power
and Authority, pp. 39-53. Edited by Harold L.
Hodgkinson and L. Richard Meeth. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1971.
Mueller, Kate Hevner. Student Personnel Work in Higher
Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.
158
Nudd, T. Roger. "Dean is a Marginal Man." Journal of
Educational Sociology 35 (December 1961):145-51.
Oblas, Arthur S. "Will the Real College Dean Please Stand
Up?" NASPA Journal 7 (October 1969):97-100.
Otten, C. Michael. University Authority and the Student;
the Berkeley Experience. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1970.
"Outcome of Disruption of Speech." Daily Sundial, 12 March
1970, p. 1.
Partridge, Bruce J. "Tomorrow's Administrator More
Generalist, More Specialist." College and University
Business 40 (June 1966):44-48.
Patzer, Roland D. "The Student Personnel Administrator:
Pusillanimous Pussycat or Tempestuous Tiger?"
NASPA Journal 9 (January 1972):235-42.
"Peckham Confronted on Non-Retention Issue." Daily Sundial,
9 December 1967, p. 1.
"Peckham, Not Clearly, Answers Crowd." Daily Sundial,
17 March 1970, p. 2.
Reynolds, William McClellan. "The Role of the Chief Student
Personnel Officer in the Small Liberal Arts College."
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961.
Rickard, Scott T. "The Role of the Chief Student Personnel
Administrator Revisited." NASPA Journal 9 (January
1972):219-26.
Roaden, A. L. "College Deanship: a New Middle Management in
Higher Education." Theory into Practice 9 (October
1970):272-6.
Rodgers, Allan Winfield. "An Investigation of the Critical
Aspects of the Function of the Student Personnel Dean
as Seen by His Professional Peers Using the Critical
Incident Technique." Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1963.
Ross, G. Robert. "The Dean of Students." In Perceptions in
Public Higher Education, pp. 85-103. Edited by
Gene A. Budig. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1970.
"ROTC Demonstration." Daily Sundial, 8 December 1966, p. 1.
11 -5-9
Rothman, L. K., and Kennen, C. B. "Machines, People, and
Ideas: In Quest of Clarification of the Role of the
Professional Student Personnel Worker." NASPA
Journal 7 (January 1970):143-50.
Rourke, Francis E., and Brooks, Glenn E. The Managerial
Revolution in Higher Education. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.
Rueckel, P. "Student Dean in the 70's: Doctor, Lawyer, or
Indian Chief." National Association of Women Deans
and Counselors Journal 34 (Spring 1971):106-10.
Schenkel, Walter. "Who Has Been in Power?" In Power and
Authority, pp. 1-24. Edited by Harold L. Hodgkinson
and L. Richard Meeth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Inc., Publishers, 1971.
Self-Study. California State University, Los Anqeles,
(1971).
Shaffer, Robert, aiid Martinson, William. Student Personnel
Services in Higher Education. New York: Center for
Applied Research, 1966.
Sklar, Bernard. "Faculty Culture and Community Conflict:
The University of Wisconsin." Dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1969.
_______ . "The Student Movement: Summing Up the Results."
Los Angeles: University of Southern California,
1972. (Mimeographed.)
Smith, Richard Jacob. "A Study of the Role of the Dean
of Students and His Administrative Relationships
in a Selected Sample of Colleges and Universities."
Dissertation, University of Colorado, 1961.
Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education. New York:
The Free Press, 1966.
Stubblefield, Marolyn W., and Berry, Margaret. Student
Attitudes Toward the Office of the Dean of Students.
Austin: The University o£ Texas, Division of Student
Affairs, 1970.
Thrash, Patricia A. "The Chcmging Role of the Student
Personnel Dean." National Association of Women Deans
and Counselors Journal 29 (Fall 1965):10-13.
160
Tripp, Philip A. "Organization for Student Personnel
Administration." In Handbook of College and
University Administration:Academic, pp. 7, 3-16.
Edited by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1970.
________ . "The Dean - Leader, Teacher and Learner." In
Conflict and Change in the Academic Community, pp.
40-5. Detroit: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, 1970.
Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges
and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1961.
________ . "The Dean of Students as Educator." The
Educational Record 38 (July 1957):230-40.
Williamson, E. G., and Cowan, John L. "The Role of the
President in the Desirable Enactment of Academic
Freedom for Students." The Educational Record 46
(Fall 1965):351-72.
Wise, W. Max, "Culture, Politics and the Dean of Students."
In Conflict and Change in the Academic Community,
pp. 46-51. Detroit: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, 1970.
________ . "Thoughts About the Collapse of Academic Govern
ment and the Possibilities for Its Revival." In
The Organized Organization: the American University
and Its Administration, pp. 25-49. Edited by
Richard R. Perry and W. Frank Hull, IV. Toledo:
The University of Toledo, 1971.
Wicke, Myron F. "Deans: 'Men in the Middle.'" The Study of
Academic Administration, pp. 53-70. Boulder: Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963.
Zaccaria, Joseph S. "The Behavioral Sciences and the Iden
tity Crisis of Student Personnel Work." National
Association of Women Deans and Counselors Journal 31
(Spring 1968):103-5.
161

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Planning of higher education in Nepal: An analysis of resource allocation at Tribhuvan University

PDF

Characteristics of leadership of selected historical leaders in higher education in the United States with an exploratory study of the applicability of these characteristics to modern educational...

PDF

An experimental model of organizational development for institutions of higher education

PDF

Higher education in Israel

PDF

The administrative services of testing offices of institutions of higher learning in California: A model for objectives

PDF

A critical study of the aptitude hypothesis in vocational guidance and selection

PDF

Print materials in higher education: Selected issues, resulting changes, "fair use" in the 1976 Copyright Act

PDF

A test of Paivio's dual coding hypothesis with regular education, learning disabled, and severely language impaired students

PDF

The organization of student recreation programs in selected large institutions of higher learning

PDF

The relationship of faculty and student perceived role conceptions to organizational climate in two types of nursing programs

PDF

An exploratory study of the development of Jewish studies in American higher education with special emphasis on three contemporary programs

PDF

Systems analysis and the development of management information systems in California community colleges

PDF

A critical analysis of a California community college physical education program with guidelines and recommendations for modification based on student interests and needs

PDF

Teacher selections of emotionally handicapped pupils in grades four, five, and six compared with selections of A Process for in-school screening of children with emotional handicaps

PDF

Higher education and development in Indonesia: The viability of the multi-purpose function of the community college at the undergraduate level of the university system

PDF

An evaluation of personnel services in twelve liberal arts colleges

PDF

The opposition to schools of education by professors of the liberal arts: A historical analysis

PDF

The educational philosophy of Giovanni Gentile

PDF

Development of a model for an open learning system in Venezuelan higher education

PDF

An evaluation of the Career Maturity Inventory

Asset Metadata

Creator Moore, Paul Lynn (author)

Core Title An analysis of the position of dean of students in selected institutions of higher education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Higher Education Administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-458466

Unique identifier UC11247713

Identifier usctheses-c26-458466 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24225.pdf

Dmrecord 458466

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moore, Paul Lynn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA