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 • • • e l .i ., .! • .i • • .: • • • • • • • .' .' • • ., • • • • • • • • .i • • • • • • • • • • • UNIVER51TY OF 50UTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL. UNIVERSITY PARK L.OS ANGELES, CAL.lFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by under the direction of h Dissertation Com- mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean Dale . DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman • .1 • • • ., .' • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • 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. ii • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION, a.CKGROUND, AND METHODOLOGY A. Historical Context B. Statement of the Problem C. Research Note D. Review of the Literature E. Organization of the Dissertation II. AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW A. The Early Formative Years B. The Years of Student Activism C. The Post-Activism Period D. Summary III. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AND THE ADMINISTRATION A. Hierarchical Ranking . B. Relation to Institutional Mainstream. C. The President D. Summary IV. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AND THE FACULTY. A. Faculty Awareness . B. Faculty Expectations C. Faculty Impact on the Dean of Students D. summary V. THE DEAN OF STUD~NTS, STUDENTS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT A. Campus Growth and the Impact of Large- ness B. The Entry of Minority Students C. Student Activism D. Student Discipline and control E. Student Participation in Governance F. Summary ii Page 1 2 11 12 16 23 24 24 28 36 43 45 45 50 53 59 62 62 66 71 75 78 . 78 80 87 101 107 110 iii • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Campus Growth and the Impact of Large ness and Complexity B. Conflicting Expectations . C. Hierarchical Placement of the Dean of Students . D. Impact of the President . E. Faculty Awareness and Impact F. Students. G. Implications H. Recommendations for Future Research APPENDIX A: SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE THREE SUBJECT UNIVERSITIES SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 113 114 116 119 122 124 125 126 132 134 135 155 iv • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • 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."l 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. lThe 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. 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .; • • • • • • • • • I • e, • e • • • • 'I'he 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 fu,geles; 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 ones. 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 duties.,,4 The early purpose of the dean was custodial, "... student conduct, decorum, social life, and generally keeping students in line. ,,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 2 Jo hn S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Transition (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1968), pp. 318-19. 3I bid., p. 322. 4 E . G. Williamson, "The Dean of Students as Educator," The Educational Record 38 (July 1957) :230. 5Fred Hecklinger, "Let's Do Away with the Dean," NASPA Journal 9 (April 1972):317-18. 3 • • • : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • • "whole student.,,6 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.7 As the services and functions related to the passage of students through the institution and to student we11- 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.8 In general, a variety of control and supervisory tasks were delegated, often out of crisis situations. 9 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 6Brubacher and Rudy, Higher Education in Transition, pp. 318-19. 7Ibid., pp. 318-23. 8Ibid., p. 322. 9Walter 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. 4 -, .i • ., .' • .' • .: • • • • • • , .' • • • •• • •• .' • .' • • • •• .1 • • -I • ., • • • ., ~ • • • - 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 1."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 lOW. Frank Hull, IV, "The University Administrator: From Where Has He Come?" in The Organized Organization: The American Universit and Its Administration, eds . Richard R. Perry and W. Frank Hull, IV Toledo: The University of Toledo, 1~71), p. 20. llIbid. 12Brubacher and Rudy, Higher Education in Transition, pp. 322-23. 13Esther Lloyd-Jones and Margaret Ruth Smith, A Student Personnel Program for Higher Education (New-York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938), p. 24. 14Dugald S. Arbuckle, Student Personnel Services in Higher Education (New York: McGraw Hill Book company, Inc., 1953), p. 27. 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • ~ • • • I • • • • • • 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 Inost 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 students. 16 The function became institutionalized. It has been since World War II that student personnel administration has seen its greatest growth. 17 The con- elusion 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 15Ll oy d-Jones and Smith, A Student Personnel Program for Higher Education. 16Charles 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 invact of burgeoning numbers of students, (b) a grmving 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,19 innovator for student develop ment,20 adminis·trator,2l twentieth-century moralist,22 and counselor. 23 More recently the dean's position has been challenged both explicitly and implicitly by student activism. This 18 b' 4 I ld., pp. 3- . 19Williamson, "The Dean of Students as Educator," p. 230. 20G. Robert Ross, "The Dean of Students," in Perce tions in Public Hi her Education, ed. Gene A. Budig Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970), p. 88. 2lArbuckle, Student Personnel Services in Higher ~ducation, pp. 30-31. 22J. F. Kauffman, "Student Personnel Administration: Some Questions and Recommendations," The Educational Record 45 (Summer 1964) :291. 23Bursch, "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 dissent. 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 24C• Michael Otten, University Authority and the Student: the Berkeley Experience (Berkeley and Los Angeles: university of California Press, 1970), p. 5. 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • 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 education. dean of students, on the other hand, has traditionally come bined with major administrative or legal experience. The efficient method of management and has affected student Some consequences of this difference in back- personnel programs along with other components of higher function; bureaucratic specialization is an available and Increasing institutional size and complexity has led Despite these broad changes, the position of dean of 10 raising, alumni relations and inter-institutional politics. ground will be explored later. perspective. tions continue to plague deans of students and the student demic and student life problems and issues from the student climate and conflicting pressures, and that identity ques- to the call for more specific managerial and administrative skills; in short, circumstances may demand a different kind assigned responsibilities and tenure. The literature of person for deanships. If upper management personnel come from academic areas, their experience tends to be com- suggests that there is some role confusion due to the campus from a general academic background without training or The dean with this orientation deals essentially with aca- significant experience with plant development, fund students seems to be increasingly fluid both in terms of • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .; • • • • • • • • • • • • • personnel profession. 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 been 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, "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, I'The Student Personnel Administrator: Pusillanimous Pussycat or Tempestuous Tiger," NASPA Journal 9 (January 1972) :235-42. 11 • • • • .i • .' • •• • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • : . , • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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, 260tten, University Authority and the Student: the Berkeley Experience, p. xi. 13 The interviews were conducted between the summer of 14 of students. Second, the informants were able to substan- names of other respondents. In the period following these provide some depth to the circumstances surroundinq key The fourth stage was to interview a range of faculty The first thirty interViews, thirteen at Los Angeles, the writing. A total of seventy-eight formal interviews lines of questioning. These interviews also subsequently graduates were consulted as well. previous stage. Certain key student body officers and provided in the appendix. eight at Northridge, and nine at Long Beach were conducted these individuals supplied important documentation and the discussions led to more focused questioning about the dean tiate or correct information gleaned from newspapers and 1972 and fall of 1973. The introductory and exploratory members and administration personnel identified from the informally using an interview guide, a sample of which is were held with seventy-six individuals, twenty-six at 1973. A few follow-up conversations took place during incidents and the dean's relationship to them. And third, interviews took place primarily in the summer of 1972 supplied data on specific aspects of the study. followed by other interviews in the summer and fall of of the study and to determine additional respondents and interviews, the data were analyzed to sharpen the questions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • 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 co~~unity; and pilot inquiries into new problem areas where the purpose is the production of hypotheses rather than the verifi cation of them.27 'I'he researcher, not being bound by prej udgments, can re formulate the problem as the research progresses. 28 A 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 work. 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 York: Appleton, Century, crofts, 1967), p. 274. 28Ibid., p. 275. 29Howard S. Becker, Sociological Work (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970), 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 30 T homas 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. 17 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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. Furt.her, 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: (l) 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 cOIT~unicating 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 • .: • e, e • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. : • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • 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 Sklar, examined the responses of faculty members to a par- this study perceived these services to be important for the poses of higher education. The study also found that more Two organizational studies were particularly useful for 22 and Community (Dissertation, this research. The first, a study of faculty culture by university. 37 It is an intensive investigation of an with student organizations. analysis. The second is Baldridge's study of 'New York using fieldwork data gathering techniques and methods of supportive responses came from faculty who worked closely ticular incident of student activism and the way faculty paralleled the services relationship to the academic pur- Fitzgerald, in 1959, attempted to determine the per- the degree of importance accorded specific functions ceptions of student personnel services held by staff mem bers with instructional responsibilities. 35 Faculty in achievement of the purposes of higher education; however, dealt with the conflict. 3 6 It was an exploratory study University in which he developed a political model of the 35Laurine Elisabeth Fitzgerald, "A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Services" (Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959). 36Bernard Sklar, "Faculty culture Conflict: The University of Wisconsin" University of Chicago, 1969). 37J. victor Baldridge, Power and Conflict in the University (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971), pp. 54-67 . • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .i .; ., .' • • • .1 • .i • • i • • • • 23 the administration of the institution. Data on the the students and the student environment as it relates to The remainder of this study will be concerned with Interviews, document study, and questionnaires dynamics. organization in a field setting. Further, it is explora- III will present data on the relationship of the dean and provide a wholistic picture of the institution and its were research methods employed. E. Organization of the Dissertation tory and utilizes a variety of techniques in an attempt to the presentation and analysis of data on the position of Chapter II will present an overview of the position of dean of students on each of the subject campuses. 38 Chapter the dean. Chapter VI will present a summary and statement relationship between the dean and the faculty will be presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V will present data on dean of students collected at the subject institutions. of implications. 38The appendix contains a description of the subject institutions, their histories, and administrative arrange ments. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II. AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW tutions were without well-defined identities and had dean's role. which separate some chronological events from others. It is important to stress that these 24 periods are not exclusive nor discrete; any historian is The purpose of this chapter is to describe the evol~- This history has been divided into three periods; the tion of the position of dean of students on the three and changes which have surrounded the development of the A. The Early Formative Years This period refers to the years when the sUbject subject campuses. This overview focuses on the pressures ence, and embraces 1947 through about 1965. The insti- faced with difficult problems of demarcation in defining activism period. early formative years, the years of activism, and the post- for which they are now known. Administrative patterns and not developed the academic characteristics and programs institutions were small and in their first years of exist- epochs. Still, each period has distinctive characteristics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 39The 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 • • • e, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • ., • • • I • • • • • • • • 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 28 affairs director observed: B. The Years of Student Activism dent disturbances at the University of California at It was also a time In reviewing the approach The traditional disciplinary and control function [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. This period refers to those years following the stu- by the style, scope and focus of student activism and the 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-faculty versus human judgments, the dean of students. He thus is an advocate for inferior standards. an essential role characteristic. However, it was modified grounds, entered with this general expansion. Berkeley in 1964, disturbances related to the political them in a variety of settings. and student bodies. Significant numbers of "new" stu- dents, primarily from ethnic groups and lower class back- was carried through this period by the dean of students as and the assertion of student rights. of a dean in the early 1960's, an influential student admired by faculty. One explained: concerns of racial equality, the war in Southeast Asia, At the same time, the representative role was not always of rapid growth in these institutions' facilities, budgets • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • 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 wri~ten rules and regu- 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 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • e l .' e, • • .! • • • • '. • • • 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 tu anti cipate and to deal in sensible ways with the pressures that were on education at that time. A president recalled nis experiences with activists: ['v] e had many problems having to do wi th 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 t,he 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 30 • • • ~ • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 ., • .: el • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . , • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 couldn't 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 35 issues moved to the forefront. and dean can emphasize that role. The early 1970's brought an economic downturn in tions contributed to the difficulty of managing these It is important 36 by the dean. As one administrator observed, a president This period refers to the early 1970's as student to note again that these are not entirely discrete periods protest and confrontation began to wane. higher education. Budgets were affected also by declining but rather the grouping of events for analytical purposes. c. The Post-Activism Period plexities caused by the large size of the subject institu- for less structured and more personal intervention actions dent actions and demands led to the greater codification the student environment quieted to the point of apathy. and development of student rules and procedures. The com- and the growth rate of the college age pool declined. enrollment growth rates as interest in college attendance Yet despite this, discipline and control functions con- tinued to be an important aspect of the dean's role. Stu- accountability contributed to a greater interest in the issues. As a result, on all three campuses the dean of ized. Despite the formalization, expectations continued efficient management of institutions. At the same time, Tighter budgets and public demands for administrative students' role in disciplinary actions became more formal- • • • e, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • ., • • • • 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... ~ 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" 37 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ., • . , • • .'. • .: .' ., • • .1 • .', • 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 uetween conflicting parties to promote compromise," emerged as a more impor- tant role. A veteran administrator who works closely with 38 • • • • • = • • • • • • • ., • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • I • e, • • • .1 • e • • • • • 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 39 40 non-personal delivery system, from a counselor to a storekeepers." A Faculty Senate chairman viewed the change as a movement from dealing with students on an "Deans of students have become Consistently, deanS of students were criticized for 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. 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. its negative implications. functionaries rather than educators. They have become torical neglect while tracing the evolution of the role different administrative capacity concurred while stressing individual basis to dealing with broad policy issues. from a personal delivery of services to a systematic and manager. An academic administrator concurred, stressing the change of the role. A business vice-president noted this his- of dean of students from advocacy to management. their lack of attention to the management implications • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 011 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 43 awareness. The role was not without its conflicts as very much on his own in the student affairs area. small, quiet and relaxed with a rather traditional In loco parentis was the cornerstone of the approach to student life. The dean of students opera- ted on a face-to-face basis with students; relations were With student activism came a change in tone, inten- D. Summary In their early years, the subject campuses were 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 friendly. and students and faculty. Activism required that deans became formalized. Disciplinary problems became compara- role but the situation had changed. As the "father figure" sity and style of the campuses. Discipline and control spokesman. The institution allowed the dean to operate role became inappropriate, student rules and regulations tively more serious and numerous, and crisis management became the administrative focus. Student protest and of students continued to be a major concern for the dean's expectations of students, students and administration, the dean found himself between conflicting interests and student life. A more aggressive new role for the dean of students developed in response to student demands and disturbances brought greater administrative interest in • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. J • • • • • • • • between administration and students, faculty and students, developments. rules, procedures and rights. Deans continued to serve but was dealt with in a formalized manner consistent with 44 Increasingly caught 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 deans, discipline continued to be a significant problem At the same time, the Vietnam War ended, student the extensive development and codification of student president and administration. Advocacy continued to be an important but secondary function. individual assistance towards the systematic delivery of energies subsided, the campuses became quieter. For the as control agents in many cases and as a buffer for the role became the management of resources. amount of the dean's attention. Size, complexity, and and students and students, mediation claimed the greatest economic pressures moved the dean away from providing 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 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • = • • • • • • • • • • 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 students' status in relation to other major figures in the administration and suggests reasons for that placement. But though the dean's 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 • • • • • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • sneer."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. ,,41 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. 42 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. 43 It is important to note, how- ever, that despite differences in scope of responsibilities 40Hodgkinson, "How Deans of Students Are Seen by Others - and Why," p. 50. 4lBursch, "The Vice-President or Dean of Students," p. 145. 42Mark H. Ingraham, The Mirror of Brass (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), p. 225. 43See the descri?tion of the subject institutions and their student affairs units in the appendix. 46 • • • : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • and level of support by the central administration, the status with respect to other senior administrative per- sonne I 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 47 48 dominant. A student affairs assistant dean with several years and the dean is last." "The dean is not very high. is the top academic officer. In his absence the vice-president for business and administration, and in his absence, the dean of students. [O]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. 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 vlce-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. noted the ranking and the general function of each adminis- has actually reduced the dean's role in institutional A young colleague concurred. trator and suggested that the decline of student activism A faculty member and former chairman of the Academic Senate experience made this assessment. management from a high point achieved when activism was There are five people on the cabinet counting the president • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • .~ • e l • • • ., • • • • 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 ••ere dealing with extra-curricular activities. He isn't of the same stature nor is his voice heard on this rnmpus 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 • .: • e l • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • information and comlllUnications. 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 corne 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 corne out of an academic background...• We all have academic status and qualifications, retreat rights within the faculty, which [dean of students] 51 • .i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ., • ., • • • • • • • • • .. • • .. 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 t.he 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 ambiguous,44 44Mcconnell, "Student Personnel Services - Central or Peripheral?" 53 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • president's alter-ego,45 president's man,46 and independent professional. 47 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 4 5 philip 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. 47E . G. Williamson, Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961), p. 354. 48 Ho dgkinson, "How Deans of Students Are Seen by Others - and Why," p. 53. 49 Dutton, Appleton, and Birch, Assum~tions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academ~c Commun~ty, 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 e .' -e e, • • .' • • • • e • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • e: • • • • • • • • e, • • • • • • 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 57 I ., • ~'. • • ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • willing to get out and be counted. And he moved the president's 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 i.n 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 president's 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 sonte 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 president's definition of the position and the dean's 60 • .' • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .: .' .! • • I • • • .1 • • • • • • • 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. 61 62 IV. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AND THE FACULTY The impact of the faculty on the dean of students these administrative and status relationships on the Historically, the position of dean of students. This chapter seeks to The previous chapter dealt with the inter-relation- A. Faculty Awareness faculty, including the faculty's awareness of the role of ships of top administrative officers, the status of the dean of students in that group, and the overall impact of the dean and the functions the dean administers, faculty explore the relationship of the dean of students and the academic ones,50 and developed stronger national than depends primarily on faculty perception of whether aspects expectations, and the extent of their mutual impact. faculty's range of interests has diminished as faculty specific interests and prerogatives. have moved away from administra~ive concerns in favor of of the dean's role and responsibilities impinge on their 50Brubacher and Rudy, Higher Education in Transition, pp. 353-54, and Corson, Governance of Colleges and Universities, p. 99. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • dean of students and the student affairs area. The follow- 63 The theme that there is little faCUlty interest in centrated in the areas of academic freedom, academic In so far as the dean's responsibilities fall 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. institutional ties. 51 Faculty interest tends to be con- The faculty at the subject institutions consistently I don't think they really have a good insight into how much of a load this man carries. 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. 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. benefits. standards, promotion and retention, and salaries and have little understanding of these "non-faculty" functions the faculty. At the same time, the faculty will tend to outside of these areas, they will be of little concern to and the administrative personnel responsible for them. ing responses are typical. expressed a lack of understanding and involvement with the 51Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution, Garden City: Doubleday, 1968, p. 38. student affairS and the dean and little reason, as seen by • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 facul ty 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. 64 65 function. affairs staff. between the dean of students and student activities and "There is poor communication One of the most consistently and pervasively expressed Another faculty leader expressed an even more pessi- 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. 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.... [O]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? mistic view and questioned the appropriateness of the the lack of communication and personal interaction between the Faculty Senate related his lack of contact with student the faculty and the student affairs staff. A chairman of A young professor on the Student Affairs Committee of the reasons for the lack of knowledge of student affairs was Academic Senate concurred. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - 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 cOIDQittees, 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 67 is to say, faculty are clearer about what the dean cannot the following observation. take care of them and not. bother the faculty." "If they a.re 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, he's 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. 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. It would appear that expectations are residual; that having all kinds of problems, then they want [the dean] to sidered to be intellectually and academically oriented. expected to intrude on academic concerns. while the Another veteran faculty member noted that faculty members are happy as long as there are no problems. A veteran faculty member and Academic Senate chairman made do, rather than what he can do. For example, he is not it includes classroom and curricular matters, grading, and stay out of faculty concerns, he is typically not con- definition of academic concerns was not always precise, faculty-student relationships. Not only is the dean to • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • .. 68 leader said: in his institution. Senate chairman noted: In describing one faculty's struggle 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. Not only is there sensitivity on the part of the [Dean] carne 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 prerosative 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...• A faculty leader and former dean of students illustrated the sensitivity of the border between academic and stu- role as student advocate which sometimes places him dent concerns by reviewing the problems of a former dean there is a sub-theme which emerges pointing to the dean's faculty to border or jurisdictional concerns, but also times the dean is in opposition to the faculty, particular- against faculty. for a larger role in policy and decision making, a faculty An academic department chairman echoed this view. "At ly in grievance problems. Most faculty feel that's why the dean is there." A faculty leader and former Academic • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 it's 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. 69 • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'I • • • • • • • ,. 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 student:s. 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 resources. 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 52Baldridge, Power and Conflict in the University, pp. 154-67. 71 formalized. 72 although there are, of course, some differences in exact committees also serve as a vehicle for faculty opinion. In this instance, faculty leadership make policy recommendations to the Senate itself. The advise specific functions or administrative personnel and administration or Senate leadership. The Senate and its In one institution, faculty involvement in personnel Senate typically recommends academically related policy In the subject institutions, faculty-dean of students committee on student affairs. The committees typically and certain other policy depending on the interest of the process for administrators. The president and Academic personnel, particularly when that relationship was unhappiness with the dean of students contributed strongly membership, tradition, and emphases. negative or veto posture on the part of the faculty. relationships were predominately neutral tending toward a matters extended beyond participation in the selection administrators. This description generally fits the subject institutions One positive opportunity was faculty participation in the Senate cooperated in a face-to-face annual review of to the dean's departure. A senior official who had access relationships between the dean of students and the faculty. selection of a broad range of high level administrative There was little evidence of positive and cooperative • • • ~ • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ... 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 Commit Lee 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 tha·t [dean] was in office, the Executive Committee real1 1 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" power. 53 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 53 c hristopher Jencks and David Reisman, The Academic Revolution, pp. 15-16. 73 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • I • • • • • • • • content can have important implications for a university admini.strator or unit. Agenda as well as philosophi.cal 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 co~~ittee 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 insti~utional self-study, on the contrary, while based in the faculty, included broad representation in their study of organizational concerns. The net 74 75 does not communicate nor have much contact with the because of their lack of interest in the administration institutions. When there are contacts with student In the faculty view, the dean form an opinion. There is, on the other side, little Faculty expectations for the dean of students vary position be elevated to a vice-presidency. This plan was also substantially implemented. result was to strengthen the role and scope of the position professional issues. The lack of understanding also of deem of students to the extent of reconunending that the Faculty consistently expressed the lack of under- D. Summary standing and involvement with the dean of students and the faculty leaving the faculty with little from which to student affairs function. with the dominant faculty interests, instructional and results in part from the size and commuting nature of the considerably. Some faculty expect little more than that non-classroom interests and problems have little to do of the institution, but also because student concerns and reason for faculty interest in this function not only affairs by faculty, they tend to be negative. blems. Many feel the dean can operate wherever he likes as long as it is outside of faculty academic concerns the dean in some obscure way takes care of student pro- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - 76 and prerogatives. The border area between academic and academic background. faculty also feel that the dean is not the sale advocate In the subject institutions, student affairs tends to be sensitive. Many faculty feel Overall, lack of common interests and communication partly because of function and partly due to the lack of an The formal governance structure of the faculty is the the dean is not intellectually and academically oriented, An important faculty viewpoint is that the title of that student affairs is essentially superfluous and that vehicle for faculty opinion. problems to mob action. be dealt with by the dean range from minor behavioral faculty. As such, the dean is for lower standards. Many to negative. There was little evidence of cooperative ing the non-classroom aspects of student life. The most for students, seeing in their own role interest in support- pervasive faculty expectation is that of discipline and between faculty and student affairs leaves the two far dean implies advocacy by the dean for students against control of student behavior. The types of behaviors to relationships. Academic Senate. Typically, policy questions, including those for student affairs, are processed through the faculty-dean of students relationships ranged from neutral oenate or its committees, thus serving as an important • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • .1 • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ., • • • • • • • • • 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 me~ber 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 s~udents 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 adv~sement. 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 urought 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 ITlanage- 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 81 A highly placed minority academic administrator has been less pervasive. percentages of minority and those with large. The other two institutions, with smaller Despite differences in intensity among campuses pro- 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 studelits 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. percentages of minority students, are located in pre- minority staff. dominantly white communities. As would be expected, the overall influence of minority students on these campuses many minority students brought with them values concerning minority student activity between campuses with small reflected on the contrasting level of intensity of the coming of minority students has had certain quite similar impacts from campus to campus. The first is that duced by differences in the number of minority students, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • ~ • • • • ~ • • • • 82 faced in traditional student structures and activities. treatment both on and off campus. school and school as a work environment, and academic In this case the Black Student Union was officially part by the attitudes of their fellow students and access Another student function which came under minority As minority numbers grew and their understanding of backgrounds which were frequently different than those of the educational process and institutions, and educational Differences in values and expectations often sur- the traditional white, middle-class students. Differences are observable in perceptions of authority, view of article in 1966 concerning the selection of the homecoming about the lack of minority coaches, alleged unfair treat- student political structures grew, minority students took was followed by the formation of an association, club, or a very active role in student government, encouraged in group. competition. A typical situation was reported in a college newspaper ment by the coaches and other athletes, and alleged racist interest group to press for the interests of the particular of judges and winners. Typically, an issue such as this students, athletes and non-athletes alike, were concerned organized seven months later. student scrutiny was intercollegiate athletics. Minority queen. Black students were questioning the racial balance • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . I • • • • ~ • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' ., • • • I • • • ~ • • • • 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 COITmented 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 anyone 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 nad Deen. 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 84 an unconditional basis. This tactic flew in the face of traditional bureaucratic and "reasonable" traditional Not only were institutional administrators ill- They were less 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. 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. patient. As one veteran student affairs director noted: willing than their white counterparts, particularly gram and policy shifts, but minority students introduced new tactics to the university scene. They were less according to the rules of the system. prepared for the new value dimensions and necessary pro- dents would take a rather dramatic action and list a group early in their years at the university, to operate Demands were another important new tactic. Minority stu- of demands for administrative action or response, often on • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 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, 1968. 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 "bpeak" or "represent" 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 ~hem "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, 54Baldridge, 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. 7. 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 Chi.cano, an Indian and a Black and they ,,,ant 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. That's 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 y~ars 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, don't 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 State's 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"Carnpus 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 Wednesday's 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 90 somewhat anti-intellectual strain. An academic vice- life styles and interpersonal values, and demonstrated a student activism and the dean of students is that the dean, Students were patterns which was faced by colleges. location for much more serious protest. Protest was not, however, the only campus dynamic challenging old The overWhelming implication of the data concerning 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. president chronicled the issues which students were belief in institutions and group activity, believed less generally more politically aware, exhibited a loss of "normal" times. The dean was always in the middle to particularly during that period, was a man-in-the-middle. Some of the situatiolis the dean of students found himself in during the activism years had their origins in more in competitiveness as a value, adopted non-conventional raising from a campus perspective. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 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 COIT~ent 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 examp~e 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 92 3. If problem situation exists, [Dean] informs College Administration and Security Officers. Procedures Regarding Student Demonstrations Dece~er 6, 1967* 9. If those arrested leave peaceably after arrest, [Police Chief] will take them to [police station]. DATE Decerr~er 6, 1967 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. 1. [Dean of Students] is responsible for keeping College Administration and Security Officers informed. Those Concerned - CONFIDENTIAL 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. 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. 647c, 407, 602j, and if demonstrators do not disperse, P.C. 409. Arrests may follow. President [Name] 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. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. ~ • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 de2n 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 shouldn't do what you'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 e~tablished 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 ~aid 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 organization. 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, r 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 59 "Peckham Confronted on Non-Retention Issue," Daily Sundial, 9 Decerr~er 1967, p. 1. 95 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • A 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 Now' 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 60 Daily Sundial, 15 April 1970, p. 4. 96 t t , • t I • • : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • recruiters could not carryon 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 61"Outcome of Disruption of Speech," Daily Sundial, 12 March 1970, p. 1. 97 and interests but he was also unsure where student support of the administration to handle Black student demands on the orders of the chancellor's office when he from student activism. For some, the crisis orientation 98 In the words of one senior faculty While not always in a role which might be termed 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. 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. Not only did the dean find himself between student groups leadership or newspaper staffs. For example, in the spring of 1968 a student editorial questioned the ability in dealing with the institutional problems which flowed actions taken in confiscating photographs of a banned or criticism would come over time due to changing student art exhibit. The dean of students said he was acting lasted for years. without capitulating. college administration and the chancellor's office in "crisis manager," dean of students were actively involved member: Twenty days later the same newspaper condemned the ordered the removal of the pictures. • • • = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .] • • • • • • • ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 100 101 methods and substance of the control of student behavior in the residence halls, sexual contacts, and drinking and student rules and the methods and instruments of enforce- Deans of students and As the institutions grew and became more complex, new Historically, colleges and universities have stood Student discipline and the control of student behavior policy and administrative roles were more clearly defined D. student Discipline and Control with respect to students. dean of students. Typically, the dean has been the insti- rights were defined and in some instances adopted as campus have historically been an important part of the role of the tutional figure most directly related to this function. smoking habits. The essence of in loco parentis is that it was challenged. The processes for the development of ment were questioned as well as the content of the rules tutions during their early years. in loco parentis to students. This was true of these insti- was personal and informal. most students and faculty have of the dean. This responsibility is consistent with the expectations appropriateness of student activities, student behavior students to higher education came to college and the challenges to traditional values became felt, both the their staffs tended to be quite concerned about the • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 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.' He said that while present procedures could be im proved the system \<las 'in no way unjust. ' A few individuals including two deans of st.u- 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 Another veteran student affairs and academic adminis- difficulty in changing rules once they are written. its relationship with students. to complex situations. But another presented a con- 104 It is also clear, that the role of the I had a basic fear myself of getting toe 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. 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. clarified the disciplinary situation, but also other questions pertaining to student rights and behavior procedures developed. One former dean of students saw these changes as significant improvements which allow have subsequently been examined and new policies and 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 the institution to respond adequately and equitably trator also noted the problems presented by complex earlier ones. and extensive rule systems, particularly the greater dean of students in relation to this system is less Despite the disagreement as to the value of the changes that have occurred, student policies and procedures are more complex, sophisticated and explicit than • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • that adults have." A senior student affairs adminis- over the students' dormitory visitation rules over a twenty year period. Of considerable significance also is the broad 105 "[T]reat people like 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. the situation at his campus. arbitrary and more clearly defined. trator noted the complete change that has taken place agreement that the concept of in loco parentis is no longer appropriate. A vice-president commented on they can be disciplined in the disciplinary procedures adults when they act like adults, and when they don't the change in in loco_parentis because of the ance of minority stUdents on campus contributed to A senior administrative officer felt that the appear- questions they asked. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 ev~ry 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 cOIT~ittees. 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 lOB • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • .. institutions. The typical situation Ivas 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 spokesrnan 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, 109 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 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 110 111 areas outside of his administrative control. He also functioned as the enforcer of rules on students and as an demands, and threatened violence. The dean of students Policy and procedural weaknesses were high- policy shifts. these value differences nor to make necessary program and including deans of students were not prepared to deal with While the dean tried to reconcile divergent interests, lighted by new tactics such as sit--ins, unconditional Student activism quickly followed, presenting value found himself no longer able to speak for "all" students, and the administration, and between student groups. viding a more strident tone. The dean of students increas- faculty, administration and students. At times he acted and found himself in the middle, between minority students as the front man operating between the students and the defended the establishment to the students, sometimes in ingly found himself in the middle of powerful forces from administration with no expectation that he was to take sub- challenges to the prevailing norms of the campuses and pro- common for the dean to be critized by students, faculty, stantive action. At other times he represented and he rarely had authority to deal directly in the resolution of issues and differences. As a result, it was not un- arbiter between student groups. and administrators simultaneously. The dean was heaVily • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • institution to the student. 112 has increased, the dean of students has ceased to responsibilities. In an effort to put some In loco parentis no longer functions as the involved in crisis management, requiring a significant corrmitment of time. As a consequence, he was frequently unable to deal adequately with other administrative Students have also become increasingly involved challenges of discipline. Activism was also a major contributor to student distance between discipline and the dean, the disciplinary function in the subject institutions has been restructured dean a go between in areas of mutual student and primary principle determining the relationship of the in recognition of the conflict between discipline and counseling responsibilities. The rules and enforcement always effective. in institutional governance, with their participation systems have become more legalistic, sophisticated and explicit. evidence, however, that their participation is not spreading from areas of direct student interest such as represent students in the governance process nor is the their own views in university councils. There is some institutional interest. The students are able to express residence hall regulations, to broader institutional issues such as faculty evaluation. As this participation • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 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 here, 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 m~nager 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_ \-jith 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 116 • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' •• • 1 ·1 • ., • .. 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 tpe 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 • .' • • .1 • • • • • • • • • • • • ., • • • • • • • • • I • .1 • .' • • .i • . : I • .1 .! • I .1 • .1 • frights 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 ... Hll Among the senior line officers of the institution, This position is made still more tenuous for lack the dean of students. As the title suggests, students government, and student interest groups. These expecta- _______________________ 11 The dean's is a dependent Dean of Students Hierarchical Placement of the c. typically expected to get along with students, student can see the dean as "theirs" and expect him to side with Ithem even though the students' position is at odds with /the institution's position. It may be noted that selec c ition of the dean of students was one of the first in I. Iwhich students participated and the dean of students is I L __ j lof an independent power base from which to push for ! lacceptance of his views. I !position; that is, the dean does not have an indepen- [dent power base to the extent that the president, chief ! . Iacademic officer, and the chief business or administrative i 10fficer do because of their relationship to financial I Iresources and bureaucratic authority. ! .tions suggest certain vulnerabilities for the dean. It lis difficult to be an advocate for students and, at the !same time, a member of the executive team responsible for I !the management of the institution. I I i !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 supervi.sory 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 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .; • • • ., • • .: • .: e i e, • • .' • 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 eVEm 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 view of the role and the incumbent dean. At an earlier 122 other administrative authorities due to his more limited however, a number of the student affairs functions com- It may be ironic 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 activists than dealing with the daily management and in solving student problems and dealing with student D. Impact of the President The single most significant determinant of the long term planning necessary for student services. their performance of their traditional role of working commitments and professional training. that deans were evaluated by their colleagues not on Their inclination reflects, in part, their personal directly with students but rather on the newer managernent dimension of the position. time, the dean operated with greater independence from pete for institutional resources against other major functions. Since the number of employees in student interest was less crucial. In the contemporary setting, effectiveness of the dean of students is the president's responsibilities; consequently, presidential support and • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 123' attention. of student affairs. Presidents are more interested in through his style, expectations, and understanding of a It has been demonstrated A companion finding is that despite the strong blems of budget, planning, faculty, and governance. This presidential interest returned to more typical areas of affairs often numbers in the hundreds,the financiiiT that the dean has relatively little independent power. presidents typically exhibit little interest in the func- unrest which can monopolize the president's time. It academic concerns, and they deal primarily with the pro- tion, except as it serves as a buffer against the demands relationship that exists between the president's attitude given function, has significant impact on most institu- It is for this reason that the president is so critical impact becomes rather obvious. due to a greater lack of independent power. students is more susceptible to that influence than most, tional functions, it would appear that the dean of of students. Again, this reflects the peripheral nature of the student affairs function. While the president, attitude is modified during periods of significant student appears that with the return of calm to the student world, in the competition for resources and the overall status towards student affairs and the effectiveness of the dean, • e l e • • e • e e e • • • • • • e • e • e e • e • e e e e, • • e e l • e, • • • e! ·1 • e .' • • • .-- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • E. Facult~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 • • • .: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • 1 • • • • • .: • .: .1 .; • • .' • 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 • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 students' 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 conclusion. 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 • • • • • . , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·1 • • students, keeping them happy, while many other adrninistra- 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 \"ithin 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." 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 development. 63 Universities should, therefore, attend to the broader range of objectives. 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 63Arthur 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. , 64Kenneth 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 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • eo • • • • I • • • • e • • • • • • universi ty hierarchies, a number of "implications fol"iow 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 of students and student services. concerns for bUdget maintenance reasons. Like activism, interest from faculty, particularly young faculty, as a All evidence suggests that the dean will continue to 131 It is more likely that student Little suggests a change in faculty awareness except be highly dependent on the president for status and support. to abandon backgrounds in the mental health disciplines and compete with other n~nagers who have greater responsi- bilities and experience. directed as they are, however, there is little reason to this may have an impact on the president's view of the dean concerned with students and more with faculty and fiscal But as with their elders, their views will likely become that younger faculty bring more updated views of the dean. of student activism thus allowing the president to be less possible employment outlet. Economic and enrollment trends may also push administrators to increase faculty ment and counseling. As long as faculty interests are affairs, the president may again have to emphasize student obsolete as well. Student affairs may produce greater Just as the climate has returned to normal from the period called student personnel work. The deans may be forced expand student affairs . "productivity" by requiring more than lip-service to , faculty interaction and support of students through advise- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • ., .] • :1 • 1 .' .1 • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • , • • • • • .. 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 mere 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. iCase 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 2. Observations on the role of the dean of students. APPENDIX A: SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Relationship to the president? , I 1341 __ ~ __._..•• ,__~ • J Do students need the dean? Is the position viable? Status of dean? Is student affairs in the mainstream of academic and educational affairs? 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? 1. Position, tenure, committee and adminstrative experiences. 9. 7. What are the major problems of the dean? Why? 8. 3. Observations on the style of the dean of students. 6. Faculty and their impact on the dean? Faculty opinion of dean and his functions? 4. Observations on the responsibilities of the dean of students. 5. Describe the power position of the dean in relation to other senior line officers. Why? Clout? Based on what? 1 10 . i 111 .. 1--- ---------- ------ ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- I • • • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • ~ • • • • In January 1958, the college's first president was and 30,505 at Long Beach. site in 1956 as the San Fernando Valley Campus of the Los I Angeles State College of Applied Arts and Sciences. In I 1958 the California legislature gave it separate existence I under the name of San Fernando Valley State College. I I . __.___~______ __.1,:35J a campus of 380 acres. It was established at its present Valley, California State University, Northridge occupies A. California State University, Northridge Located in the western section of the San Fernando APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE THREE SUBJECT UNIVERSITIES figures were 23,826 at Los Angeles, 24,990 at Northridge urban, commuting institutions. Fall 1973 enrollment California State University, Long Beach in 1949; and, ICalifornia State University, Northridge in 1958 after Ifunctioning for two years as a branch of the then I /California State College at Los Angeles. All are large, The t.hree institutions were established between 1947 land 1958, reflecting the dramatic population growth of !southern California following World War II. California I State University, Los Angeles was established in 1947; • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • degree areas from nine to-twenty-eight. 1971, the institution was renamed California State Univer- From its inception, the university has experienced upon resignation he was replaced original president, Ralph Prator, resign-! I by Paul Blomgren, who when hospitalized a short time later was replaced by Delmar T. Oviatt, the long-time academic vice-president. Upon Blomgren's ultimate resignation for health reasons, the chancellor appointed Malcolm O. Sillars l , tremendous growth. as acting president. Finally, in March 1969, the Trustees a period of activism, stress, and administrative fluidity. I is clearly demonstrated by fall semester attendance figures 1 I for 1963, 9,923, and 1972, 24,718 an increase of 250 i percent. i The late 1960's represented for the Northridge campus enrollment of 3,300. As had been the role of the college under its relationship with Los Angeles State College, San sity, Northridge, as approved in authorizing legislation. ed in the fall of 196B. The institution's In its first thirteen years, the , , . i to 909 and the student body 1ncreased, I The areas in which bachelors degrees! 1 were offered grew from sixteen to thirty-eight, and masters! ! Its rate of growth! Fernando Valley continued in a liberal arts emphasis. In [aPPoint~d-~--D:t=; Ralph-P;:;;"-1::o:r~ A1::--th~ t:Crn;-of-the~ppoint~-l ment, the institution employed 104 faculty with a student Ifaculty grew from 104 from 3,300 to 24,450. • .: • .; .1 • , .' • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • -I • -I • • .: • • • • • • • overview of the nature of the institution. 137 position of dean of students was also in flux. Fernando Valley. An administrator supplied an excellent In addition to the presidency and Its attendance area is essentially the San he has filled since. 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. tion is essentially an urban, middle-class, corrmuting institution. remained relatively constant over the years. The institu- appointed James W. Cleary as permanent president, a post The nature of the attendance area and student body has other top administrative and academic positions, the ,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 D.C.L.A., U.S.C., or Pomona ...... • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ., .' ., .' • .i • • .' • • • ., • • .1 • .! • .: .' • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • • •• e .' . ' • • e, .' :1 • ., • ., .' ., • • 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 ~he 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 i.nstitution apparently was ill-prepared for "he 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 swnmer of 1973 because of occupancy and racial difficulties. The administrative structure of California State ,University, Northridge, contains four administrative areas i under the president, administration, business, academic affairs, avd 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 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • = • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • 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 65 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 65Catalog, California State University, Northridge 1972-73, p. 12. 140 141 education in California. Long Beach. Freshmen and sophomores enrolled for the first time and Its first class included 160 juniors, seniors In 1964 the name was changed to California state first president was P. Victor Peterson (1949-59) who came interim president in its quarter century history. Its decade, doubling its size during that period, increasing largest member of the California State University and By 1973-74, the university enrolled 30,505 students In 1950 the name of the univers i ty \vas changed to Long Long Beach has had only three permanent and one the purpose of serving southeastern Los Angeles and Orange 1953. 320 acre campus which was donated by the City of Long Beach. Beach has experienced tremendous growth over the past Like its sister institutions included in this study, Long Colleges system and the entire public system of higher from 14,735 in fall 1963 to 29,513 in fall 1972. counties. construction was begun on the first permanent facilities in and had over 1,100 full-time and 500 part-time faculty. and graduate students served by a faculty of thirteen. Beach State College and it moved in 1951 to its present College at Long Beach, in 1968 to California State College, California State University, Long Beach is currently the Long Beach and again in 1972 to California State University, • • • .' .1 • • • e' • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • e, • • • • • • • • ., • • • ., • • • • • ., • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ' • • • • .' • . , • •• • • • • • • 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. [Ilt 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 the stresses of ac-tivism and dissent. Most reknowned in generated considerable attention and controversy, it As with other institutions, Long Beach experienced masters degree project of paintings depicting nude men and women in a variety of poses. While the situation 1967. An art graduate student displayed publically a was the so-called Spaeter incident which occurred in the public eye and its general impact on 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. r--- whom-Ii:: j-s--tEe-more;-Tra:crn:iorial-TS=22--year'-'Olds; ;;;r i don't 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. i I I A vice-president saw it in much the same way, character i lizin g the institution as "the working man's university." f IAnother vice-president elaborated on the characteristic of , Ithe student body and the institution. ! ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • .: • • . ' • .' • • • • .' • • • • • 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 144 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' .' • • ., • • • • • • • • • • • 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. [O]nce 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 ~las also interested in another vice-presidentj 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 Testi.ng 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 Programs 66 66 Ca lifornia State University, Long Beach Bulletin 1973-74, pp. 17-18. 147 :: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .: .' • • • .: • .: • .: • • .: • • I •• • .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 act.ing 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 DeparL~ent 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. 1I C. California State univerSity, Los Angeles California State University, Los Angeles was estab- Ii shed 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 carne 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 site and in 1959 admitted its first freshman class and the 1960's. Between 1963-72, its enrollment has increased urban institution and formally subscribes to an urban branch campus was established in the San Fernando Valley 15 programs. At one point, the combined enrollment of the the college offered this view of the student body and the California State University, Los Angeles is indeed an city and state colleges was over 30,000. In 1956, a California State University, Los Angeles is the small- percent in 1970. The students are typically older, began developing its lower division program. moved into its first permanent buildings at its present and between 1956 and 1958 the college was conducting pro- itself as non-white rose from 20 percent in 1964 to 40 grams on all three campuses. Finally, in 1958, the campus immediate area. A professor and former senior officer of focus. It is noted for its high percentage of minority est of the three institutions in this study. As it is the only 5,000, from 18,574 to 23,611. married, first generation college students and from the students. The percentage of the student body classifying oldest of the three, most of its growth occurred prior to l~h~~gedt~~L;~--A~<J~l~~~St;;'t~Coli~g~~of Applied Arts and I isciences. During its early years, the college experienced frapid growth particularly in its evening and extension institution. I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ' ., • .; .: ~ • • . ' .' .i • • • • This is really more important than the commuting nature of the student body, ~le fact that there are no residences. Bu·t even if there were, we wouldn't 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. ,,67 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. 6B 67S e lf-Study (California State University, Los Angeles, 1971), p. 19. 6BFaculty 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 reco~nended 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 .• mu u u •••.• ~J.52, • • .- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • . ; • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 essen-tially 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 1973, 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 athletics was transferred from Student Affairs to the was transferred to Academic Affairs. In addition, 154 was transferred from Academic Affairs to Student Affairs, 1972 president of the Associated Students, the chairman of the The areas reporting to the dean of students reflect to a considerable degree, the nature of the institution. Staff Council, and such other personnel as the president Affairs area. As noted above, Admissions and Registration 1968 Admissions and Registration .. Athletics .. traditional program are de-emphasized or non-existent. that period include the Equal Opportunities Program which function. Between 1968 and 1972 a number of changes have the addition of the University Union, and the institution might appoint. 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 Department of Physical Education. Program additions during Functions normally associated with a more residential or The following is a program comparison for the years 1968 Particularly suspicious by its absence is the housing taken place in the prograrrmatic make-up of the Student of speci&lly funded outreach and minority student programs. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • : • • • • • • • • .: .: • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Arbuckle, Dugald S. Student Personnel Services in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953. 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 NASPA's 55th Annual Conference. philadelphia, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1973, pp. 30-37. ______~~. Power and Conflict in the University. Mew 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: Aldine 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 Al10cat_on of Duties and Responsibilities Among the Personnel Deans." Educational Administration and Supervision 41 (Novem~er 1955) :397-401. Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis, Higher Education in Transi'tion. 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, 1973-74. "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. "~ritical Functions and Behaviors of , the Student Affairs Administrator." Selected Major Speeches and Excerpts from NASPA's 55th Annual Conference. Philadelphia, National Association of Student Persollnel Administrators, 1973, pp. 4-12. 156 : • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • .' • .1 .' • .' • • • 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, Septenilier 1972, pp. 24-9. Facult 1 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 Organi.zation: 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 • .' • .i .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • .: .1 • • • • • . : • • .' • • • • • Kauffman, Joseph F. "New Challenges to Studen't Personnel Work." NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970) :12-16. . "Student Personnel Administration: Some Questions ----a-n-d 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 - I'i'hy?" 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, ~971. "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 "ROTC Demonstration." Daily Sundial, 8 December 1966, "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. Partridge, Bruce J. "Tomorrow's Administrator More Generalist, More Specialist." College and University Business 40 (June 1966) :44-48. Perceptions in Edited by Nebraska Press, p. 1.. I ... . .15.91 G. Robert. "The Dean of Students." In public Higher Education, pp. 85-103. Gene A. Budig. Lincoln: University of 1970. Ross, 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 Vniversity, 1963. 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. "'['he Role of the Chief Student Personnel Administrator Revisited." NASPA Journal 9 (January 1972) :219-26. Patzer, Roland D. "The Student Personnel Administrator: Pusillanimous Pussycat or Tempestuous Tiger?" NASPA Journal 9 (January 1972) :235-42. 1--·-----·----- -.---------------.--..._...._--_ .. _-- - --.-..- .. ------....-.--- --.----------.- INudd, T. Roger. "Dean is a l1arginal Man." Journal of i Educational Sociology 35 (December 1961):145-51. I iOblas, Arthur S. "Will the Real College Dean Please Stand , Up?" NASPA Journal 7 (October 1969) :97-100. I f lOtten, C. Michael. University Authority and the Student: I the Berkeley Experience. Berkeley and Los Angeles: I university of Californ1a Press, 1970. ! I L ~_. ..... • • • .! .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rothman, L. 1<., 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 Higuer Education. Baltimore: The . Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. Rueckel, P. "student Dean in the 70's: Doctor, Lawyer, or Indian Chief." National Assoc~ation 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 Angeles, (1971) • Shaffer, Robert, aud Martinson, William. Student Personnel Services in Higher Education. New York: Center for Applied Research, 1966. Sklar, Bernard. "Faculty .Culture and Conununity Conflict: The University of Wisconsin." Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1969. ___--:-_. "The Student Movement: Sununing 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 of Texas, Division of Student Affairs, 1970. Thrash, patricia A. "The Changing Role of the Student Personnel Dean." National Association of Women Deans and Counselors Journal 29 (Fall 1965):10-13. er • .1 .' • .' • .' • • • • • • • • • • • e- • • • • • • • .: • • • e .' • .: • • • .' .' • • • 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 Educa-tor." The -----=E~ducational 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- ----m-e-nt and the Possibilities for Its Revival." In The Organized Organization: the American Universi-ty 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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Most institutions of higher education in the United States have a dean of students who is traditionally recognized 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." Students 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 personnel point of view.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The possible impact of elements of institutional culture on women students' higher education attainment in Hawaii

PDF

The Korean community in Los Angeles County

PDF

Factors affecting native Hawaiian student persistence in higher education

PDF

The operationalization of excellence in teaching and scholarship: the role of the academic dean in the school of education

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

The impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution

PDF

Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

PDF

Enrollment and financial aid decisions of first-year students at a private institution

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Movie habits and attitudes of the under-priviledged boys of the All Nations area in Los Angeles

PDF

Campus colorlines: the changing boundaries of race within institutions of higher education in the post-civil rights era

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution

PDF

Factors associated with an HPT professional's choice to solve work motivation problems

PDF

The journey: Asian American females in higher education administration

PDF

Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education

PDF

"A steady drop will wear a hole in the rock": feminism, the John Henry myth, and the black male experience in higher education

PDF

The college labyrinth: the educational journey of first-generation Latino students in engineering

PDF

Applying Schlossberg's transition theory to students with learning disabilities in the transition from high school to college

Asset Metadata

Creator Moore, Paul Lynn (author)

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

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name Los Angeles (counties)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by Columbia College (Sonora, California) (provenance)

Advisor Acland, Henry (committee member), Sklar, Bernard (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m80

Unique identifier UC1136709

Identifier etd-MooreP-1976 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-17356 (legacy record id),usctheses-m80 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MooreP-1976.pdf

Dmrecord 17356

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 (213) 743-1672; https://www.usc.edu/isd/libraries/locations/grand/

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu